Which New Civs should be in CIV V

[nutnut]

I don't think it is a good idea, though, to be making up civilizations that never existed in order to cast a blanket over a wide group. Just like Native Americans and Celts. It would be better to have a specific group represented than a general geographical area.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to see a 'Eurasia plus a bit of North Africa' Civ under Basil II?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Civ V Vanilla should start with a standard 18 civs. These civs should be

Europe or Europeanized-
Greece- Alexander
Rome- Augustus
England- Elizabeth
France- Napoleon
Germany- Bismarck
Russia- Catherine
America (It's from America so of course it's going to have it)- Lincoln

Middle East-
Egypt- Hatshepsut or Ramses NO CLEOPATRA
Persia- Cyrus
Arabs- Saladin

Asia-
China- Mao Zedong, QSHD, or Taizong
India- Gandhi or Asoka
Japan- Tokugawa Ieyasu
Mongolia- Genghis Khan

Africa-
Mali- Kankou Musa
Zulu (It's traditional)- Shaka

Americas-
Aztecs- Motecuhzoma I (NOT II)
Incas- Pachakutiq

Of course, this won't happen. They'll do the traditional HEY LET'S MAKE AS MANY EUROPEAN CIVS AS POSSIBLE! route. And we'll get the same racist depictions of "Montezuma II" and "Shaka". I hope it's modifiable...

 

[Yared]

Africa-
Mali- Kankou Musa
Zulu (It's traditional)- Shaka

What about Ethiopia?

 

[nutnut]

You mean the same 18 Civs as Civ 4 but with Spain replaced by the Zulus? Replacing the first European Empire with an African Ethnic Group who never amounted to much? I dodn't mean to be racist to South Africans but Spain was/is infintely more important.

 

[Camikaze]

Civ V Vanilla should start with a standard 18 civs.

I'm of the mind that there should be way more than 18 civs in Civ V, even to start off with. I would be reasonably content with ~40 to start of with (with 2 leaders for as many as possible), expanding to ~60 in the expansions. 18 civs just isn't nearly enough to stop disappointment by fans whose favoured civilization is left out. The more the merrier.

 

[Trias]

Civ V Vanilla should start with a standard 18 civs. These civs should be

[...]

Of course, this won't happen. They'll do the traditional HEY LET'S MAKE AS MANY EUROPEAN CIVS AS POSSIBLE! route. And we'll get the same racist depictions of "Montezuma II" and "Shaka". I hope it's modifiable...

Interesting, as you just basically listed the starting civs for Civ4 vanilla (well +zulu -spain).

 

[eduhum]

North America:
-Mississipians
-Inuit
-Iroquis
-Apaches
-Sioux
-USA
-Canada
Central America:
-Aztecs
-Mayas
-Zapotecs
-Caribs
-Olmecs
South America:
-Nazcas
-Chimus
-Incas
Oceania:
-Aborigens
-Indonesians
-Polynesians
-Javas
Africa:
-Zulus
-Malinese
-Ethiopians
-Cartage
-Egypt
-Nubia
-Shona
-Yoruba
East Asia:
-Mongols
-Chinese
-Korea
-Japan
-Khmers
-Vietnam
Asia:
-Birmania
-India
-Persia
-Huns
-Schytians
-Samarcanda
-Arabians
-Sumerians
-Assyrians
-Babilonians
-Media
-Israel
-Hittits
-Turcs
Ancient Europe:
-Sarmatians
-Macedonians
-Greeks
-Creets
-Romans
-Ligurs
-Iberians
-Celts
-Numids
-Teutons
-Slavians
Middle Europe:
-Poland
-Castilla
-Aragon
-Portugal
-France
-England
-Scotland
-Holy roman empire
-Vikings
-Danemark
-Sweden
-Byzantines
Modern Europe:
-Spain
-Russia
-Prussia
-Germany
-Holland
-Austria-Hungary
-Italy

76 civilizations! Perhaps it's a bit exagerated but NOW we're talking!!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I said Zulu because a. They are always in civ, b. they would add an interesting flavor (South African) to it.

Though I would prefer, say, the Shona for South Africa, it would never happen. BtS had the most African and Asian civs ever for civ, but since most noobs never get past "OMGWTFBBQZ TEH NAYV SEALS ARE TEH PWNAGE!!!!1!!11!!!!!" Firaxis probably will go where the money is and not put them in again.

What should be in? Let's say there will be 34 civs after expansions, which is the same as Civ IV. Then they should have

Americas-
America
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
Olmecs
Norte Chico
Moche
Anasazi
Mississippians

Europe-
Greece
Rome
England
France
Germany
Russia
Scandinavia
Spain

Asia-
China
India
Japan
Mongolia
Korea
Khmers
Xiongnu
Polynesia

Middle East-
Arabia
Persia
Egypt
Sumeria
Turks

Africa-
Mali
Ethiopia
Shona
Yoruba

 

[Churchill's Hat]

What should be in? Let's say there will be 34 civs after expansions, which is the same as Civ IV. Then they should have

Americas-
America
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
Olmecs
Norte Chico
Moche
Anasazi
Mississippians

Europe-
Greece
Rome
England
France
Germany
Russia
Scandinavia
Spain

Asia-
China
India
Japan
Mongolia
Korea
Khmers
Xiongnu
Polynesia

Middle East-
Arabia
Persia
Egypt
Sumeria
Turks

Africa-
Mali
Ethiopia
Shona
Yoruba

I'm sorry, but what civilizations should be in should be based at least partly on their impact. I will grant you that the HRE, the Byzantines, and the Celts are questionable. However, the Netherlands and Portugal played a much larger role in shaping the world, than say, the Mississippians. Furthermore, the Babylonians and Carthaginians were also pretty important, and should be included in 34 civilizations. Europe was very important to history during Roman times, and from the Renaissance to Modern times and thus should probably have more civilizations than the Americas.

@eduhum: It's unlikely we'll see more than 40ish civs with two expansions. However, your list is a bit Euro-centric and cuts out civs like the Byzantines and Vietnam while including five Iberian civilizations (Spain, Portugal, Castille, Aragon, and Iberians), four German/Austrian civs (Prussia, Austria, Germany, HRE), and three Scandinavian civs (Denmark, Vikings, and Sweden). There's no reason to have only 6 African civs with that many overlapping other civs.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

It needs to be balanced though.

 

[StormD]

snip

I sort of like this list, but I think it has some issues. Too many Native American tribes, too few highly influential civilizations from the old world that I'd like to see included in a Civ game, including a couple that I think would make interesting new "bad guy" civs so Monte doesn't always have to be the villain every time. I've marked these with a *

Americas-
America
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
Olmecs

Europe-
Greece
Rome
England
France
Germany
Russia
Scandinavia
Spain
Byzantium

Asia-
China
India
Japan
Mongolia
Korea
Khmers
Xiongnu/Huns*
Polynesia

Middle East-
Arabia
Persia
Egypt
Sumeria
Assyria*
Turks
Babylonia

Africa-
Mali
Ethiopia
Nubia
-Shona
-Yoruba

Realistically, one of those last two will be replaced by Zulu, which is just too popular and well-known.

I'd LOVE to see Assyria in a Civ game. They were a military powerhouse in the middle east for a thousand years in the Bronze Age, and they conquered a vast empire spanning the entire fertile crescent from the Persian plateau all the way to the Nile. Their achievements aren't touted much in History classes, due to how universally hated they were by their contemporaries, who disparaged them in the ancient textual sources. When their capital Nineveh fell in 612 BC, to an allied force of Medes, Scythians, Babylonians and Susianians, much of the world rejoiced, and many of their cities, temples, histories and records were destroyed. So thorough was the destruction of their memory that two centuries later, Xenophon came upon the ruins of Nineveh and the local farmers who lived there told him they thought it was a Medean city. They were cruel rulers, but mighty people, who some historians claim "broke the middle east to the yoke of empire", and would make a great "villain" to play against.

The Xiongnu and the Huns were probably the same people. Atilla was the "most barbaric man alive" according to the Romans. Gotta love that. The Chinese hated them and built the Great Wall to defend against their constant raiding, and the Romans had constant strife in their northeastern territories because they couldn't build their own GW once China did LOL. These would be another great new enemy to play against if the AI just sent in lots of horsemen to harrass and raid.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well I happen to be from a place which never had a great impact as an empire but this game is also a tool for what if contemplations...
I do enjoy making the Czechs power and always play as them. What I think could help this game would be perhaps little different way of selecting your civilization:
Say u get to the opening menu and u choose your culture (african, asian, eruopean,...) group, than u get option for unique quality (let say one, the other(s) u could acquire during a gameplay(say I conquer other civilisation so I can adopt its quality or special building or unit or via resaerching first some technology, diplomacy etc.)) That would add to a more dynamic and diverse experience.
Also whatching the same leaders with certain qualities over 6 milleniums repressenting an empire is cute and has become part of the series but is not that accurate...
So what I am saying is instaed of discusing if to have Romans or Italiens would be better to have game experience of starting as some latin europian tribe making it into (Roman) empire and ending as Italien if u wish. But that would of course require to make the game more complex...
So I am asking: Are the game designers going to have the balls to take some more steps to rediscover little more about what civilisation really means and give as profounder experience of it? After all civilisation which stops make progress is only a prey to the barbarians...

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I like the idea of the Xiongnu. Thought they abandoned the Huns theory though.

 

[dragonprobably]

Israel and Brazil Must go In!!!

 

[Dumanios]

I agree with the Idea of Israel being in Civ5.

 

[civver_764]

What has Israel done that's so important? It was just controlled by larger empires its entire life, and the modern state is just another country.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well, it founded religions that either are followed by or influenced 3.8 billion people.

 

[civver_764]

Well, it founded religions that either are followed by or influenced 3.8 billion people.

"It" didn't found anything, it was just prophets that happened to be living in that area.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

True. Well I agree that there should be more room for Asian, American, and African civs and fewer for the European/Middle East section.

 

[Camikaze]

Definitely no Israel, IMO. As civver_764 said, Israel did not found a religion. People in roughly the same geographic position that Israel formerly and would later occupy did.