Which Entities do you want in Civ V that Have Never Been In Before?

[EMT]

I'm adding a poll based on what I've heard, if I missed anything, feel free to post it. I AM NOT adding STATES like Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, or Indonesia. We've had this debate before, these are states, not civilizations, not unique cultures, some debatebly not even nations. The closest thing to a modern day state with a unique culture is actually Brazil, but even then, you're on shaky ground. No one cares about GDP, standard of living, or what your nation did from 1990 onward. This is civilization, not nation state.

EDIT: Consider Majapahit under Srivijaya.

 

[Dale]

Then why did Firaxis add City States if the game is not about states?

So are you going to call for the removal of America and 90% of the other Civs in the game since they mostly just derive off the initial Civilizations in history?

Most of the ones you've listed also derive purely from other Civilizations, making them just "states" of those Civs. So you poll is invalid.

 

[Ornen]

Brazil is a better choice than any of the options you have listed besides maybe Poland. Most of those aren't worth listing. Throw Italy in their under Rome and Denmark/Sweden under the Vikings (though Sweden could definitely stand alone), add Poland to the game at some point (perhaps as Poland-Lithuania) and throw in Brazil as well because they do have enough history and culture at this point because the series could use a modern post-colonial state that isn't the US and Brazil most closely resembles our stilted definition of the word 'civilization'.

Then maybe throw in Nigeria (or the Igbo if you'd rather use that) at some point if you're looking for a third. But that's probably further in the future than Brazil. You never know though - Sid & co seem to be struggling to find a decent civ besides Egypt to really represent Africa.

Seriously though, the only item on that list worth a **** is Poland. Everything else is pretty worthless. You could maybe make a case for some of them, but not really a strong one.

 

[EMT]

Then why did Firaxis add City States if the game is not about states?

So are you going to call for the removal of America and 90% of the other Civs in the game since they mostly just derive off the initial Civilizations in history?

Most of the ones you've listed also derive purely from other Civilizations, making them just "states" of those Civs. So you poll is invalid.

They added city states for the people who wanted deeper diplomacy(everyone) and for everyone who'll never see a Singaporean civilization that wants one. Especially Sealand. We shall see Sealand as a city state, or I'll mod it in myself.

 

[astrognash]

I put the Huns, because they rock, and I would love the Mississippians, except that we don't know hardly anything about them, but they seem like a truly fascinating culture, certainly more so than the Iroquois.

 

[Krzowwh]

Wait, why are Nubia and Kush different options?

 

[dagriggstar]

The Uzbek khanates ! they're more like city-states though...I'd still like to see them

 

[astrognash]

Wait, why are Nubia and Kush different options?

Perhaps because they were different, just like Nubia is different from Egypt?

 

[Krzowwh]

Perhaps because they were different, just like Nubia is different from Egypt?

When was there a civilization called Nubia?

 

[Kimuyama]

Polynesians for the win! That is a large part of the world that hasn't been represented in civ at all, and even though no one ever united all of Polynesia (as far as i know) there were a couple of empires, like Hawaii.

Also, Brazil would be pretty cool

 

[Gedemo]

I vote for polynesians (I think the Lapita culture could cover all the pacific era, but Hawaii or Rapa Nui would be fine)

if I could make a second vote it would be for Tupi/Guarani or missing arawaks


The aborigenes and the papuans don't appear in the choice , and Majapahit too.

 

[Framesticker]

Ancient Kingdom of Israel, I say. By that, I mean the one represented in the Old Testament. Awesome leaders would be King David (Charismatic/Spiritual) or King Solomon (Spiritual/Industrious) or even Moses (Spiritual/Philosophical).

 

[AljayBoy]

Scotland, as we have kilts.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Brazil is a better choice than any of the options you have listed besides maybe Poland.

Better than Assyria? How so?

I voted for Assyria, Ancient Israel (always go back and forth on this one), and, in spite of the obvious consequences, Polynesia (simply because I think they would be awesome to play as if done correctly).

I left Phoenicia off the list because I'd prefer Carthage (Phoenicia was neat, but Carthage's unified empire was a more impressive feat). I left Italy off because I'd prefer a Venetian civilization and didn't want to muddle the issue. I left Poland off because I didn't see it (honestly, Poland, for me, takes a back seat to the ones mentioned above. Worth considering, but doesn't push past some other, more important ones).

I also did not vote for Civs that could arguably be represented by current Civs (anything that falls under the very broad and often ambiguous umbrella of Arabs and Indians).

 

[Schuesseled]

Well what I want to see is more diversity in who you can choose to lead you, why is thier only Elizabeth or Is it Victoria as the English leader. Their has been many many English leaders, why aren't we choosing the more famous King Henry the Eighth for example. Their should certainly be more diversity not only in different Empires but rulers of existing ones, in BTS for example thier are a lot... hopefully with Civ 5 expansions we will see a lot of not before seen Empire Leaders emerging.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Well what I want to see is more diversity in who you can choose to lead you, why is thier only Elizabeth or Is it Victoria as the English leader. Their has been many many English leaders, why aren't we choosing the more famous King Henry the Eighth for example. Their should certainly be more diversity not only in different Empires but rulers of existing ones, in BTS for example thier are a lot... hopefully with Civ 5 expansions we will see a lot of not before seen Empire Leaders emerging.

Considering past history of Civ games, I think your wish will be granted.

I really think Assyria should have been included as a civilization along the way.

RFC had an interesting angle. As the years went by, the civs had different leaderheads. Rom was originally Julius Caesar, then Augustus, then Justinian.

 

[helpless_writer]

In a way using City-States is sort of an appeasment to those who want their actual civilizations in the game... in my opinion.

 

[fdgsgds]

People don't consider Poland great enough, but I think they could work. They should, I think, add Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Phoenicia, and maybe Vietnam. The first three were important states in Europe for hundreds of years at some points; Phoenicia basically led to Carthage, they were the earliest real explorers, and they invented the Alphabet; Vietnam could possibly work, but it was mostly a tributary state of China and they weren't extremely important. Since Siam is included, Vietnam probably shouldn't be. As for the early civs like Assyria and Kush, they are basically represented by Babylon and Egypt (and Phoenicia if there were one).

Italy is meh. They were important during the Renaissance, but that's about it (except for Rome, which is different). Civ5 will include Venice as a city state.

Polynesian peoples weren't important at all on the world stage.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think colonizing half the entire Pacific ocean puts them on the World stage. The Phoenicians colonized half the Mediterranean, the Polynesians colonized half the world.

 

[awesome]

what great polynesian leader was there who a large portion of polynesians can identify with?