New Civs for BtS

[Virdrago]

Which the Indonesians (sorry, Kingdom of Java) would do if they get put in. The Khmers and/or Thais may, too, being stuck between India and China.

[flamingzaroc121]

I think Israel and Polynesia, but also Burma and Brazil because of Christ the Redeemer and the other new wonder

[Cyclotron]

The wonders don't necessarily indicate a civ that's in. Angkor Wat is in original Civ4 without any Khmer civilization.

[Demiurge2332]

I believe a very good Civ to add is Siam, especially for this expantion. Khmer sounds good at first unless you know the history. At the time that gunpowder became universally used Khmer was little more than a vassal of Siam and/or Vietnam. It also served as their(Siam/Vietnam) battle ground. Vietnam may look good but we already have a Civ that is Chinese in culture (Korea) I think Siam would be a unique contibution and SE asia is compleatly unrepresented. Siam also played a large role in the age of Imperialism as the ONLY south east asian country NOT colinized. Hell most of the world outside Europe was colinized ...not Siam (A fact they are VERY proud of)

But I believe we will probably see Khmer as most people know angkor wat. Siam would be the wiser choice given the time scope of the Expasnsion though. Khmer would have been better for Vanilla civ or the 2nd expantion.

[couerdelion]

Crete would not be that silly. But probably called the Minoans.

I don't expect the new civs to change the game that much.

[zeace]

I'd like to see an option that originally showed up in SMAX:

"Play with original civs"

I want the greeks and romans attacking me, not the siamese and polynesians!

[Virdrago]

Unless it's later in the game, I generally don't want the Greeks and Romans attacking me...

[zeace]

Maybe I just don't feel as bad when my armies are losing the Romans.

But who ever lost a war to the Polynesians... Oh the embarrassment...

[Sirotnikov]

Meh

I think it's high time that the hebrews are in, with david\solomon, and ben gurion.


I don't want to offend anyone, but how long were the poles or austrians a civ in their own right?

Currently there is an under representation of slavic and eastern european civ - that is true.

But I feel they appeared quite late (500 years ago?) as meaningful separate entities, and were rarely super-powers.

You're welcome to correct me though

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
But I feel they appeared quite late (500 years ago?) as meaningful separate entities, and were rarely super-powers.

You're welcome to correct me though

The Poles were collectively Christianized in the 10th century and from then forward were existent as a kingdom, though even before there was a certain "Polan" identity.

Austria didn't really differentiate itself from Germany/HRE until the Hapsburgs, but it became a major power that endured until WWI. It's not really any stranger than having the Americans as a civ.

If I were choosing one eastern european civ, however, it would be the Magyars/Hungarians. Their history as a group is pretty darn long, starting as nomads within the Khazar confederacy around the 8th century or so, raiding all over europe, then becoming a Christian kingdom and eventually one of the constituent parties of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They've got a ready-made UU (I don't know what the name would be, but some kind of nomad horse archer like the Keshik), too.

The criteria for civs has always been somewhat arbitrary; "who do we think is recognizable" seems to be the main question. It's not so much a matter of "superpower" status as placement and name recognition. What is the chief defining characteristic of the Inca, relative to all other South American groups or states? Mainly, that they had the (mis)fortune to be the ones around when the Spainards came. Objectively it's hard to see why they should be included. The Austrio-Hungarian Empire had arguably a greater impact on world politics than Japan ever did, since before the invasion of Manchuria they were largely isolated.

The point is that there's no real constant criteria for inclusion except for name recognition. On that basis I think there's a good chance of a Hebrew civ making it in, because all arguments about "impact" and "power" aside, many people know about Israel and the long history of Judaism, not to mention many famous Jews from throughout history. On the other hand, seeing as how this always seems to be controversial on the forums, maybe Firaxis will take a hint and not put them in.

It would be interesting to hear from a creative developer, at some point, as to how the selections were made.

[TimeTraveler]

I've recently thought of something: With new Civs comes new leaders. Will any of them possess a twelth trait (as opposed to Charismatic, Industrious, etc.) or will all the new leaders essentially fill a lot of gaps amongst the combinations of any two of the other eleven? And should this question have been placed in a thread of its own?

[Virdrago]

With all the gaps that are with the traits right now, I don't believe a new trait will come in. With all the other specifics mentioned, another trait surely would have been.

[Kuciwalker]

The Austrio-Hungarian Empire had arguably a greater impact on world politics than Japan ever did, since before the invasion of Manchuria they were largely isolated.

Eh...

[LordShiva]

Austro-Hungary invaded Manchuria? When?

[Cyclotron]

By "they" I meant Japan. Before Japan's spat with China, it simply didn't have much of an impact on world politics.

In contrast, the Austria of the Hapsburgs had much more influence on a wider regional basis.

Neither was a sprawling overseas empire like Britain, but in terms of influence on the outside world, A-H beats Japan easily until the last 60-70 years or so.