Which New Civs should be in CIV V

[Gangor]

Perhaps civs could change their names when a certain condition is met (certain number of cities controlled, Forbidden Palace built, date?), for instance:

Prussia --> Germany
Rome --> Italy
England --> Great Britain
Celtia --> France
Castile --> Spain
Persia --> Iran
Carthaginians --> Moors

etc.

Perhaps it could be a unique condition for each civ, resulting in some sort of bonus?

 

[Camikaze]

The problem with that is that it isn't entirely accurate. Some more so than others. Many are just of the same geographical location. Like Rome and Italy, for example. The Roman Empire stretched all across Europe, but Italy never did. Sure, their centres of power are the same, but they were never linked in any other way.

 

[ViterboKnight]

Israel (David, Salomon)
Kingdom of Italy (VIttorio Emanuele II, Mussolini)
Austro-Hungarian empire (Franz Joseph)
Papal states (Gregory the Great, Julius II)
Republic of Venice (Enrico Dandolo)

 

[Trias]

The problem with that is that it isn't entirely accurate. Some more so than others. Many are just of the same geographical location. Like Rome and Italy, for example. The Roman Empire stretched all across Europe, but Italy never did. Sure, their centres of power are the same, but they were never linked in any other way.

They surely are linked ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. So there is a good case for saying they are the same civ. Borders change constantly, but it is a fact that the Italians identify themselves with the Romans.

IMHO civs should not be defined by their geographical location, but by their cultural identity. That is for example one (of the many) problem with the HRE as a civ. There never was a cultural unit that identified itself as the HRE for most of history it was merely a political construct.

If you want a civ with Charlemagne as the leader, then you should include the Franks. (IMO they should definitely be considered as a civ in a future (maybe not vanilla) release.)

I'd also love an appearance of the Huns (lead by Attila), which can be or not be identified with the Xiongnu.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Civ III had 31 civs. Civ IV had 34. I think Civ V will have 37. The Civ IV civ list was on the whole very nice, so I'll put it here:

America
Arabia
Aztecs
Babylon
Byzantium
Carthage
Celts
China
Dutch
Egypt
England
Ethiopia
France
Germany
Greece
HRE Poland-Lithuania (Replace HRE with Poland-Lithuania)
Inca
India
Japan
Khmers
Korea
Mali
Maya
Mongolia
Native Americans Iroquois (Replace the Native Americans with the Iroquois)
Ottomans
Persia
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sumer
Vikings
Zulu

There was one civ that did not make it to Civ IV: The Hittites. Therefore, if we add them in, it brings us to 35 civs. Okay, there are two civs left. I think one of them should be Polynesia. Its accomplishments are too large to remain ignored by civ. Okay, next, I'll put them into 5 categories:

Americas:
America
Aztecs
Incas
Maya
Iroquois

Africa:
Ethiopia
Mali
Zulu

Asia/Pacific:
China
India
Japan
Khmers
Korea
Mongolia
Polynesia

Europe:
Byzantium
Celts
Dutch
England
France
Germany
Greece
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Vikings

Middle East:
Arabia
Babylon
Carthage
Egypt
Hittites
Ottomans
Persia
Sumer

We see that Africa has the least civs, a measly three. Therefore, the next civ should come from Africa. We have representation of east, south, north, and west Africa, but none from the center, so I would choose Kongo.

Therefore, the list is

Americas:
America
Aztecs
Incas
Maya
Iroquois

Africa:
Ethiopia
Kongo
Mali
Zulu

Asia/Pacific:
China
India
Japan
Khmers
Korea
Mongolia
Polynesia

Europe:
Byzantium
Celts
Dutch
England
France
Germany
Greece
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Vikings

Middle East:
Arabia
Babylon
Carthage
Egypt
Hittites
Ottomans
Persia
Sumer

 

[Yared]

Middle East:
Arabia
Babylon
Carthage
Egypt
Hittites
Ottomans
Persia
Sumer

You should've written "Sub-Saharan Africa" instead of just Africa, if you were gonna include those two in the Middle East part.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Perhaps civs could change their names when a certain condition is met (certain number of cities controlled, Forbidden Palace built, date?), for instance:

Prussia --> Germany
Rome --> Italy
England --> Great Britain
Celtia --> France
Castile --> Spain
Persia --> Iran
Carthaginians --> Moors

etc.

Perhaps it could be a unique condition for each civ, resulting in some sort of bonus?

Yeah, I like that very much together with that bonus thing. But I am afraid it sort of too good to be included anywhere. Instead we will have super realistic leaderheads trying to slap us through the screen or dancing national dance or something...

 

[Dumanios]

I believe the civs should be

the Americas:

USA:George Washington,Abe Lincoln and FDR
Iroquois:Hiawatha and Deganawida
Sioux:Sitting Bull and Sacajawea
Aztec Empire:Moctezuma I and Itzcoatl
Mayan Civilizationacal the Great and Smoke-Jaguar
Incan Empire:Huayna Capac and Atahuallpa

Africa:

Zululand:Shaka Zulu and Cetshwayo
Boer Republic: Paul Kruger and Louis Botha
Kongo:Lukeni lua Nimi and Kimpa Vita
Mali:Kankan Musa and Mansa Musa
Ethiopia:Zara Yaqob and Haile Selassie
Carthage: Dido and Hannibal Barca
Egypt:Ramasses I,Hatsheput and Nasser

Middle East:

Arabia:Abu Bakr and Saladin
Israel: David and Solomon
Ottoman Empire:Osman,Mehmed II and Suleiman the Magnificent
Babylon:Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar
Persia:Cyrus,Xerxes and Darius

Asia/Oceania:

India:Asoka and Chandragupta
Khmer:Suyravarman II and Jayavarman II
Polynesia:Kamehameha and Liliuokalani
Australia:John Curtin and Menzes
China:Qin Shihuangti,Tang Taizong and Mao Zedong
Mongolia:Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan
Korea:Wang Kon and Gwanggeato
Japan:Tokugawa Ieyasu,Oda Nobunaga and Hirohito Showa

Europe:

Russia:Ivan the Terrible,Peter,Catherine the Great and Joseph Stalin
Scandinavia:Svein Forkbeard,Gustav II and Rysti Ryti
Poland-Lithuania:Casimir II and Moscicki
Austria:Charles the Bald and Franz Joseph
Greeceericles,Cleomenes and Alexander the Great
Rome:Julius Caesar,Caesar Augustus and Justinian I
Spain:Isabella,Ferdinand and Fransisco Franco
Portugal:Joao II and Henry
France:Louis 14th,Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle
Germany:Frederick,Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler
Holland:Willem van Oranje and Wilhelmina
Celtia:Brennus,Vercingetorix and Boadicea
UK:Arthur,Elizabeth and Victoria

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I am just thinkig that what is it that there mast be USA (and everybody else) starting in 4000 b.c.? And the answer is: It's where the game is made, stupid!
Any thoughts on that?

Edit: I understand it's the necesity to have such simplifications unless ofcourse the game would be made more complex...

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Solution: Play RFC

EDIT: @Dumanios: Kankan Musa IS Mansa Musa.

Here is my proposal for leaders:

Americas:
America- Washington, Lincoln, FDR
Aztecs- Motecuhzoma I, Ahuizotl, Nezahualcoyotl
Incas- Pachacuti, Huayna Capac, Topa Inca
Maya- Yikin Chan Kawil, Kan Balam, Pacal II
Iroquois- Hiawatha, Deganawida, Joseph Brant

Africa:
Ethiopia- Ezana, Menelik II, Lalibela
Kongo- Afonso I, Lukeni lua Nimi, Joao I
Mali- Kankan Musa, Sundiata Keita, Modibo Keita
Zulu- Shaka, Cetshwayo, Mpande

Asia/Pacific:
China- Qin Shi Huangdi, Tang Taizong, Mao Zedong
India- Asoka, Akbar, Gandhi
Japan- Tokugawa Ieyasu, Meiji, Prince Shotoku (or Jingu)
Khmers- Suryavarman II, Jayavarman VII, Yasovarman
Korea- Wang Geon, Sejong, Yi Song-gye
Mongolia- Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamerlane
Polynesia- Te Wherowhero, Kamehameha, Salaminasa

Europe:
Byzantium- Justinian, Theodora, Basil
Celts- Brennus, Boudicca, Robert the Bruce
Dutch- Willem van Oranje, Maurits of Nassau, Jan Pieterszoon Coen
England- Elizabeth, Victoria, Churchill
France- Napoleon, Louis XIV, Charles de Gaulle
Germany- Bismarck, Frederick, Adenauer
Greece- Alexander, Pericles, Lycurgus
Poland-Lithuania- Casimir, Jan III Sobieski, Jogaila
Portugal- Henry the Navigator, Joao, Afonso
Rome- Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Hadrian
Russia- Peter, Catherine, Stalin
Spain- Isabella, Charles V (I), Philip II
Vikings- Ragnar Lodbruk, Gustav II Adolphus, Margaret I

Middle East:
Arabia- Saladin, Abu Bakr, Harun al-Rashid
Babylon- Hammurabi, Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar
Carthage- Dido, Hannibal Barca, Hanno
Egypt- Ramses II, Hatshepsut, Thutmoses III
Hittites- Mursili II, Suppiluliuma, Anitta
Ottomans- Mehmed II, Suleiman, Osman
Persia- Xerxes, Cyrus, Darius
Sumer- Gilgamesh, Urukagina, Ur-Nammu

 

[Camikaze]

Japan- Tokugawa Ieyasu, Meiji, Prince Shotoku

Meiji wouldn't really be right. Yeah, there should be a leader in there for the Meiji Restoration, but it's kinda like having George VI instead of Churchill. Ito Hirobumi would be a much better choice, IMO.

Germany- Bismarck, Frederick, Adenauer

Obligatory demand for Hitler (not that it will happen). But even Hindenburg would make much more sense than Adenauer, IMO, given the vast importance that he had for German history 1914-1934.

Egypt- Ramses II, Hatshepsut, Thutmoses III

I'd like to see, say, Khufu, in there for the Egyptians. It makes sense.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Hitler would never happen. Hindenburg, maybe.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I like to think that one day all the people of Australia will understand they are living on an ancient land that is still inhabited by the remnants of an ancient civilization. Maybe one day the descendants of the newest arrivals to Australia will seek to be identified more by the indigenous culture of this land and less by that of an old, former colonial power. Then, and only then, will Sid look at his big, expensive atlas and say to himself: "You know, people in that big southern continent sure do like buying my games"

 

[Camikaze]

So you think there should be an Indigenous Australians civ? That would be as disingenuous as the Native American civ. Should we have the Koori? The Yolngu? The Pitjantjatjara? My point being that it would be fallacious to group the Aborigines into one civilization. And furthermore, it seems ridiculous to have them included in the game. Historical impact is next to nil, so reasons would be purely geographical. In which case it would be more fitting to have anglicised Australia as a civ, given it's had at least some historical impact, albeit minimal.

And that optimistic goal of association with the Indigenous peoples of Australia is unattainable, due to political, social and economic constructs and situations.

 

[civplayah]

I believe the civs should be

the Americas:

USA:George Washington,Abe Lincoln and FDR
Iroquois:Hiawatha and Deganawida
Sioux:Sitting Bull and Sacajawea
Aztec Empire:Moctezuma I and Itzcoatl
Mayan Civilizationacal the Great and Smoke-Jaguar
Incan Empire:Huayna Capac and Atahuallpa

Sacajawea CANNOT be initiated as a leader. That would be like putting Henry Ford as an American leader. She was not leader of her village, she just guided Louis and Clark.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

So you think there should be an Indigenous Australians civ? That would be as disingenuous as the Native American civ. Should we have the Koori? The Yolngu? The Pitjantjatjara? My point being that it would be fallacious to group the Aborigines into one civilization. And furthermore, it seems ridiculous to have them included in the game. Historical impact is next to nil, so reasons would be purely geographical. In which case it would be more fitting to have anglicised Australia as a civ, given it's had at least some historical impact, albeit minimal.

And that optimistic goal of association with the Indigenous peoples of Australia is unattainable, due to political, social and economic constructs and situations.

No. The Australians were not a civilization. They were a bunch of hunter-gatherers.

 

[Silv Something]

Sacajawea CANNOT be initiated as a leader. That would be like putting Henry Ford as an American leader. She was not leader of her village, she just guided Louis and Clark.

No. The Australians were not a civilization. They were a bunch of hunter-gatherers.

The Native Americans were a bunch of hunter-gatherers. In fact, in Civ IV, at the start your civ is only gatherers unless you start with agri or hunting.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The Native Americans were, by and large, not hunter-gatherers.

 

[Camikaze]

No. The Australians were not a civilization. They were a bunch of hunter-gatherers.

That's kinda my point. Although the nomadic nature of many tribes and their propensity to, well, hunt and gather, disguises the organised nature of their societies. And the idea of terra nullius has been well rejected by now, which would indicate that a 'civilization' existed, just not in the conventional sense.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

And if there was a Native Australian civ, it would be the Koori, who had fishing canals and were the closest to being farmers (they raised and gathered wild yams)