What civ would you want in as the dark horse

[cybrxkhan]

I don't know why people seem to be suggesting that Vietnam are more likely to be added. They too would be worthy additions but honestly I think Indonesia are more deserving (and would be more fun to play). The 'more people have heard of Vietnam because of the war' argument is just silly to me.

Civs don't get in because they're deserving, unfortunately. If that were the case, then I would think Indonesia's chances are much higher than Vietnam. But anyhow this thread isn't' about speculation, it's about what we want as a dark horse.

In terms of uniqueness, though, Vietnam's Sinicized situation differs certainly from the rest of SE Asia's Indicized culture - but perhaps that isn't as obvious to other people.


Still, I'd like to see either in as a dark horse. BNW presents a good opportunity to get a bit out of the Eurocentric mold, and any new civ from SE Asia is better than none - they're all unique and interesting in their own wonderful ways, but it's unfortunate they do tend to get lumped together a bit in public perception.

 

[SnowKomodo]

any new civ from SE Asia is better than none - they're all unique and interesting in their own wonderful ways, but it's unfortunate they do tend to get lumped together a bit in public perception.

Agreed strongly. This ongoing discussion of Vietnam should make it because 'x' and Indonesia should because 'y' and Khmer should because 'z' is only happening because of the bias for selling to a Western market (very understandable of course). If this game was Asian, no doubt we'd have all these SE Asian powers as mainstays in much the same way we currently have a bunch of neighboring and sometimes overlapping Euro powers

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't know why people seem to be suggesting that Vietnam are more likely to be added. They too would be worthy additions but honestly I think Indonesia are more deserving (and would be more fun to play). The 'more people have heard of Vietnam because of the war' argument is just silly to me.

I don't think that's quite the argument - it probably also isn't true among the general gaming demographic. The Vietnam War is very memorable to those who grew up during the period, or on a diet of '80s films on the subject, but even in America I doubt it's the main reason younger people know of Vietnam, any more than WWII is the major reason people have heard of Germany. Rather, the modern US has (as a result of the war) a larger Vietnamese population than other Western countries; modern Americans are simply more likely to know Vietnamese people than Indonesians, and for much the same reason there is likely a larger Vietnamese than Malay demographic actually playing the game.

As I understand it though, the argument in favour of Vietnam is not that it's well-known because of the war, but that it could be represented as a modern Asian civ because of its role in the war, as well as its adoption of communist ideology, both of which would purportedly tie in with the new expansion.

Personally, I think it's a very weak argument, and the idea that Vietnam would be "the ideology civ" is made weaker by Poland (the people pushing Vietnam as the "ideology civ" are either not old enough or not European enough to understand the reference in the UA name "Solidarity"). The Vietnam War was a big deal to the US, but the fact that the Vietnamese were communist, although a spur for the conflict, is not principally why it's remembered. On pure ideology grounds, Cuba would have a better chance of being included based on popular recognition of its ideology than Vietnam.

 

[fuzzatron717]

I am surprised my homeland of Canada has got so many votes compared to say the Khazars or another African civ

 

[steveg700]

I hope that it's the Khmer. We will most likely get Indonesia if they have listened to our fanbase.
Most people expect Vietnam, and while I support ANY Southeast Asian civ, I think The Khmer are second to Indonesia in greatest (not size) empire in Southeast Asia according to me. They built Angkor Wat, a true world wonder and many other temples ("greater than any those left of Greece and Rome"), Angkor was the largest city in the world, they had one of the largest empires in Southeast Asia. Their achievements are many and I hope they will once more be represented. Burma and Vietnam are possible too, but they are my second choice after the Khmer.

Agreed on all counts, and I'd say they could use the new trade route system to great effect (see the link in my sig).

 

[blackcatatonic]

I don't think that's quite the argument - it probably also isn't true among the general gaming demographic. The Vietnam War is very memorable to those who grew up during the period, or on a diet of '80s films on the subject, but even in America I doubt it's the main reason younger people know of Vietnam, any more than WWII is the major reason people have heard of Germany. Rather, the modern US has (as a result of the war) a larger Vietnamese population than other Western countries; modern Americans are simply more likely to know Vietnamese people than Indonesians, and for much the same reason there is likely a larger Vietnamese than Malay demographic actually playing the game.

As I understand it though, the argument in favour of Vietnam is not that it's well-known because of the war, but that it could be represented as a modern Asian civ because of its role in the war, as well as its adoption of communist ideology, both of which would purportedly tie in with the new expansion.

Personally, I think it's a very weak argument, and the idea that Vietnam would be "the ideology civ" is made weaker by Poland (the people pushing Vietnam as the "ideology civ" are either not old enough or not European enough to understand the reference in the UA name "Solidarity"). The Vietnam War was a big deal to the US, but the fact that the Vietnamese were communist, although a spur for the conflict, is not principally why it's remembered. On pure ideology grounds, Cuba would have a better chance of being included based on popular recognition of its ideology than Vietnam.

You make a good point about the ideologies (I'd forgotten about them - I'm also not terribly clear on exactly what they are, but maybe no-one is yet). And as you say it's not really a strong enough argument to include them on that basis alone.

Actually the strongest argument in favour of Vietnam over Indonesia (assuming there won't be two Civs from South East Asia, because let's face it, there won't be) is Sofia and the militaristic CS conundrum. I still think it's possible either that Almaty has gone onto someone's city list or that they have simply added a new militaristic CS (since there aren't that many to begin with) but of course a Vietnamese Civ is a possibility.

 

[Guandao]

I am surprised my homeland of Canada has got so many votes compared to say the Khazars or another African civ

It's more famous

 

[advavada]

Where is Phoenicia from this poll?

 

[phaethon16]

Argentina.

Why?:

- We already have 3/9 male leaders, Firaxis will try to even the scales including at least 2 or 3 famale leaders. Enter Eva Perón "spiritual leader of Argentina" and very well known thanks to the musical/movie.

- Prior to Brazil i wasn't sure that firaxis will include any latin-american modern country, but with Brazil in thats no longer the case (this can work both ways though. Maybe TWO latin american modern countries is too much to include in a single expansion).

- Argentina can also make sense with the expansion Theme "Brave NEW WORLD", tourism (tango!) and trade ("Granary of the world" as an UA Maybe?)

I still think is VERY Far fetched, so.. it would really be a Dark Horse.

I agree with all of this except I don't think it's far fetched. Argentina!

 

[Eru Ilúvatar]

I don`t suppose they`ll put Evita as a leader of anything. They will avoid polemics. Also, her spiritual leading is controversial. San Martin would be a far better choise. But I agree they will try female leaders, and that reduces a lot our options, because the most obvious options (Malinese, Zulu, Portugal, etc) were extremelly patriarcal civs. Pehamps the Shabbat Queen in the next expansion? rs

One of the big challenges for the developers is to offer female options since history is essencially patriarcal.

 

[Eru Ilúvatar]

I thought something... the phoenicians and the cartaginians are too extremelly related, and I don`t think they will put both in the game.

 

[Dragonflow]

I don`t suppose they`ll put Evita as a leader of anything. They will avoid polemics. Also, her spiritual leading is controversial. San Martin would be a far better choise. But I agree they will try female leaders, and that reduces a lot our options, because the most obvious options (Malinese, Zulu, Portugal, etc) were extremelly patriarcal civs. Pehamps the Shabbat Queen in the next expansion? rs

One of the big challenges for the developers is to offer female options since history is essencially patriarcal.

I don't think they'll have trouble with female leaders. They have already added female leaders just for the sake of them being females(Wu Zetian, Theodora, Dido), ignoring better/more suitable male choices.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't think they'll have trouble with female leaders. They have already added female leaders just for the sake of them being females(Wu Zetian, Theodora, Dido), ignoring better/more suitable male choices.

Indeed. Come to think of it, a number of the suggested and/or favorite civ choices thus far have some potential female leaders to choose from. Portugal has Maria I (though I doubt it, as Henry the Navigator, Joao I, or someone else from that era is just too iconic to miss out on), Vietnam and Indonesia have the Trung sisters and Tribahahahahahwana (however you spell it) respectively, there's Nzinga who could be lumped into a Kongo-Angola-whatever aglamation, and so on.

 

[Civciv5]

I don't think they'll have trouble with female leaders. They have already added female leaders just for the sake of them being females(Wu Zetian, Theodora, Dido), ignoring better/more suitable male choices.

That's not true, many people just think Wu Zetian and Theodora were avarage rulers.
They were both good leaders that led their country to greatness. The leader of a civilizatin should be a great leader,NOT THE greatest. Dido was probably mythological and didn't do anything great aside from supposedly founding Carthage. Also there has to be some gender variation, if they just chose THE greatest leader of a civ, we would maybe have NO female leaders at all.

 

[phaethon16]

I don`t suppose they`ll put Evita as a leader of anything. They will avoid polemics. Also, her spiritual leading is controversial. San Martin would be a far better choise.

It's mostly controversial for people who aren't Argentinians, because people in Argentina loved her (for the most part.) Eva Peron is iconic, and would make a fantastic leader. You're right that San Martin is also a good choice, but I think if there was an Argentina, she would be the leader.

 

[Guandao]

It's mostly controversial for people who aren't Argentinians, because people in Argentina loved her (for the most part.) Eva Peron is iconic, and would make a fantastic leader. You're right that San Martin is also a good choice, but I think if there was an Argentina, she would be the leader.

Was she even ruler of Argentina, or just Juan Peron's wife?

 

[phaethon16]

Was she even ruler of Argentina, or just Juan Peron's wife?

She was an extremely active first lady, leading the Peronista party, being one her husbands top advisers, and she headed a huge charity foundation that did a lot of good. Eva Peron didn't technically lead Argentina, but to the people she represented them and her popularity helped her husband's presidency tremendously.

 

[steveg700]

So, she fits into the "national hero(ine)" category, like Ghandi.

Still betther than Theodora, whose most famous act was convincing Justinian to massacre thousands in the hippodrome.

 

[phaethon16]

So, she fits into the "national hero(ine)" category, like Ghandi.

Still betther than Theodora, whose most famous act was convincing Justinian to massacre thousands in the hippodrome.

Exactly! That's why Eva Peron and Argentina are good dark horse candidates (among other things.) But in all fairness, it did take a lot of guts to stay in Constantinople and she did preserve Byzantine authority and government. (This is Theodora now.)

 

[iconocast]

Australian aboriginals would be horrible civ, because they really didnt invent anything and they were extremely primitive. They were still living in the stone age when Europeans got to the Australia. What would their UU, UB and UA be? Im just keeping it 100% real. Im not saying their lifestyle was bad, but it doesnt make much sense to have them in the game, when they really didnt invent any of the techs in the games tech tree. Comparing Aboriginals to Huns is ridiculous. Huns were very advanced militarily. And in fact they had to be, because how else they would have won battles against the Romans?

to say they where liveing in the stone age is pretty offensive. you need to read more about Australian aboriginals. the iroqus and zulu and even the huns have been added, this give no reason ( imho) why they wouldn't be a viable candidate.
there culture was mostly nomadic due to the extremely harsh conditions. even the Europeans had to re invent there farming equipment to survive in australia when they arrived. there culture is based on the spiritual passing there knowledge thru song and art. they would be a awesome cultural civ