Ideologically Free Poll for One's Most Desired New Civ

[Hawk]

Ok, shrinking the list now. I think Champa can be removed, because it's not well known, while Vietnam and Khmer are both very popular, and represent the region. Similar reasoning for Kievan Rus', and it represents an area that Russia and Poland together both represent already - and Poland is a great deal more likely to be included...And who doesn't know about Poland? Also removed Scythia, Elam, Morocco and Benin (unless we have any objections), who are all out of the spotlight, whether because they are not as interesting as other civs, or not well known. That narrows the list down to 20, so maybe about ten more need to be removed...What does everyone think?

Assyria
Sumer
Phoenicia
Israel
Timurids
Hittites
Austria-Hungary
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Venice
Sweden
Ethiopia
Nubia
Zimbabwe
Majapahit
Vietnam
Khmer
Tibet
Chola
Brazil

[Israelite76]

My only minor criticism is that I still think that Venice should be a CS and is perfect how it is.

[Hawk]

I agree that Venice should be a City-State, but I thought I'd put it up there for discussion nonetheless. I want this list to be as unanimous as we can get it - within reason of course.

[SlickSlicer]

Champa would never be in a Civilization game, but they are quite an interesting kingdom in history. Nonetheless, they are pointless to suggest, as you stated.

[tfordp]

My game at the moment is playing as the Hittites in the Wonders Scenario. Everything is there except for the leader graphic (they are using the Ottoman one). Just sayin'...

[Gedemo]

On your list, I would add:
Tupi or Kuhikugu or Marajoara (amazonian spot)
Inuits or Nenets
Papuan or Aborigene
Mapuche

[AceCombatrix]

You should check the poll, Sioux and Kongo are already in

[istry555]

My game at the moment is playing as the Hittites in the Wonders Scenario. Everything is there except for the leader graphic (they are using the Ottoman one). Just sayin'...

And a UA; the scenario just re-purposed Russia's. Also the leader's XML preferences aren't exactly unique. Without any real unique assets (they should have made the static leaders like they did for the English scenario), or XML, the scenario gives the impression that the civ is a lot more complete than it really is. It's basically just a UU and an icon at the moment (as I would also argue the UB was another lazy addition).

[zephyrtr]

If we gotta dump ten from your list, this is what I'd do:

Sumeria and Hittites were in the WOTAW scenario; I don't think either are making it as standard civs, at least not for the expansion. Carthage is in, which means Phoenicia is very unlikely. I'd also drop Venice (fine as a city-state), Sweden (not another European), Nubia (not popular enough), Tibet (Lhasa needed as religious city-state), Chola (not popular enough), Vietnam (Siam covers this area) and Khmer (Siam was its replacement).

[steveg700]

My only minor criticism is that I still think that Venice should be a CS and is perfect how it is.

Venice is a city-state. Italy is a civ, and I could think of multiple UA's, and UU's for it.

Of course, the capital of Italy is Rome. Kind of a problem, similar to the one we would haave with Assyria.

On the whole, I think Zeph's exclusions sound well-reasoned.

[Hawk]

On your list, I would add:
Tupi or Kuhikugu or Marajoara (amazonian spot)
Inuits or Nenets
Papuan or Aborigene
Mapuche

Gedemo, the Inuit, Mapuche and Papuan are all top ideas in my opinion, but as you can see, I haven't added the Zulu or the Sioux to the list - also favourites of mine, and I support them all the way - but I'm trying to form an unbiased list of most important and worthy civs, and adding just one of these I feel opens the doors to a lot more, which will both extend the size of the list immensely, and add lots of civs that had very little effect on history, and had little technological development. I'm actually thinking of removing Zimbabwe, which are a head about the Zulu, but I really want that region represented...Maybe that is bias, so I guess I should remove them too then.

[Hawk]

If we gotta dump ten from your list, this is what I'd do:

Sumeria and Hittites were in the WOTAW scenario; I don't think either are making it as standard civs, at least not for the expansion. Carthage is in, which means Phoenicia is very unlikely. I'd also drop Venice (fine as a city-state), Sweden (not another European), Nubia (not popular enough), Tibet (Lhasa needed as religious city-state), Chola (not popular enough), Vietnam (Siam covers this area) and Khmer (Siam was its replacement).

I mostly agree with this, except for dropping Nubia, which is actually fairly well known - at least in comparison to a lot of other African civs. I'd like to give them a bit more of a chance still. Also I think we should also keep Vietnam on the list, which is very well known. I'll take off Khmer though, which will help narrow it down a little.

List now looks like this:

Assyria
Israel
Timurids
Austria-Hungary
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Ethiopia
Nubia
Zimbabwe
Majapahit
Vietnam
Brazil


That's 12 left, so we basically just need to remove two more. Does anyone else think I should remove Zimbabwe - and I really don't want to, but I realized that this is personal bias.

[istry555]

That's 12 left, so we basically just need to remove two more. Does anyone else think I should remove Zimbabwe - and I really don't want to, but I realized that this is personal bias.

Personally, I feel if they are going to eventually add the Zulu (which is inevitable regardless of how "worthy" they might be) they won't add Great Zimbabwe. Let's face it, they are only going to add so many Sub-Saharan civs and I feel rather than adding two representatives of South Africa, they'd go one South (Zulu) and one Western/Central Africa (Benin, or more likely, Kongo). I'm also going to add to the vote for removing Nubia/Kush. Not because it's not known, but geographically it's a bit redundant with both Egypt and Ethiopia (which is also a very likely addition).

[tfordp]

And a UA; the scenario just re-purposed Russia's. Also the leader's XML preferences aren't exactly unique. Without any real unique assets (they should have made the static leaders like they did for the English scenario), or XML, the scenario gives the impression that the civ is a lot more complete than it really is. It's basically just a UU and an icon at the moment (as I would also argue the UB was another lazy addition).

Fair enough, I've had another look and you're right. I hadn't got very far into it to check out all the details. Just felt like playing a civ with a different name. Oh well *shrugs*.

[Hawk]

Personally, I feel if they are going to eventually add the Zulu (which is inevitable regardless of how "worthy" they might be) they won't add Great Zimbabwe. Let's face it, they are only going to add so many Sub-Saharan civs and I feel rather than adding two representatives of South Africa, they'd go one South (Zulu) and one Western/Central Africa (Benin, or more likely, Kongo). I'm also going to add to the vote for removing Nubia/Kush. Not because it's not known, but geographically it's a bit redundant with both Egypt and Ethiopia (which is also a very likely addition).

This is not so much about geographical location, or regional representation as previous lists, so that alone doesn't merit the exclusion of Nubia. In some ways they are like the Egyptians - although it's more a case of copy catting - which would raise the issue of cultural uniqueness, because we definitely should consider how much alike certain civs are from each other, or it would become redundant.

I really think that the Zulu are already in it - as in one of the four civs that have not yet been revealed to us from that expansion pack. I'm completely fine with this, and in fact I really like the idea, and will probably play them a bit, but they would still be excluded from our latest list. Whatever the case, do you think that Great Zimbabwe should remain on the list?

[istry555]

Well a pre-order page (http://www.webhallen.com/spel/pc/149...gods_and_kings) confirms Marrakech and Jerusalem as city-states so that takes care of Morocco and Israel's chances. Of course, not everyone trusts these pre-order pages, but I think almost everyone was expecting that outcome for Israel/Jerusalem.

[Hawk]

Well a pre-order page (http://www.webhallen.com/spel/pc/149...gods_and_kings) confirms Marrakech and Jerusalem as city-states so that takes care of Morocco and Israel's chances. Of course, not everyone trusts these pre-order pages, but I think almost everyone was expecting that outcome for Israel/Jerusalem.

And the Papal States (Vatican city is one of the new City-States), I guess it does seem doubtful...but I still wouldn't completely rule them out just yet. There are a lot of people wanting these civs (especially Israel), and so I could see them changing things in the future. Maybe the fans will just have to wait longer.

[zephyrtr]

The page looks mostly like they just copy-pasted a press release so... I wouldn't discount it. But yeah, at least for now, bye morocco and israel.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

Since there are only four spots left, and since Israel has already been confirmed as omitted, the civilizations I'm most hoping get included, in alphabetical order, are...

Akkadian Empire – Sargon of Akkad

Assyrian Empire – Sennacherib

Holy Roman Empire – Charlemagne

Sioux Empire - Sitting Bull

Even a fan favorite such as the Zulu I don't see as being historically more significant or interesting than any of the above. Perhaps if the civilization were called Sub-Saharan Africa (similar to the Amerindians all being grouped together in Civilization IV) I'd be a bit more amiable to its inclusion.

[Israelite76]

Not loving Israel to be omitted from the expansion but am loving the speculation. 2K know how to tease their community... seeing as we won't get this until at least mid to late April how will they string this out until then. The forum felt moribund until the shock announcement.

[brxbrx]

The forum felt moribund until the shock announcement.

You know, it really was kinda dead.

[Hawk]

Not loving Israel to be omitted from the expansion but am loving the speculation. 2K know how to tease their community... seeing as we won't get this until at least mid to late April how will they string this out until then. The forum felt moribund until the shock announcement.

I'm hoping they'll drop tidbits until then - this would work in their favour at any rate, because it'll keep us all talking for longer, and it'll be more exciting...I'm actually kinda glad now that we don't know all the details, because it's gathered a lot of excitement in the forum, and we are all wondering who are the Final Four (It's like we're all watching Battlestar Galactica together!).

[Hawk]

Since there are only four spots left, and since Israel has already been confirmed as omitted, the civilizations I'm most hoping get included, in alphabetical order, are...

Akkadian Empire – Sargon of Akkad

Assyrian Empire – Sennacherib

Holy Roman Empire – Charlemagne

Sioux Empire - Sitting Bull

Even a fan favorite such as the Zulu I don't see as being historically more significant or interesting than any of the above. Perhaps if the civilization were called Sub-Saharan Africa (similar to the Amerindians all being grouped together in Civilization IV) I'd be a bit more amiable to its inclusion.

Interesting list! I'm very happy to see the Sioux there, by the way.

I have to ask you though, why both Akkad and Assyria? Sure they are different civs officially, but Assyria developed from Akkad. I'd just go Assyria, and use the other choice for a bit more variety, such as Ethiopia or the Majapahit (your choice though, they are just examples), because even though Akkad are worthy, they are too similar to the Assyrians, and the Assyrians ended up more important historically, such as inventing the siege tower...Also having the largest standing army on the planet at the time was very helpful!

You also chose the Holy Roman Empire, and nothing against them, and I see their historical significance, but we already have Germany, and there is a fair chance for Austria-Hungary to be included. Basically this is another case of too similar, and already having some representation. Not a bad choice, but again I'd focus on variety.

You can keep the list exactly the way it is, but if you were to replace those two with another two, which two would they be?

[Czarek3336]

Hello I wan't to tell somethings about Poland.


1. Polish Hetman (something like general) Stanisław Żółkiewski defeated the Russiansn and took Moscow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Troubles
2. Battle of the Grunwald was one of the biggest battle in medieval world. In this battle Poland and Lithuania defeated Teutonic Knights. It was great battle and victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
3. Battle of Vienna as you know in this battle Holy Roman Empire and poland defeated Ottoman Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
4. Battle of Warsaw called Vistula Miracle. Historians say that this battle is one of 20 the most inportant battle in world history. Poland defeated Red Army. In fact not much lacking to break down Red Army. Poland was independent then just two years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)
5. Polish armed forces called Husaria (hussars) - 200 years without a losse. One time they won even with the 10x advantage the enemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
6. The overthrow of communism. When inGermany in Berlin dismantled the Berlin Wall Poland was free country without communism.
7.Prussian Homage - The Prussian Homage or Tribute (German: Preußische Huldigung; Polish: hołd pruski) was the formal investment of Albert of Prussia as duke of the Polish fief of Ducal Prussia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Homage
8. Warsaw Uprising - was the second the biggest city battle in world war II ( the biggest was Battle of Stalingrad)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising
9. Constitution of May 3, 1791 - was second Constitution in world and first in Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...of_May_3,_1791
10. Battle of Britain No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron. It was the highest scoring RAF squadron of the Battle of Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303...ghter_Squadron

Famous Polish people

1. Tadeusz Kośćiuszko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko
2.Lech Wałęsa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa
3. Nicolaus Copernicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
4. Pope John Paul II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II
5.Casimir Pulaski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski
6.Józef Piłsudski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski
7.Marie Curie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
8.Frédéric Chopin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin
9.John III Sobieski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Sobieski
10.Jogaila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jogaila

Animated History of Poland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DrXgj1NwN8

I could give many more examples of the great achievements of Poland and Polish people if you want it

[inquisitiveowl]

If we had France, Germany and the HRE in Civ4, I can't see why we can't have all 3 again in Civ5...

[Black Gate of Mordor]

If we had France, Germany and the HRE in Civ4, I can't see why we can't have all 3 again in Civ5...

Because so far we're not at the point where the HRE makes sense, not to mention the community seems to want some lesser-known and never-before-seen civs in the game too. I think the Majapahit are more important than the HRE in this sense.

[PachaMinnie]

I know that this is more of a Greek civilization but what about the Seleucid empire? They where like the Greeks but most of their army was a mix of Macedonian pikemen Cataphracts and chariots, plus some elephants. They fought Egypt and beat them in a few wars. I was thinking maybe UA: Shared Armies : When you take over a civilizations capital you get to build the Civs UU as long as you've built a courthouse.
UU: Cataphract : Heavily armed cavalry with a strength bonus however they are much slower than regular horsemen and much more expensive.
UB: Forum [ or something like that ] : A courthouse that grants bonuses to culture and +15 xp for each unit made there.
Leader: Seleucus 1 Nicator : He established the Seleucid empire and was a great military leader.
Capital Anitoch, 2nd city Seleucia.

[willbill]

Brazil is the only contry in the G8 nations not represented in Civ V. Its kinda of big deal guys.

[brxbrx]

Brazil is the only contry in the G8 nations not represented in Civ V. Its kinda of big deal guys.

It's just that in the scope of things, people feel that Portugal should be included as well. Civilization isn't just about today, but about yesterday as well. And yesterday, Portugal discovered the land that would be Brazil, and settled it. People feel that that's important.
I imagine they would feel similar should the US be included but not England.

[Karule]

Brazil is the only contry in the G8 nations not represented in Civ V. Its kinda of big deal guys.

Guy... Brazil is not civilization. Brazil was only colony to XIV and very poor country with low population to XXI century. Brazil is not important for world history and hadn't important for science. I'm sorry - it's true. Now Brazil is top10 strogest countries in the world and it has nice girls, but is not for this game...

There is more important civs for expansion like Israel, Poland...

[PachaMinnie]

Guy... Brazil is not civilization. Brazil was only colony to XIV and very poor country with low population to XXI century. Brazil is not important for world history and hadn't important for science. I'm sorry - it's true. Now Brazil is top10 strogest countries in the world and it has nice girls, but is not for this game...

There is more important civs for expansion like Israel, Poland...

I agree there's more important nations out there. Brazil is okay but shouldn't be added until all the more important civilizations have been added. Civilization is kinda like a hall of fame for nations, and Brazil hasn't earned that ticket.

[stethnorun]

I agree there's more important nations out there. Brazil is okay but shouldn't be added until all the more important civilizations have been added. Civilization is kinda like a hall of fame for nations, and Brazil hasn't earned that ticket.

Actually, I disagree with this sentiment entirely. Civ is a game. It's a great game, but it's still just a game. Countries should be included only if they add something unique and special to the fun of the game. Historical importance is one major cirteria, but so is flavor, uniqueness, balance, etc. These things always turn into peeing matches between people in different countries because they think "We want recognition and legitimacy!".......in a PC game. Remember people, it's about fun and variety, not winning the "My country is in Civ!" medal. Leave your inferiority complexes at the door.

[Nefliqus]

http://www.reformation.org/sobieski-...m-muslims.html

[PachaMinnie]

Actually, I disagree with this sentiment entirely. Civ is a game. It's a great game, but it's still just a game. Countries should be included only if they add something unique and special to the fun of the game. Historical importance is one major cirteria, but so is flavor, uniqueness, balance, etc. These things always turn into peeing matches between people in different countries because they think "We want recognition and legitimacy!".......in a PC game. Remember people, it's about fun and variety, not winning the "My country is in Civ!" medal. Leave your inferiority complexes at the door.

No I'm not saying Brazil is inferior or anything. I'm just saying there are other civilizations you could put ahead of them. The Polish, Various native American tribes, Ethiopia, the Zulu, Israel [They shouldn't be in the game but they should be put before Brazil] Holy Rome, Assyrian, Austrio-Hungary, Tibet, Thrace, Dacia the list goes on and on. Those should be put before Brazil. They've done way more than Brazil, I don't want to see some slightly exaggerated abilities and units put in there for Brazil. I want to see Civilizations that not only deserve it but seem a better fit. Sure playing as Brazil would be fun and all but it just wouldn't be right. Brazil has mostly just been an isolated state for most of it's existance. I just think Poland & others would be slightly more fun than Brazil.

[Homero]

and very poor country with low population to XXI century

What?

---

I imagine they would feel similar should the US be included but not England.

Indeed...

[Kukulcán]

Don't take this in order, despite the fact that Assyria leads the list, but here's a list of most of the important/worthy civs not yet in the game. Who am I missing?

Assyria
Sumer
Harappan
Phoenicia
Israel
Hittites
HRE
Austria-Hungary
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Sweden
Morocco
Ethiopia
Nubia
Nok
Zimbabwe
Majapahit
Vietnam
Khmer
Tibet
Chola
Olmec
Mexico
Brazil
Canada


Aside from the Zulu (and maybe we'll see the Inuit and Kongo in a DLC at some point ), I'd be surprised if any of the remaining four are not on this list.

Khazars, Chachapoya (Arguably the most important civ in the Pre-Colombian world still not represented), Kongo, Pueblo, are all not on your list.

[brxbrx]

This is a problem with the way the game is made. There is really no such thing as a "civilization," or at least there aren't any objective criteria for including even the cut.
Does a civilization have to be large in order to be included? Most in the game are, I believe. But then why have policy trees devoted to small empires? And if a civilization must be large, then must it have been unified? And what should it be called? Really, England is a small nation. Great Britain, on the other hand, is a large nation. The United Kingdoms are bigger than England, but much smaller than the British Empire.
Polynesia is a word for an entire people that had a number of kingdoms and empires across the Pacific, but they were never united as Polynesia.
Does the American civ represent Canada as well as the United States?

I think the issue is that they're trying to personalize each civ with its leader, when instead leaders (and maybe even civilizations) ought to be vague, to preserve realism and to avoid all that nationalist, Imperialist, Post-Colonialist (that one would be me and a few others) BS. And it would be fun getting to shape your own culture and personality, without any crude tags on you.

[PachaMinnie]

I think Israel shouldn't be a Civilization just yet. They where founded in 1948 and that's just a little bit to early for me. I think that while Israel might deserve it they are just to young. Unless you where to add the older Hebrews into the mix but.... That'd be confusing. The Jews have always fought well for their homeland and fought hard but I just don't think Israel should be in Civ because they're just to young to be thrust into the game. One issue I find with Civilization is you can't put the fun civilizations in there and leave out historic ones. Sure you could put in Canada or Brazil and that would be fun but it wouldn't feel right. It would be nice to have fun civs but they wouldn't fit well. Lets say they put in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro, would it feel right if you won a domination victory with Cuba? They should really just let us mix and match civilizations and make our own. AKA.. You can switch Arabia's UA with America's and give the Panzer to America and put in Wu Zetian as the American leader. And let us create our own civilization, pick our colors, choose a UA out of 50 of them and make a UU and give it a ability again provided to you or a UB. Less Nationalism BS wanting your country to be in Civilization, instead make your own country.

[brxbrx]

I think Israel shouldn't be a Civilization just yet. They where founded in 1948 and that's just a little bit to early for me. I think that while Israel might deserve it they are just to young. Unless you where to add the older Hebrews into the mix but.... That'd be confusing. The Jews have always fought well for their homeland and fought hard but I just don't think Israel should be in Civ because they're just to young to be thrust into the game. One issue I find with Civilization is you can't put the fun civilizations in there and leave out historic ones. Sure you could put in Canada or Brazil and that would be fun but it wouldn't feel right. It would be nice to have fun civs but they wouldn't fit well. Lets say they put in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro, would it feel right if you won a domination victory with Cuba? They should really just let us mix and match civilizations and make our own. AKA.. You can switch Arabia's UA with America's and give the Panzer to America and put in Wu Zetian as the American leader. And let us create our own civilization, pick our colors, choose a UA out of 50 of them and make a UU and give it a ability again provided to you or a UB. Less Nationalism BS wanting your country to be in Civilization, instead make your own country.

Well, France as we know it was technically founded in the sixties. The UK is pretty recent as well. And the Germany as a single state has only been around for 150 years or so, I believe. Israel has been around (I hate to say this, being more of a Norman Finkelstein sort of person) since time immemorial.

[Floating Pants]

Well, France as we know it was technically founded in the sixties. The UK is pretty recent as well. And the Germany as a single state has only been around for 150 years or so, I believe. Israel has been around (I hate to say this, being more of a Norman Finkelstein sort of person) since time immemorial.

Is that so...? I believe I have a friend named Abraham that has some explaining to do to you...

But yes, Israel being one of the oldest and most historically rich civilizations that the world has ever seen does certainly qualify it to be at the top of the list, for it's far older than this other guy's misconception of it being begun 1948.