Looking Back: Comparative Civ

[Alexander I]

With the advent of Civ4: Warlords Expansion, I thought about where civ has been, and thought I'd do a small study to see how civ has evolved, and where it may be headed. I thought I might be able to see which civs Firaxis might put in an expansion based on a the precedent of the prequels.

So, being a history student obsessed with Civilization, I made a comparison chart of all the civilizations in all the civ games, to see how often they made it in, the priority they were given, etc.

I discovered that only a small core of 11 civs have been in every vanilla version of a civ game. These 11 civs are:

Americans
Aztecs
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Romans
Russians

In other words, 5 modern civs likely to play the game, 3 ancient Mediterranean empires, 2 ancient/modern Asian civs, and the Aztecs.

I discovered that there have been 34 civs to ever grace the world of Civilization, though some (e.g. Austria) have barely made their presence known.

Anyway, I'll attach my little study so that you can take a look at how Civs 1, 2, 3, 3's expansions, 4 and a potential Warlords composition stack up to each other.

[Alexander I]

Based on my findings, I categorized the civs into basically 3 groups. These groups can be used not only to see which civs are most likely to be in an expansion, but also in any future Civ games.

Always (In all 4 Vanilla Versions)
Americans
Aztecs
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Romans
Russians

High Precedent (In any 3 of the 4)
Arabs*
Babylonians**
Carthaginians
Celts
Incans*
Japanese
Mongols**
Persians
Spanish
Vikings
Zulus**

Low Precedent (Usually in only 1)
Austrians***
Byzantines
Dutch
Hittites
Iroquois
Koreans
Malinese
Mayans
Ottoman Turks****
Portuguese
Sioux
Sumerians

The Always group have been in Civ since the start. With a few exceptions, the High Precedent group joined Civ in Civ2 and have found their way into the other sequels as well. The Low Precedent group are only in 1 civ game each, and are mostly to be found in Civ3 expansions, again with a few exceptions.

Notes:
* The Arabs and Incans were included in some Civ2 data, but did not make it into the final game. They do appear in Civ3 and Civ4.
** The Mongols have been in every Civ game, but their absence in Civ3 vanilla precludes them from being in the Always group. If the Babylonians and Zulus make it into Civ4: Warlords, they'll be in the same situation as the Mongols, which would be enough to separate these three into their own category.
*** The Austrians were (for some reason) made for Civ3 but not included as a playable civ, since the engine could only support 31 civs. Their UU, leaderhead, etc. was included with the game and could be modded in. They're present here as an honorable mention.
**** The Turks were originally intended to be in Civ1, but at the last minute they were replaced with the Germans. They didn't make it back to Civ until Civ3's expansion. I just found this out!

[LordShiva]

Austrians? When?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Austrians? When?

Did you read the note? They're included in the files of C3C, but weren't playable. They would've been Conquests' 8th civ. They could be modded in. Leaderhead: Charles V, UU: Hussar, Capital: Vienna.

[BigFree]

Nicely done research.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by BigFree
Nicely done research.

Thanks! Here's my conclusions on Warlords' civs, based both on precedent and merit:

Vikings - Very popular, and already announced.
Carthaginians - Already announced.
Celts - Already Announced.
Babylonians - Highly likely, both as the popular favorite and due to precedent.
Zulus - Less likely, as the Malinese took their "place" as the Sub-saharan African civ.
Austrians - Not a chance. Too similar to Germans, and never actually been a playable civ, plus there are many better options.
Byzantines - Not likely. They're a Roman/Greek clone, and there's too many Europeans already.
Dutch - Possible, but not likely when Europe is already full with two more on the way.
Hittites - Possible, but not before Babylon gets in.
Iroquois - Possible, if Firaxis wants to bring back a North American natives civ, but less likely for an expansion called "Warlords."
Koreans - Quite possible. There's a serious lack of East Asian civs.
Mayans - Very possible, as only 2 Mesoamerican civs are in the game.
Ottoman Turks - Quite possible, as the Near East is understaffed.
Portuguese - Not likely in this expansion, since two European civs are already in, and the Dutch are more popular.
Sioux - Very unlikely, since Iroquois already replaced them for Civ3.
Sumerians - Not before Babylon, unless you count how Firaxis was planning to put them in before. But Babylon is so much more popular.

Well, those are my conclusions on which civs are going into the expansion, based on precedent first, followed by each civ' individual merit.

My Top 6 for Warlords:
Vikings
Celts
Carthaginians
Babylonians
Mayans
Ottoman Turks

Honorable Mentions:
Koreans
Zulus

In short, I'm betting that the 6 civs in Warlords will be taken from this list of 8.

[Son of David]

I'm really surprised at how the Sumerians have been absent from so many iterations of Civ. Unless my history is very out of date, they were one of the 'children' of the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia. So that makes them one of the first 'civilizations' by our modern definition of the word.

I'm now definitely of the opinion that European 'civilizations' are over-represented in Sid Meier's Civilization.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Son of David
I'm really surprised at how the Sumerians have been absent from so many iterations of Civ. Unless my history is very out of date, they were one of the 'children' of the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia. So that makes them one of the first 'civilizations' by our modern definition of the word.

I'm now definitely of the opinion that European 'civilizations' are over-represented in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Heck, Mesopotamia as a whole has been underrepresented, especially in Civ4 (none at all!, unlesss you count Persia, but they're not Mesopotamian)! The Fertile Crescent was the Cradle of Civilization.

I think Sumer has been absent since their history is not well documented, at least compared to how well the Greeks and Romans talked about their own contemporaries.

Also, Sumer does not have the imperial successes of Akkad, Assyia, Babylon and Hatti to make it more visible. Nevertheless, they made it into Civ3 Conquests, albeit with a legendary leader who looked like Nebuchadnezzar rather than Gilgamesh, an imaginary UU, a contrived city list, etc.

If they're going to put Sumer in, they should do it right. But I still think Babylon belongs in first.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander01

Did you read the note?

Oh. No

[proviisori]

Great work Alexander01!
I think your predictions will be quite correct.

[monkspider]

Don't forget that the Sumerians were included in a lot of Civ 4's data, but didn't make the final game!

By the way, interesting post Alexander. Thanks for taking the time to post this.

[Older than Dirt]

How can you say that Europeans are over represented? How can Sid leave out the Sabeans and the Basques? Of course there is no need to include Prussia or Poland or Sweden. What did such countries or their inhabitants ever do that was really important?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Alexander01
My Top 6 for Warlords:
Vikings
Celts
Carthaginians
Babylonians
Mayans
Ottoman Turks

Honorable Mentions:
Koreans
Zulus

In short, I'm betting that the 6 civs in Warlords will be taken from this list of 8.

IMO, you're right that the Babylonians and Ottomans/Turks are quite likely to be in Warlords (Vikings, Celts and Carthaginians already being confirmed), but I think that civ no. 6 will be either the Iroquois or the Sioux. Since Civ2, one of those has been included because Firaxis obviously wanted at least one 'native North American' civ.

(BTW, the expansion to Rise of Nations included both the Iroquois and the Lakota/Sioux.)

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Older than Dirt
How can you say that Europeans are over represented? How can Sid leave out the Sabeans and the Basques? Of course there is no need to include Prussia or Poland or Sweden. What did such countries or their inhabitants ever do that was really important?

Well, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but Europe has England, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Greece, and Rome, with Celts and Vikings on the way, and a possibility of the Dutch, the Byzantines, or the Portuguese.

By contrast, East Asia has China, Japan, and Mongolia.
Africa has Egypt and Mali, with the Semitic Carthage on the way.
Mesoamerica has the Aztecs and Incas.
Mesopotamia has ... Nothing! With a possibility of Babylon or Sumer.

No, Europe's not over-represented.

[fed1943]

It seems the goal was/is just to put the real civilization names better known by the players/buyers.
A minor point:Aegypcians don't see themselves as belonging to Africa,but to Middle East and Mediterraneum.
Best regards,