1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by altayrneto, Jul 25, 2013.

?

Which Civ we need?

  1. Timurid

    21 vote(s)
    3.5%
  2. Khmer

    27 vote(s)
    4.5%
  3. Holy Roman Empire

    41 vote(s)
    6.9%
  4. Australia

    33 vote(s)
    5.5%
  5. Gran Colombia

    21 vote(s)
    3.5%
  6. Sumerians

    54 vote(s)
    9.0%
  7. Nepal

    11 vote(s)
    1.8%
  8. Mughal Empire

    15 vote(s)
    2.5%
  9. Hungary

    49 vote(s)
    8.2%
  10. Hittites

    36 vote(s)
    6.0%
  11. Canada

    67 vote(s)
    11.2%
  12. Argentina

    11 vote(s)
    1.8%
  13. Inuit

    38 vote(s)
    6.4%
  14. Sioux

    25 vote(s)
    4.2%
  15. Mali

    10 vote(s)
    1.7%
  16. Kongo

    49 vote(s)
    8.2%
  17. Swali

    5 vote(s)
    0.8%
  18. Other (I purposely not put Israel and Tibet)

    85 vote(s)
    14.2%
  1. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    Yeah, New Spain was by all accounts part of Spain, however cultural tensions and differences between Spain and New Spain were present during all the colonial period.

    Mexico was an empire 2 times in its history both short lived, but TBH Mexico has enough reasons to get in civ all by itself, arguing against post colonial civs is futile as Brazil did open that door, if anything we can argue about which post colonial would make it.

    The stronger candidates are, in no particular order:

    -Mexico
    -Argentina
    -Colombia
    -Canada
    -Australia

    So yeah, take your pick, if there's another expansion one of them will make it in, Im leaning togards any of the latin american candidates.
     
  2. Petiscator

    Petiscator King

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    785
    Location:
    Brazil
    BAH! MAS TCHÊ, I completely agree with this! Very "tri" idea. :lol:

    :cowboy:

    (I was also born in RS)
     
  3. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,285
    There aren't many countries represented in Civ by both native peoples and European nations - there's the US alongside the Iroquois and the Shoshone, but even the Celts scrupulously avoid England (except for the leader). So South Africa is more or less 'taken' by the Zulu and Mexico by the Aztecs and (along with Honduras, Guatemala and Belize) the Maya.

    Japan successfully resisted the Mongols. Due to favourable winds, to be sure, but then Mongol fighting strategies weren't designed for a Vietnamese climate either.
     
  4. True_Candyman

    True_Candyman Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,713
    Location:
    Leicester
    I'm not arguing against post-colonial civs (which by the way, america opened the door to far before brazil - they are in every rendition of the series). But America has become the dominant force in the world, Brazil is one of the big 4 up and comers, the rest are leagues behind and yet to do much of significance beyond or indeed within their own borders to impact on history.

    I really, really hope they don't in the next expansion. I don't mind if they are added eventually, but i can easily think of 9 civilizations that should by all means be added before them. It would be an utter travesty to have a an Argentinian or Canadian civ over the Khmer, the Sumerians, the Khazars, the Timurids, the Armenians, the Omani, the Swahili, the Ashanti, Mali, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Muisca, the Chachapoya, the Pueblo and Cahokia to name but a few.

    The stand out post colonial civs are in game already, why would we want civilizations that can't even prove themselves among the best in their own time to compete in a game where you compete to be the best of all time? At least before civs who actually were among the dominant forces of their times.
     
  5. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    Firaxis was already considering Canada and Australia along side Brazil for BNW, so we can assume other post colonials besides Brazil are qualified for inclusion in civ.

    I agree with you that there are many civs that should be added, but they seem to want to cover as many geographical areas and cultures as possible, taking that into account, its not wild to assume there will be at least 1 post colonial spot if there was another expansion.

    There is a chance however the spot goes to an anglo (as they were already considered) Im just saying that if Australia and Canada can be candidates, so can Argentina, Gran Colombia and Mexico.
     
  6. True_Candyman

    True_Candyman Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,713
    Location:
    Leicester
    Were they? Or is this just speculation? I haven't heard anything solid from firaxis regarding this, so i'm afraid i feel a little ignorant!

    I worry you're right, especially with the large support for them. But it is such a shame. For me, Australia and Canada rank alongside Sealand, and i'd much rather have Sealand. :goodjob:
     
  7. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    They mentioned in the last polycast, they were considering them, and Inuit instead of Shoshone. Its somewhat weird, however I think its interesting that Firaxis does discuss all kind of potential civs just like we do in the forums.
     
  8. Gucumatz

    Gucumatz JS, secretly Rod Serling

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,181
    There are 4 "civs" that would cause people to avoid this game

    - Israel [Controversial]
    - Tibet [Controversial in China]
    - Canada and Australia [A couple of polities still developing their identities - Putting them in would truly be offputting and create an impression of scraping the barrel]

    ========

    Regardless if I had to come up with another expansion's list of civs I would go with the following:

    1. Sumer
    2. Kievan Rus [Featuring more of the classic Rus/Russian feel and adding in Ukrainian elements]
    3. Romania [Dracula for the name recognition. Remember, you have to be able sell a game to the masses - Dracula/Vlad the Impaler has massive potential to become a fan favorite like other leaders have become in Civ tradition, plus any expansion needs 2-3 European civs unfortunately]
    4. Burma
    5. Kongo
    6. Any Mesoamerican or Native civ actually, potentials being: Toltecs, Totonacs, Pueblo [If they use a cacique as a leader and avoid being lazy], Chachapoya, Olmec, Mapuche, Tiwanaku, etc. and avoid the Sioux
    7. Khazars [A Jewish + Steppe Civ, offers several interesting possibilities]
    8. Vietnam
    9. Zimbabwe/Ashanti/Togo
    10. Another European Civ as that's how expansions work, Hungary perhaps
     
  9. seancolorado

    seancolorado Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Solid list
     
  10. kingofsealand

    kingofsealand Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    279
    Why is it unfortunate multiple european civs were included in the expansion?
     
  11. Depravo

    Depravo Siring Bastards

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,268
    Location:
    England
    What makes the Khazars more worthy of inclusion than, say, the Uighur? They were just another ephemeral steppe confederation remarkable only for the Judaism of at least part of their later leadership, and in my view the western steppe nomads are already represented by the Huns.
     
  12. gberetfr

    gberetfr Rastaman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lyon
    I see you plan for a petty alliance with the treacherous normands. Know that the bretons are not afraid of you and that we shall meet on the battlefield. We will crush the Robists and enslave the Nigerians. For sure you don't want the bretons in Civ 5, they would be way too powerfull :nya:
     
  13. Princeofnigeria

    Princeofnigeria The illustrious

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    729
    Location:
    Nigeria
    You might want to do that the other way around, as it will take an aweful lot of gaurds to keep all 163 million of us nigerians in check. Plus, isn't it more fun to have one man slave over a 50 foot gloden statue of you than to have 163 million finish it in a day? Also, NEVER!!! You may take our lives, but you will never take, OUR FREEDOM :viking:!!!!
     
  14. gberetfr

    gberetfr Rastaman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lyon
    AH, I've regognized you Mel Gibson ! That's why you didn't make any new movie for while. Leading a 163 million people country (and 1.5 billion oil barels reserve...) and playing Civ 5 can't let you much free time.

    Anyway, whoevere you are, whoever your scottish allies are, your defiance of the great bretonic civilization cannot be forgiven and you shall fear our great power that I will unleash upon you.
     
  15. bison21

    bison21 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    221
    I voted for Hungary. I like that more Eastern European civs have joined the game, and I think they deserve more recognition than "used to be USSR" or "the East".
     
  16. Grubnessul

    Grubnessul Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    How can anyone not vote for TIMMEH!!!? Oh well, back to the EU4 forums!
     
  17. Zere

    Zere Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    Don't add new Civs, fix and make the existing ones more interesting (Especially vanilla ones).

    Also second rulers for some nations (Like India having someone else than Gandhi etc.)
     
  18. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I'm not sure this is mutually exclusive. One is predominantly done by the art department, the other by the programmers/game designers.

    This would be likely inconsistent with new Civs, I agree. Although I'm not sure at all what gameplay advantages new leaders would have (since UAs are designed for the Civ as a whole and there would be possible balance issues if the leader brought anything unique to the Civ).
     
  19. Nickel_lion

    Nickel_lion Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    102
    GRAN COLOMBIA, babies!!!!;)
     
  20. Cromat

    Cromat Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    I could get people saying that Israel is too unimportant when the game was only USA, China, Rome, Persia,Egypt and so forth. But after Polynesia and Zulu this argument is a bit ridiculous.

    In any case it's all about being fun to play, and Israel could be fun to play because there's a lot of interesting history to work with.

    However I think the developers are far too scared to put it in, and not for the right reasons. They had Stalin and Mao but Israel is too controversial? Give me a break. Also the US and UK killed more Arabs in Iraq and other places than Israel ever did since it was established.

    Also, Khmer should be brought back IMO.
     

Share This Page