New Civs for BtS

[Thedrin]

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?

I suspect that Firaxis went looking for 16 new leaders so that all of the currently unused trait combinations that aren't considered too powerful will be included (with ind/phi, and maybe agg/cha and fin/org considered too powerful).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by 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.

Erm, no. Japan invaded Korea several centuries prior to this. They were a major player in the East Asian region, and their quick modernization in the nineteenth century ensured they stayed a major player.

You are defining "world politics" incorrectly; "European politics" are the words you are looking for. Austria-Hungary had little effect on China after all...

Anyhow, Austria-Hungary existed for ... hmm, fifty-one years (1867-1918). The Austrian Empire existed for a measly 63 years beyond that (post-Napoleon). In that time, they were never higher than 3rd in importance in Europe, and tended towards fifth or sixth by WWI.

You're comparing this to Japan, who for seventy years has been a major player on the world stage, and for several hundred years before that was a top-two regional power? Just a bit euro-centric...

Not that Austria(-Hungary) wasn't important as well. I just think you're wrong to say that Austria(-Hungary) is substantially more important than Japan to world history.

[Cyclotron]

Invasions of Korea do not make a "major player." Japan had a policy of isolation for centuries, and before that was important only on a very limited basis. Japan's struggles were typically internal, with the occasional outside event (invasions of Korea, or the Mongol attempts at conquering the islands), but it's no Austria.

I realize that any suggestion I make will draw the accusation of Euro-centrism, because I'm comparing a European country to an Asian one, and people just can't seem to resist playing that card. There are, however, several valid arguments to make that, as I said, "the Austria of the Hapsburgs had much more influence on a wider regional basis."

Firstly, your dates are too uncharitable. The Hapsburgs had an imperial base in Austria well before 1804; the assumption of the imperial name was a politically motivated change, not an establishing of a previously unheard of entity. There's a fair amount of bleed-in between Germany and Austria, which is why my argument isn't that Austria "should" be a civ, but rather that it had more to do with world politics. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had extensive dealings and conflicts with the Ottoman Empire, not commonly known as a European power despite its European possessions. In terms of "World Wars," Japan and Austria stack up fairly equally, with Austria being one of the major causes of the first and Japan being one of the major combatants of the second.

Obviously both of these were regional powers; unlike, say, the British Empire, neither had colonies around the world. Both were totally unimporant in the domains of the other, I suppose making the whole question of "worth" a bit silly at the outset. Until Japan's industrialization, however, its history is essentially one of isolation punctuated by occasional and rather inconclusive conflict.

Furthermore, post-WWII, Japan's status as a "major player" where Austria is not is debatable. What kind of player? An economic player? A military player? A diplomatic player? As an economic power, Japan is impressive and quite strong, though its power struggles continue to be quite local, against China and North Korea. Contrast this to modern Austria, which played an important role as a neutral broker during the Cold War, and now hosts one of the primary UN compounds in the world. Vienna is one of the seats of "world government," such as it is.

Answering this question is rather difficult anyway given that the "civs" never really coexisted at the height of their power and influence; Imperial Austria was waning as Japan was waxing. That's why I didn't intend for this to be a serious discussion of history, just a statement that arguably Austria had more of an impact than Japan on a few rather nebulous concepts like "world history" and "world politics." If anything, my bias is chronological, not regional, as it's easier to see Austria's impact in hindsight.

If you actually want to get into a discussion of this elsewhere, I suppose I'd be happy to oblige (though not here, as it seems like threadjacking), but you should re-read my posts in this thread in which my main point is that the selection criteria is pretty much arbitrary. It's my opinion that Austria had more of an impact than Japan had, and you've no more basis to call me Euro-centric than I have to call you... uh, "Asio-centric," I guess.

[Virdrago]

At one point in time the Austrian Hapsburgs controlled Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands... Austria was arguably the only European power to be able to control France at that time (and the Ottomans, to an extent).

Not to threadjack...
Still, I feel that we have enough European civs. Maybe Poland, but that would be an extreme outsider.

[Xorbon]

Bah! Brazil my a$$. If they got in, I'd have to start lobbying for Canada!

[Xorbon]

On a more serious note, my 6 picks for who I'd like to see are:

Maya
Ethiopia
Thailand
Hatti (aka the Hittites)
Israel
Harappa (nobody ever thinks about this civilization, but it's as worthy as some of the other ones)

[Cyclotron]

I'd Hittite

Originally posted by Xorbon
Harappa (nobody ever thinks about this civilization, but it's as worthy as some of the other ones)

I think most people assume it's subsumed within the "Indian" civilization, broad as that definition is.

[onodera]

1. Portugal
2. Netherlands
3. Babylon
4. Sioux?
-----------
Civs likely to be added:
5. Austria-Hungary or Poland-Lithuania
6. Assyrians (to complement Babylon)
7. Khmer or Viet Nam or Siam.
8. Byzantine

Civs that can be added:
A. Hittite
B. Timurid (a unique blend of Persians, Mongols and Turks)
C. Congolese
D. Grenada/Mauritania

Civs that shouldn't be added:
Mayan (one small peninsula <> Empire)
Hebrew (conquered and enslaved several times by three existing Civs, never an important power)
Polynesian (do you know a Civ leader for them?)

[couerdelion]

Now there's an interesting one. Tamerlane as a new leader.

There is, of course, no reason why civs cannot overlap with others Eg HRE and Germany/France. There is already a territorial overlap between the Arabs and the Ottomans while Rome overlaps the territory of many of the other civs (particularly the Greeks and Carthaginians).

If Portugal are there, maybe Oman will be too.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by onodera
...
Civs likely to be added:
5. Austria-Hungary or Poland-Lithuania
...

Both of those are decent civs, but I'd rather not play a civ with a hyphenated name. I'd hope they'd pick just Austria OR Hungary or Poland OR Lithuania.

[Martinus]

Reposting from the other thread:

Except for the Mali, all civilizations in Civ4 (including Warlords) so far were already present in Civ3, so I think it is reasonable to assume they will follow the same suit in BtS. In practice it means the following:

1. Babylonians (already confirmed)
2. Portuguese (already confirmed)
3. Dutch (already confirmed)
4. Byzantines
5. Hittites
6. Mayans
7. Sumerians
8. Iroquis (there is a Sioux leader on a screenshot - it has been speculated that instead of Iroquis and Sioux, there will be one "Native American" civ, with two leaders, one representing the Iroquis and the other the Sioux).

This leaves 2 extra civs. I hope they are something from SE Asia or Oceania (Khmer and Polynesians seem like the most likely candidates, since the game already has Angkor Watt and will have the Moai Statues as wonders).

[Martinus]

The likely new leaders are imo:
- Abe Lincoln for America (confirmed)
- Charles de Gaulle for France

I would also like to see Pericles for Greece, since Greece is likely the civ in the direst need of another leader, to represent the "Athenian democracy" aspect of the civilization. Seeing some Christian Emperor, like Constantine, for Rome would be nice too.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Martinus

I would also like to see Pericles for Greece, since Greece is likely the civ in the direst need of another leader, to represent the "Athenian democracy" aspect of the civilization.

I've been an advocate of this for a long time. Alexander the Great does not accurately represent the Greek culture. His AI is a jerk to play with too.

[Spiffor]

I hope there will be Meiji for Japan.

I have yet to see a game where Tokugawa has some success. His AI is really stunted IMO. It'd be nice to see a trailblazing Japan for a change

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I hope there will be Meiji for Japan.

I have yet to see a game where Tokugawa has some success. His AI is really stunted IMO. It'd be nice to see a trailblazing Japan for a change

Sadly I learned that due to Shinto, depictions of emperors are forbidden in Japan.