What civs do you want in Civ 5 - Updated list

[Zyxpsilon]

Inuits (aka-Eskimos)
LEADER; Atanarjuat
UA; Can exploit & develop Polar regions Arctic_Ice + Snow Tiles (Modifies Yields).
UB; Igloo, speeds production of Units by 50%
UU; Fisherman, Worker has Double-Speed & can improve any Coastal tiles

Seriously, it's -25C outside overhere... and i can't even warm up to the idea that Calgary & Edmonton have been caught in a freeeezzziinng wave of -35 for more than a week.

 

[Gedemo]

I 've voted for Polynesia for 10 years long I'm so happy!!! Now that's my new wish list:

- I want the Inuits too - with specific development in toundra with deer or a samoyedic tribe like the nenets?

- I want a Tupi-Guarani-Arawak civ to counter balance Inca in south america, with a specific development in jungle

- Another native american like navajo/sioux/apache/mississipian/anasazi/haida to counter balance the iroquois

- At least 2 more african kingdom/empire like Kongo and Monomopata, plus Ethiopia and Zulu

-The Majapahit on indonesia

- central asian civ with the Timurids

- The Harappan

-a barbarian civ like the Huns with Attila or the Scythians

Thank you guys for lobbying!

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK, even though I'm a full-throated defender of the Polynesians, I'd definitely argue against the Inuit and (even though they've been included before), the Souix. Their impact was far, far less. The Inuit would be the equivalent of having the Bushmen in Africa - they filled a geographic niche so they could survive away from other peoples. Nothing of the scale or settlement of the Polynesians.

The Souix are a bit better, but they are essentially the equivalent of a barbarian tribe. They were a nomadic people who followed the herds. Finding a real city list would be impossible. Now they were militarily dominant and gave the United States trouble, but I'm not convinced that, by itself, is enough.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Top priority:
Phonecians
Assyrians (they were much better than the Babylonians)
The Portugese
Second priority:
The Dutch
Vikings
Carthage
Korea
Maybe:
Nubia
Prussia
Hittites

 

[Michl2602]

I like Carthage and Byzantium like suggested. Just wanted to state, that the Numidian Cavalry should have as much movement as Keshiks, not as this sick Arab Camel Archer.

 

[Pouakai]

I'd agree against Inuit. Did they ever encounter anyone / fight anyone?

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ The Russians?

I like Carthage and Byzantium like suggested. Just wanted to state, that the Numidian Cavalry should have as much movement as Keshiks, not as this sick Arab Camel Archer.

Oh, I agree. They were light cavalry. They were used for skirmishing and harassment. Neither infantry or regular cavalry could catch them. But I do think they should be weaker. Basically, 5 moves, weak melee attack, but decent (not great) ranged attack.

 

[Pouakai]

^ The Russians?



Oh, I agree. They were light cavalry. They were used for skirmishing and harassment. Neither infantry or regular cavalry could catch them. But I do think they should be weaker. Basically, 5 moves, weak melee attack, but decent (not great) ranged attack.

Could it range attack and melee attack in same turn?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldn't have that, personally. They were used to harass, not destroy. Although it would be unique.

BTW, although I'm in favor of making it a skirmishing horseman, if it used a melee attack, I wouldn't care too much (after all, it threw javelins, which didn't have the greatest range in the world).

 

[Pouakai]

Maybe a ranged attack of 1? (I.e. has to be adjacent, but doesn't take damage when attacking)

 

[Proximus]

I agree with Save_Ferris' top priority list quite a bit.

Personally, I'd like to see:

- Portuguese
- Korean
- Zulu
- Swiss
- Carthage
- Ethiopian
- Dutch
- Sumerian
- Phoenician
- Norse
- Maya

I also don't understand why people are so shy or against including modern day Civs. While they're technically standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak, many of them have brilliant cultures and many great accomplishments in their own right.

For example, I wouldn't be against seeing Brazil (if you read about Portuguese history I think you'd agree) or perhaps a few commonwealth realms such as Australia and Canada. While I am Canadian and somewhat biased I am prepared to make a solid argument for both. I understand many cultures may be just as worthy if not moreso, but most of those cultures are descendants of in-game Civs that occupy the same land. This is not the case with Canada and Australia.

A few good examples of this would be Mexico (overlapping the Aztecs), Italy (Rome) and Prussia (Russia).

It also shocks me that people always forget about the Swiss.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Brazil interests me, but I feel it needs a few more years to establish itself. Right now, it plays itself well as a leader of the third world (if that term has any meaning anymore). The problem is Egypt (with Nasser) used to do the exact same thing and it's fallen far off its pedestal. It's why I would require that you start with something at least 50 years ago. If there is a large period of time of significance, it deserves consideration.

Brazil's rise was about 20 years ago and, even then, it's being overshadowed by the meteoric rise of India and China. Sure both nations have among the most ancient of civilizations to point to, but I think a lot of weight India is given is for the modern state. Let me put it this way, if we were having this discussion (somehow) in 1900, a strong case could be made for Argentina. It was a strong regional power with an impressive navy and looked to be on the rise. Unfortunately, things did not work out there. Now, Argentina is very far down on the list for consideration. I love Brazil, but I think it's a bit premature to consider them.

 

[brxbrx]

Brazil interests me, but I feel it needs a few more years to establish itself. Right now, it plays itself well as a leader of the third world (if that term has any meaning anymore). The problem is Egypt (with Nasser) used to do the exact same thing and it's fallen far off its pedestal. It's why I would require that you start with something at least 50 years ago. If there is a large period of time of significance, it deserves consideration.

Brazil's rise was about 20 years ago and, even then, it's being overshadowed by the meteoric rise of India and China. Sure both nations have among the most ancient of civilizations to point to, but I think a lot of weight India is given is for the modern state. Let me put it this way, if we were having this discussion (somehow) in 1900, a strong case could be made for Argentina. It was a strong regional power with an impressive navy and looked to be on the rise. Unfortunately, things did not work out there. Now, Argentina is very far down on the list for consideration. I love Brazil, but I think it's a bit premature to consider them.

they've got their own wonder. and brazilia isn't bad, I hear. in terms of accomplishments.

and their culture is everywhere!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, they were given a City-State, I think that's a start. While it's possible to call it a wonder, it's more a culturally significant landmark. It's not anywhere on the scale of past wonders of the world.

 

[brxbrx]

Well, they were given a City-State, I think that's a start. While it's possible to call it a wonder, it's more a culturally significant landmark. It's not anywhere on the scale of past wonders of the world.

cristo redentor? I'd say so. they put it in Civ IV and V, no?

 

[Save_Ferris]

I agree with Save_Ferris' top priority list quite a bit.

Personally, I'd like to see:

- Portuguese
- Korean
- Zulu
- Swiss
- Carthage
- Ethiopian
- Dutch
- Sumerian
- Phoenician
- Norse
- Maya

Well, you'd have to make sure Maya wouldn't be an Aztec clone, but I could definitely see step pyramids and possibly a jungle bonus. As for the Swiss, they have been much more reclusive in the modern age as opposed to other central European civs...

 

[Pouakai]

Well, they were given a City-State, I think that's a start. While it's possible to call it a wonder, it's more a culturally significant landmark. It's not anywhere on the scale of past wonders of the world.

True, however it is a definative symbol of Brazil. If you show someone a pic of Christo Redentor, I'd say 9 times out of 10 they'd be able to tell you it's in Brazil

 

[awesome]

most wonders are just culturally significant landmarks, including the ancient ones. a lot of those are just significant landmarks of former cultures. obviously not all of them, but most.

 

[Louis XXIV]

cristo redentor? I'd say so. they put it in Civ IV and V, no?

They did. I was referring to the layman's conception of what a wonder is, not Civ's conception. I'd argue the Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, and a whole bunch of other modern monuments would not be considered wonders. I think the only things people consider are engineering marvels (Empire State Building and Hoover Dam at the time were considered extremely impressive).

True, however it is a definative symbol of Brazil. If you show someone a pic of Christo Redentor, I'd say 9 times out of 10 they'd be able to tell you it's in Brazil

Oh I agree. Don't get me wrong, I think it's really cool and I'm glad they've included it in the game. I just don't think, by itself, it can be used as evidence of being a Civ worthy of inclusion as if Christo Redentor is the equivalent of the Pyramids when weighing things.

Once again, to make it clear, if Brazil keeps up where it is today, I do think it'll eventually be without a doubt a Civ to include, but more for Civ8 than Civ5.

 

[brxbrx]

True, however it is a definative symbol of Brazil. If you show someone a pic of Christo Redentor, I'd say 9 times out of 10 they'd be able to tell you it's in Brazil

lol, in the states they'll just say "that's jesus," not knowing the significance