Which New Civs should be in CIV V

[zeggy]

Israel should be for sure

sorry but no

Ok, note that there must be like leaders for each civ. I'd
Assyrian Empire (+) ~700BC
Leader: Tiglath-Pileser III

Yea i agree a much more significant Civ

 

[cybrxkhan]

Well, Vietnam did defeat the armies of China, Mongolia, and America, at various points in its thousands-of-years-long history. And built their own copy of the Forbidden Palace in Hue. And were possibly the first people in East Asia with agriculture. The Trung sisters would be much better leaders for Vietnam than Ho though.

But otherwise, you're right.

Hear, hear!

Adding Ho as a leader to Vietnam would kind of be insulting to the rest of Vietnamese history, similarly to how adding Mao as a leader of China or Stalin as a leader of Russia would be insulting to the their histories, even if those leaders weren't bad.

If there were a Vietnam civ, I'd totally vouch for the Trung sisters as the leaders, since not only would they be great token female leaders, they'd be a leaderhead with two people (as opposed to one) , and they are more or less considered our national heroes (somewhat similarly to Washington for America).

Other possible leaders would be Quang Trung, who is considered by many to be the last great Vietnamese pre-modern leader and Le Loi, another national hero who kicked out the Chinese.

Unfortunately if there was a Vietnam civ ever they'd probably focus it on the modern Vietnam, which is more or less in my opinion an insult to the Vietnamese people, more than anything (i.e. "all we remember about your history is how you had that silly little modern war").

 

[Lil Post count]

well now we know

 

[TimbreWolf]

It's inevitable that a game made in this day and age in the US would be biased towards Western civs with the biggest impact in recent times and who we know the most about. But still, I wish it wasn't.
So I'll just make a general request for more ancient civs, especially in the African, Middle Eastern and perhaps Mediterranean regions.

 

[frekk]

No new civs. Just a short list of some of the ones available in 4 will be fine, preferably not too too many of the Western civs ... enough that on an earth map will all civs there will be good dispersal.

The thing is, I don't want them wasting a whole lot of time doing what modders can do or what can be done in expansion packs. The vanilla game should get the underlying game as perfect as possible in every way, especially things that are difficult to alter later on. Adding civs isn't hard, but doing the graphics etc takes time. The civs themselves are rather superficial, you can tack more on later.

 

[702]

I'm inclined to agree with you Frekk, it seems that Civ 4 had most major civs really really worthy of inclusion, there is only so much Firaxis can do, the modders can make the rest.

For instance I would much rather see Denmark, Sweden and maybe Norway, instead of the Vikings (I don't really like the idea of the Vikings as a civ).
But I also recognise that will never happen with the official game, there are only a precious few civ slots available.
Just do the most important/basic civs, with a few others thrown in for diversity, and let the modders do the rest.
No need to have too many Polynesia/Poland/Canada/Timurid type civs replacing too many England/France/China/Rome types

 

[702]

Double post, sorry!

Another way of saying what I did is that you can divide civs up into categories of importance.
Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Quaternary say.
How this is done is inherently arbitrary of course...
The games produced by Firaxis should have mostly Primary, with some Secondary as well.
So Primary includes China, India, Germany, Aztec (representing at least one native Americas civ), etc...
Secondary would be Portugal, Khmer, Iroquois, Korea, etc...
Tertiary is those civs which most people here are keen on, which modders will be quick to make, Poland, Australia, Israel, Scotland, etc...
Quaternary are those who are too obscure to have many advocates, Tonga, Tarascan, Kongo, Ashanti, etc...