Which New Civs should be in CIV V

[Huayna Capac357]

Americas:
America
Aztecs
Incas
Maya
Olmecs
Mississippians
Pueblo
Moche
Norte Chico

Africa:
Ethiopia
Kongo
Mali
Zulu
Nubia
Shona

Asia/Pacific:
China
India
Japan
Java
Khmers
Korea
Mongolia
Tonga
Siam
Vietnam
Hawaii

Europe:
Byzantium
Celts
Denmark
Dutch
England
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Norway
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sweden

Middle East:
Arabia
Assyria
Babylon
Carthage
Egypt
Hittites
Israel
Ottomans
Persia
Sumer

Here's my long list

 

[Camikaze]

The Aborigines weren't even close to civilization. They weren't even close to farming! By contrast, most Native Americans were sedentary farmers, with large areas like the Mississippian area and the Pueblo cultures having stratification, cities, and specialization. Grouping these groups with hunter-gatherers like the Inuit and Nez Perce is ridiculous.

This is probably more of an indication on the lack of scope of civ in its definition of 'civilization' than an indication of the whether or not Indigenous Australians were close to civilization. An organised nomadic lifestyle should still really count as civilization in the historical/anthropological sense, and it must be remember that hunting and gathering is a viable method of societal survival. However, it just doesn't fit into the Firaxis definition of 'civilization'. As I said before, the idea of terra nullius has long been dispelled in Australia, so that is probably not the best reason to argue their deserved absence from the game. Simply stating that they were no where near significant enough to qualify should suffice.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Native Australians were (except for in some areas of SE Australia) nomadic hunter-gatherers. They were not sedentary, did not make pottery or buildings, and had no organization or specialization except for a rudimentary level. Perhaps the Koori should be in, but having them in but having only one Native American civ is not good.

 

[Silv Something]

Americas:
America
Aztecs
Incas
Maya
Olmecs
Mississippians
Pueblo
Moche
Norte Chico

Africa:
Ethiopia
Kongo
Mali
Zulu
Nubia
Shona

Asia/Pacific:
China
India
Japan
Java
Khmers
Korea
Mongolia
Tonga
Siam
Vietnam
Hawaii

Europe:
Byzantium
Celts
Denmark
Dutch
England
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Norway
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sweden

Middle East:
Arabia
Assyria
Babylon
Carthage
Egypt
Hittites
Israel
Ottomans
Persia
Sumer

Here's my long list

Why did you throw Hawaii in there?

 

[flyingeye76]

I agree with Huayna Capac357

Replace Native American with Cahokian\Mississippian and or Anazazi\Pueblo

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Why did you throw Hawaii in there?

Tonga and Hawaii were the two Polynesian societies that reached near-state status.

 

[Camikaze]

Native Australians were (except for in some areas of SE Australia) nomadic hunter-gatherers. They were not sedentary, did not make pottery or buildings, and had no organization or specialization except for a rudimentary level.

Well, yeah, but my point is that that is only what constitutes civilization in the sense of the game, rather than reality. It's a bit of a flimsy argument, saying that they weren't really 'civilized', seeing as they were, but just in a completely different way to the rest of the world. As I said, hunting and gathering is a viable technique for societal survival, and pottery and buildings (although Aborigines did have these, in the form of shelters made of trees) are not necessary to have civilization, unless you're pigeon holing it to the very subjective definition of the game. Which you can, but it isn't the best justification for not having them in the game.

 

[Truronian]

My list:

Europe:

Rome
Greece
Spain
Celts/Gaul
Portugal
Venice
Poland
France
Germany
England/Britain
Russia
Norsemen

Asia:

Sumeria
Babylon
Persia
Ottomans
Arabia
Timurids
Mongols
India
China
Japan
Korea
Khmer
Phoenicia
Vietnam
Indonesia/Majapahit/Srivijaya

Africa:

Egypt
Carthage
Mali
Ethiopia

Americas:

Aztecs
USA
Canada
Iroquois
Mayans
Inca
Brazil

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well, yeah, but my point is that that is only what constitutes civilization in the sense of the game, rather than reality. It's a bit of a flimsy argument, saying that they weren't really 'civilized', seeing as they were, but just in a completely different way to the rest of the world. As I said, hunting and gathering is a viable technique for societal survival, and pottery and buildings (although Aborigines did have these, in the form of shelters made of trees) are not necessary to have civilization, unless you're pigeon holing it to the very subjective definition of the game. Which you can, but it isn't the best justification for not having them in the game.

All of Australia had (IIRC) only a few hundred thousand people in it. There were no cities, no agriculture. Would you have the Cro-Magnons as a civ? Or the Paleo-Indians? One has to have a line somewhere. I'll compromise and say we should have the Aborigine if we also have the New Guineans, seeing as they had agriculture, bows and arrows, irrigation, and nearly 1,000 different languages (1/6 of the whole world's)

 

[Camikaze]

No, I don't think that the Aborigines should be in the game, but I'm just saying that saying that they were uncivilized is poor reasoning, particularly when it would be much easier to say that they shouldn't be in civ because they weren't important enough.

 

[RobinHat]

My list:

Europe:

Rome
Greece
Spain
Celts/Gaul
Portugal
Venice
Poland
France
Germany
England/Britain
Russia
Norsemen

Asia:

Sumeria
Babylon
Persia
Ottomans
Arabia
Timurids
Mongols
India
China
Japan
Korea
Khmer
Phoenicia
Vietnam
Indonesia/Majapahit/Srivijaya

Africa:

Egypt
Carthage
Mali
Ethiopia

Americas:

Aztecs
USA
Canada
Iroquois
Mayans
Inca
Brazil

You have listed a non-existent civilization: Read this http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=335344

 

[Truronian]

You have listed a non-existent civilization: Read this http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=335344

Danes then, whatever. Each name houses it's own inaccuracy.

 

[702]

Another long list!
A lot of these are more "regional" powers than anything else, and some are more in for their cultural value. I don't genuinely expect to see them in a Civ V and there are probably too many, but I can dream...

Americas:
Iroquois
Cherokee
Aztec
Tarascan
Maya
Inca
Canada
USA
Mexico
Cuba
Gran Colombia (So cities from Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama)
Brazil
Argentina
(Ideally also Mississipians/mound builders, Anasazi/pueblo dwellers, an ancient Bolivian people, and a few other Mesoamericans, but I'm not sure we know enough about them to make a civ...)

Africa:
Egypt
Carthage
Mali
Ashanti
Benin
Hausa
Kanem-Bornu
Kongo
Zulu
Boer/South Africa
Zimbabwe
Ethiopia
Nubia

Europe:
Greece
Rome (seperate Italy as well?)
Celt/Scotland/Ireland (not sure how this would work exactly mind you)
Dacia
Spain
Portugal
France
England
Netherlands
Germany
Denmark
Sweden
Poland
Lithuania
Austria
Hungary
Bulgaria
Byzantium

Middle East:
Turkey
Georgia
Armenia
Hittite
Assyria
Babylon
Sumer
Persia (not just the Achaemenids!)
Israel
Phoenicia
Arabia

Asia:
Russia
Khazaria
China
Tibet
Korea
Japan
Khmer
Vietnam
Siam
Burma
Srivijaya/something Indonesia

Oceania:
Australia
Hawai'i
Tonga


So yeah... really more of a fantasy list than anything else, but since no-one else had mentioned Zimbabwe I felt I should!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I mentioned the Shona.

 

[702]

Ah yes so I see.
Ok well in that case I wasn't sure if the Shona basically accounted for all the states in the history of what we'd call Zimbabwe or not.
Basically I would use the name Zimbabwe to denote a number of states collectively, even if they were sometimes composed of different people, like Civ 4 does with "India" and "Ethiopia"

 

[Tholish]

The probability of a Civ being represented should be proportional to its historical importance. Currently, you are three times as likely to have Shaka in a game as Lincoln because each civ has an equal chance, but America has three leaderheads. This could be fixed with some SDK modding, adding an XML tag to determine probability, but as a ground floor part of a new Civ 5 it could be so much more powerful. You could include every Civ imaginable, perhaps with some kind of procedural generation of leaderheads, flags etc...yet weight them so the historically important civs are more likely to occur. Add to this some way to make civs only appear in the era they historically appeared in--so that proto germans appear in the ancient era and branch into franks and saxons and goths in the classical by revolution or barbarian settlement. With appropriate leaders for the era of origin, yet whose trappings change with the times as in Civ 3 or else with leaders who change with changes of civic.

So all these civs should be there, though some as "extras" and others as "stars."

 

[Hsinchu]

The probability of a Civ being represented should be proportional to its historical importance. Currently, you are three times as likely to have Shaka in a game as Lincoln because each civ has an equal chance, but America has three leaderheads. This could be fixed with some SDK modding, adding an XML tag to determine probability, but as a ground floor part of a new Civ 5 it could be so much more powerful. You could include every Civ imaginable, perhaps with some kind of procedural generation of leaderheads, flags etc...yet weight them so the historically important civs are more likely to occur. Add to this some way to make civs only appear in the era they historically appeared in--so that proto germans appear in the ancient era and branch into franks and saxons and goths in the classical by revolution or barbarian settlement. With appropriate leaders for the era of origin, yet whose trappings change with the times as in Civ 3 or else with leaders who change with changes of civic.

So all these civs should be there, though some as "extras" and others as "stars."

Disagreed.

I won't get into why its not PC to do this, but more importantly, it doesn't add to the civs to be seen in Civ 5. I think it would be a great idea to balance how often civs show up based on leader rather than civ, or at least have a toggle that allows civs to be repeated.

 

[Camikaze]

I would agree that the the AI should be chosen with leaders having an equal chance of being in the game, instead of civs, but I really don't think that attempting to put every civ conceivable in, with generic graphics, or what have you, would be very beneficial to the game. For a starter, aesthetics are important to a good game.

 

[flyingeye76]

To throw my two cents in..

I personally don't mind if a group in Civilization wasn't actually a civilization in real life. That's because I see the game exploring the -possibility- of groups becoming great.

In a limited way I have more of a problem with some of the newer nations such as America and Canada being listed because they are a collection of colonists that until reciently (over 6k years) were of the British peoples. Today I would say that Canada and the US clearly constitute some sort of distinct "North American" civilization. However the American civ stands out like a sore thumb for most of the game.

 

[Truronian]

I personally think there are too few modern civs... Of the civs in Civ 4 only one (maybe two) came into existence after the games half-way point, while numerous civs disappeared before that same point.