Civ5: Vanilla Civs and Leaders

[Alexander]

While Civilizations and Leaders may not be the most important feature in a Civ game, in some respects they are the most visible.

So, bearing that in mind, lets devise the perfect Civ/Leader list for Civ5.

As a reference, I've prepared the following chart, displaying all of the Civs in every incarnation of the game.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg121/Alexander_I/CivChart.png

This chart reveals the Big 11 Civs, civilizations which have made it into every civ game, and likely will always be present unless the Devs really want to shake things up: Americans, Aztecs, Chinese, English, Egyptians, French, Germans, Greeks, Indians, Romans, Russians.

Any vanilla Civ list is likely to contain at least these. However, in creating out own ideal Civ lists, there are other items to consider.

- How many Civs to include? Civ2 and Civ4 were generous. Vanilla Civ3 and CivRev were a bit more skimpy. How many Civs are reasonable for Civ5, keeping in mind the probability of at least one and possibly two expansions? Given the current precedent, there probably won't be less than 14, or more than 21 in vanilla Civ5.

- Which Civs to include? Yes, the big 11 will be in, but what other Civs should make the cut? Who ought to be represented? Not every Civ can fit in the vanilla version. Remember that Firaxis will likely want to please as many people as possible in as few Civs as possible.

- Who should be leader(s) for each Civ? Do Civs need more than one leader? Why or why not? The quintessential leader for each Civ is the first leader that comes to mind when you think of a particular Civ, with the caveat that offensive leaders (read Hitler) will not be included.

When posting your lists, explain the reasoning behind your decisions.

[Alexander]

My Civ5 Civilization/Leader List

I'll start with the Big 11, which are almost certainly going to be included. IMHO only one leader is needed at first, so I'll limit myself to one for now, though I am not opposed to more being added later.

*America, led by Abraham Lincoln: Considering the market for Civ games, this one's a given. To me, Lincoln just seems the most well-rounded choice. He's industrious and dedicated, but also more earthy than the idealized Washington or the somewhat controversial FDR.

*China, led by Qin Shi Huang: Though Mao Zedong has been a mainstay of every other Civ game, I personally consider him to be an inappropriate choice, given his policies. Qin may have been a despot, but at least he built China. Mao is a stark contrast with his "Cultural Revolution," which was an attempt to strip away China's uniqueness.

*England, led by Elizabeth I: There are many famous English leaders that I would find acceptable, including Alfred, Richard I, Henry VIII, Victoria and Churchill. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still seems to be the best compromise between current fame and actual accomplishment, as well as a token female leader.

*Egypt, led by Cleopatra VII: Cleopatra is just so ridiculously famous that I think she may be the best choice, although personally I find Ramses II to be a reasonable decision also. Arrogant, cultured and mysterious, she fits the Egyptian bill to a tee, despite being of Macedonian descent.

*France, led by Napoleon Bonaparte: Though Joan of Arc has been popular, and Lousi XIV was appropriate, I think Napoleon's persona is best suited to lead the French -- he's egotistical, pompous, capable, but still ultimately a loser.

*Germany, led by Otto von Bismarck: First of all, to reiterate, no Hitler. He may be the most famous German, but he's not permissible in the market. Bismarck is a good fit for the Germans, pragmatic, industrious, and precise. I also like Frederick Barbarossa, but I think he's much less likely.

*Greece, led by Alexander the Great: How can anyone compete with Alexander the Great? Pericles may be the consummate Greek, but Alexander is the consummate leaderhead.

*India, led by Mohandas Gandhi: Gandhi may not have been a political leader, but he was a true leader of his people in every other sense of the word, and is the most famous Indian.

*Rome, led by Julius Caesar: Augustus would also be acceptable, but I think Julius is just a bit more famous.

*Russia, led by Ivan the Terrible: Russia is another civ with many great leader possibilities: Peter I, Catherine II, Lenin. I'll leave out Stalin for the same reasons as Hitler and Mao. Why Ivan IV you ask? He's Terrible, you say. Well, every game's got to have a few villains, and since he's farther back in time, the wounds are not as close to the surface as with Stalin.

*Tenochca, led by Montezuma: First off, unless I'm mistaken, Tenochca is the proper noun for the Aztec Empire. As the most famous Aztec ruler, Montezuma is a natural choice. Civvers across the globe are dreading his Revenge.

So that's the Big 11 down. I'll say that Firaxis wants to kick things up a notch and start vanilla Civ5 off with 20 Civs. That's only one less than CivII, (which had no expansions) and only two more than CivIV. I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion. So that's 9 more to go.

*Arabia, led by Saladin: From not being included in CivI and II, the Arabs have recently become more and more of a staple in the Civ franchise, even making it into the toned-down CivRev. I think the achievements of Islamic civilization need a representative, and the Arabs are a perfect fit. Saladin is the best leader choice for them because he is respected by Westerners and Muslims alike, and won't stir up a controversy like some other leaders might. Also, he can be graphically represented without causing offense.

*Babylon, led by Hammurabi: Mesopotamia is the Cradle of Civilization really deserves a representative in the game, and Babylon is much more famous than either Sumeria or Assyria. In addition, they have Hammurabi's Code, the Hanging Gardens, and are a household name due to Judeo-Christian culture. Hammurabi is the best choice as leader because he was a builder and lawgiver as well as a conqueror.

*Ethiopia, led by Zara Yaqob: There always has to be a token African Civ in the game. Don't get me wrong, they're deserving of inclusion. Ethiopia is simply my personal preference (and IMHO the most deserving). As a close second Mali is interesting, and the Zulus are as popular as ever, but Ethiopia is long-lasting and was even the only African nation to remain independent of European colonization. Zara Yaqob is really a rather arbitrary choice, given that no Ethiopians are especially famous. Haile Selassie would also be appropriate. However, if one focuses on fame alone, then it'll be the Zulus with Shaka again.

*Inca, led by Pachacuti: In recent years, Firaxis has shown a desire to include at least a token South American representative (and no, the Aztecs and Mayans are not South American). While I'm not personally fond of the Incas, I can see the validity of the argument in favor of them. As for the leaders, Pachacuti is really an arbitrary choice. His reign and accomplishments are of a decent length. Huayna Capac would also be acceptable. Atahualpa, though infamous as the last Sapa Inca, really only reigned briefly before being overthrown and is thus not the best leader choice.

*Japan, led by Tokugawa Ieyasu: Though Japan didn't join the series until CivII, they've become a must. Japan is a very big part of the modern gaming world and its people will want to be represented. Plus, everybody in the West thinks Samurai and Ninja are cool anyway. Shogun Tokugawa is the best choice as the famous unifier of Japan. I might suggest the Emperor Meiji, but the depiction of Emperors in this fashion in Japan is illegal.

*Maya, led by Pacal II: In my opinion, the Mayans are the most overlooked of any Civ in the series. The only made it into CivIII and IV as virtual footnotes in the last expansions. The archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have revealed that the Mayans had a huge civilization and were quite technologically advanced. They really deserve a place in any vanilla Civ game, so why not Civ5? Pacal is the best leader choice for the Mayans, IMHO. He's the most famous, and for good reason.

*Mongolia, led By Genghis Khan: Come on, the Mongols are just cool. Seriously. It's a rush to lead a horde of barbaric horse-archers down on an unsuspecting foe. As said before, every game needs a few villains. As for Genghis Khan, do I really need to explain why?

*Persia, led by Darius I: The Persian civilization has gone through numerous changes, but is still around today. Plus, they've had a great deal of influence over the course of world history, and really ought to be included. Cyrus and Xerxes are acceptable leader choices, but IMHO Darius is the best, considering that he was both a conqueror, a builder, and more. Xerxes seems too single-minded, and Cyrus too idealized.

*Spain, led by Isabella: The Spanish are integral to world history, even if one only considers their discovery and colonization of the New World. Thus, they should be included in Civ5. Isabella is the best leader because she is well-rounded (and another token female). Philip II is not as famous, and was a bit odd anyway. El Cid is a cool choice, but again, ultimately not as well-rounded.

[Nugog]

Russia must have Stalin as a leader IMHO!

[Metaliturtle]

Why can't they just go ahead and release a Hitler-run Germany? It always has to be friggin modded...

I don't care about sales in germany, you can always replace him with Smiley von happyface.

[Nugog]

Civ will never ship with a Hitler leaderhead.

Accept it and move on.

[Alexander]

Civ will never ship with a Hitler leaderhead. Accept it and move on.

Agreed.


Russia must have Stalin as a leader IMHO!

Do you not see the irony of your two statements when read next to each other? :p No Stalin for me, please. :)

[Jack Hawksmoor]

Stalin (A/I) :b: He'll always be shipped in an expansion pack though.

[Nugog]

Do you not see the irony of your two statements when read next to each other? :p No Stalin for me, please. :)


Yes........


No.........


Erm.........


I like his combo of leadership traits in Civ 4.

All leaders are is a combo of traits really.

[RobWorham]

Dutch or Portuguese

Got to have a Naval UU in there somewhere, and on that line of thought an Aerial UU civ too (German/English/US).

Hopefully the naval/aerial aspect of CiV will be explored in more detail.....

[Alexander]

So... anyone have a different list they'd like to suggest?

[DarkCloud]

Stalin was ranked the #3 most popular Russian Icon I believe, in a survey in Summer 2008, by Russians themselves. He is not universally reviled.

[GrandpaTroll]

American I would like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan

If FDR, maybe have Miracle Cure with a + health (remember he was wheel chair bound)

If Ronald Reagan, have entertainment as a plus value, special resource movies with plus happiness..and of course a Spy Unit Special Nancy with a negative effect as she tells other civilizations astrology secrets:hammer:

[GrandpaTroll]

Russia I would say Stalin, Ivan The Terrible and Peter and Catherine:tank:


One could argue/debate/defend most leaders we have accurate historical facts on as to whetehr they were a decent human being or not.

Ugly things happen in War and during times of strife and turmoil, tough decisions have to be made for the longevity and success of a nation.

Go Figure:dunno:

[Metaliturtle]

Vlad the impaler?

[Cartimandua]

This topic of great leaders is very interesting, especially from a historian's point of view. We have the great opportunity to view the past from a very objective and global perspective. I can guarantee that my years of study have colored my opinion of most of the world's "heroes" and that you would be surprised by the historical figures I have come to personally dislike.

Some of the individuals you have suggested were horrible leaders and represent their countries at their worst. Suggestions for Hitler and Stalin only show how little the world remembers about how great Russia and Germany once were. To shame them by giving them such reprehensible leaders is quite an insult.

[Cartimandua]

Vlad the impaler?

Please count Vlad in on my previous post as well. He may have put Wallachia on the map, but that doesn't excuse his horrific behavior. :sadnod:

[Metaliturtle]

If we don't have a leader to hate then we have to gang up on Gandhi (civ 1-3) or Monty

[Mart]

I was thinking, that next civ might have more flexibility in this respect, or maybe more options from the start.
What I like in europa universalis is that every province can start their own country. That not necessarily means one nation, but history is full of countries that shared the same nation. So from the very early vanila civ 5, I would see a big list of possible countries and possible leaders. Then when creating a game, a player would choose "civ density" or plain number of civs, etc. or just hand picked them. Then comes into play leaderheads - a bit of work to assembly their characteristics, there would be many of leaders, but list of civ features/leaders personality traits would not be that large.
And for graphics - something simple, like an assembly of "modules" Similar to what police makes when creating a suspect's face from face elements, nose, mouth, etc. Not very easy to do, but next civ is supposed to excel over civ4... :)

[Nugog]

Some of the individuals you have suggested were horrible leaders and represent their countries at their worst. Suggestions for Hitler and Stalin only show how little the world remembers about how great Russia and Germany once were. To shame them by giving them such reprehensible leaders is quite an insult.

Actually this covers many of the leaders in Civ.

And Stalin was the west's ally for a long time - and was supported and allowed to grow by the west - the US in particular.

Some people like to play the "bad" guiy (and don't get me wrong here - Stalin was a terrible human being) - as we see from the success of many games.

I just like his trait set in Civ 4.

Also - you really aren't playing as the "leader". I have launched many a war a Ghandi.

[Dale]

I'd love to see a system come through where your tribe starts with no name, no flag, no leader, no culture, no traits, no uniques and throughtout the game you generate them.

So if you use a resource more than others (eg: you create a lot of swordsmen) then your chances of getting an iron based UU are high.

Leaders should die during the game and you get to choose one from three offered and that leader has specific +'s or -'s for different attributes (say -diplo +++eco).

You should be able to choose your own flag.

[Metaliturtle]

Wait, that would lead to Topless Babe Flags!

[Nugog]

you should be able to choose your own flag.

qmft!

[Dale]

Wait, that would lead to Topless Babe Flags!

Is that a problem? :naughtier:

[Metaliturtle]

No! :b:

[[CC]Destroyer]

Well, i think you definatly need celtia and maybe an Isreal civilization. Come to think of it the Isrealies are the only people i have not seen represented in civ. Other than that i'd definatly keep Khmer and holy rome as I see them being used A lot.

[Dale]

Destroyer;1237']Well, i think you definatly need celtia and maybe an Isreal civilization. Come to think of it the Isrealies are the only people i have not seen represented in civ. Other than that i'd definatly keep Khmer and holy rome as I see them being used A lot.

What about the Australians? Don't see them represented anywhere. :rant:

Hewbrews would be a 1000% better than Isrealites though.

[GrandpaTroll]

Is that a problem? :naughtier:

:eager:

:taz:

[Bantams]

Scotland leader robert the bruce :p

@ dale Austrailia isnt a civ its a bunch of English Ex Pat Prisoners on a small Island :D

[Alexander]

Destroyer;1237']maybe an Isreal civilization. Come to think of it the Isrealies are the only people i have not seen represented in civ.


Hewbrews would be a 1000% better than Isrealites though.

I had already been thinking about starting a thread on that, and since you guys brought it up, I figured why not?

http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92

Dale is IMHO correct though. The term 'Hebrews' is more encompassing than 'Israelites,' which in turn is certainly much more inclusive than 'Jews.'

Here's to hoping! :cheers:

[Nikolai]

I'd love to see a system come through where your tribe starts with no name, no flag, no leader, no culture, no traits, no uniques and throughtout the game you generate them.

So if you use a resource more than others (eg: you create a lot of swordsmen) then your chances of getting an iron based UU are high.

Leaders should die during the game and you get to choose one from three offered and that leader has specific +'s or -'s for different attributes (say -diplo +++eco).

You should be able to choose your own flag.
This would be great. But it won't sell so easily to the masses, and we all know where the money's at.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I would really like to see more leaders from the founding days of modern nation states, often called the 'father of the nation' many of them have gotten passed over by history outside of their own states because they didn't go on conquering sprees.

Examples: Sun Yat-sen of China, Giuseppe Garibaldi of Italy, and though he certainly not as forgotten by any stretch of the imagination Vladimir Lenin has been remarkably and undeservedly absent from Civ.

Others can be found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_founders

[Dale]

Scotland leader robert the bruce :p

@ dale Austrailia isnt a civ its a bunch of English Ex Pat Prisoners on a small Island :D

That could be said for about 25% of the World. :lol:

[Alexander]

;1686']and though he certainly not as forgotten by any stretch of the imagination Vladimir Lenin has been remarkably and undeservedly absent from Civ.

He was in CivII, and that's all, IIRC. He's certainly preferable to Stalin.

[Alexander]

Since the discussion has moved more towards leaders, now seems as good a time as any to post my Civ Leader Chart. This document shows which civilizations had which leaders in every Civ game. I think you'll find some interesting trends.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg121/Alexander_I/CivLeadersChart.png

[Alexander]

;1686']I would really like to see more leaders from the founding days of modern nation states, often called the 'father of the nation' many of them have gotten passed over by history outside of their own states because they didn't go on conquering sprees.

This got me thinking about the ratio of leaders to time periods, since you suggested a need for more early modern leaders. I figured I'd go ahead and divide all of the leaders into the six periods featured in the game.

I divided the periods around the usual approximate watershed dates of history:

Ancient: 4000 BC - 750 BC
Classical: 750 BC - AD 450
Medieval: AD 450 - AD 1450
Renaissance: AD 1450 - AD 1750
Industrial: AD 1750 - AD 1900
Modern: AD 1900 - Present

Here's what I found, after dividing up the 52 leaders:

Ancient: 4
Classical: 11
Medieval: 10
Renaissance: 12
Industrial: 9
Modern: 6

Leader selection is indeed skewed, especially in favor of Classical and Renaissance leaders. That means we need more of both the Ancient group and the Modern group to even things out.

Not the results I was expecting to find. :p :D

[moopoo]

HI! first post here. :D

I loathe Aztecs getting in first up everytime. Seriously, (if i read the table right) they get there earlier and more often than Spain, the people who Destroyed Them. for my mind, Aztecs are there simply to fill the gap that is Central America, which i don't think is good enough. By that process, Australia Gets in!!! Wooo!

[James Lofton]

Reagan definitely needs to be in Civ 5. He should have been included in Civ 4. There should also be a scenario set during the Cold War that includes various leaders from the 50s to the late 80s.

I agree with the person above that leaders should die of old age, assassination, have elections,etc. and you be able to change leaders.

[Rockstone]

The Netherlands must be in. I do not like the idea of waiting for the expansion pack.

[Great Pessimist]

I feel the same way as Rockstone, though instead of wanting the Dutch I want the Ottomans. Imagine my dismay when I found out they were supposed to be in CIV 1.

The Big 11, Ottomans, Japan, Persia, Babylon, and Inca/Arabia (if they get lucky) if they only allow 16, which from Civ 3 and Rev, doesn't seem to be too little.

THe Big 11 is not totally safe though. I can imagine them finally scrapping the Germans (I think they deserve to be in the game eventually, but not in the first release)


Hopefully the game will turn away from leaders, my main dislike about CIV. It is not about civlizations anymoe, seems too focuse on the leader. Hopefully a leader change, no more Montezuma II for the Aztecs (Let's face it he was horrible enough to lose with the advantage when someone like Monty I might have been able to fend them off.)

[Alexander]

THe Big 11 is not totally safe though. I can imagine them finally scrapping the Germans (I think they deserve to be in the game eventually, but not in the first release)


Yeah... that's not going to happen. Honestly I don't foresee any future Civ game ever leaving out any of the more influential modern nations: America, England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, India.

It's all about marketing.

[GeoModder]

So... anyone have a different list they'd like to suggest?

Not immediately a list, but more of a comment.

For me it would feel better that nations evolve over time, possibly with input from the player. Take for instance the Celts: they could evolve to become the Irish or Scots. Or take the Franks. Those could evolve to France (by West Francia), the Holy Roman Empire (by East Francia) or perhaps even that 'middle kingdom'.

[Alexander]

Not immediately a list, but more of a comment.

For me it would feel better that nations evolve over time, possibly with input from the player. Take for instance the Celts: they could evolve to become the Irish or Scots. Or take the Franks. Those could evolve to France (by West Francia), the Holy Roman Empire (by East Francia) or perhaps even that 'middle kingdom'.

I think that's a reasonable idea. Perhaps have multiple options available, and then it remains to be seen what path each civ will take.

Might be complicated, but could be cool. Perhaps if they implemented it like they did with breakaway civs in Civ4, where related civs can break off from mother countries (ex. America from England).

[Haadling]

My Civ5 Civilization/Leader List

I'll start with the Big 11, which are almost certainly going to be included. IMHO only one leader is needed at first, so I'll limit myself to one for now, though I am not opposed to more being added later.

*America, led by Abraham Lincoln: Considering the market for Civ games, this one's a given. To me, Lincoln just seems the most well-rounded choice. He's industrious and dedicated, but also more earthy than the idealized Washington or the somewhat controversial FDR.

*China, led by Qin Shi Huang: Though Mao Zedong has been a mainstay of every other Civ game, I personally consider him to be an inappropriate choice, given his policies. Qin may have been a despot, but at least he built China. Mao is a stark contrast with his "Cultural Revolution," which was an attempt to strip away China's uniqueness.

*England, led by Elizabeth I: There are many famous English leaders that I would find acceptable, including Alfred, Richard I, Henry VIII, Victoria and Churchill. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still seems to be the best compromise between current fame and actual accomplishment, as well as a token female leader.

*Egypt, led by Cleopatra VII: Cleopatra is just so ridiculously famous that I think she may be the best choice, although personally I find Ramses II to be a reasonable decision also. Arrogant, cultured and mysterious, she fits the Egyptian bill to a tee, despite being of Macedonian descent.

*France, led by Napoleon Bonaparte: Though Joan of Arc has been popular, and Lousi XIV was appropriate, I think Napoleon's persona is best suited to lead the French -- he's egotistical, pompous, capable, but still ultimately a loser.

*Germany, led by Otto von Bismarck: First of all, to reiterate, no Hitler. He may be the most famous German, but he's not permissible in the market. Bismarck is a good fit for the Germans, pragmatic, industrious, and precise. I also like Frederick Barbarossa, but I think he's much less likely.

*Greece, led by Alexander the Great: How can anyone compete with Alexander the Great? Pericles may be the consummate Greek, but Alexander is the consummate leaderhead.

*India, led by Mohandas Gandhi: Gandhi may not have been a political leader, but he was a true leader of his people in every other sense of the word, and is the most famous Indian.

*Rome, led by Julius Caesar: Augustus would also be acceptable, but I think Julius is just a bit more famous.

*Russia, led by Ivan the Terrible: Russia is another civ with many great leader possibilities: Peter I, Catherine II, Lenin. I'll leave out Stalin for the same reasons as Hitler and Mao. Why Ivan IV you ask? He's Terrible, you say. Well, every game's got to have a few villains, and since he's farther back in time, the wounds are not as close to the surface as with Stalin.

*Tenochca, led by Montezuma: First off, unless I'm mistaken, Tenochca is the proper noun for the Aztec Empire. As the most famous Aztec ruler, Montezuma is a natural choice. Civvers across the globe are dreading his Revenge.

So that's the Big 11 down. I'll say that Firaxis wants to kick things up a notch and start vanilla Civ5 off with 20 Civs. That's only one less than CivII, (which had no expansions) and only two more than CivIV. I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion. So that's 9 more to go.

*Arabia, led by Saladin: From not being included in CivI and II, the Arabs have recently become more and more of a staple in the Civ franchise, even making it into the toned-down CivRev. I think the achievements of Islamic civilization need a representative, and the Arabs are a perfect fit. Saladin is the best leader choice for them because he is respected by Westerners and Muslims alike, and won't stir up a controversy like some other leaders might. Also, he can be graphically represented without causing offense.

*Babylon, led by Hammurabi: Mesopotamia is the Cradle of Civilization really deserves a representative in the game, and Babylon is much more famous than either Sumeria or Assyria. In addition, they have Hammurabi's Code, the Hanging Gardens, and are a household name due to Judeo-Christian culture. Hammurabi is the best choice as leader because he was a builder and lawgiver as well as a conqueror.

*Ethiopia, led by Zara Yaqob: There always has to be a token African Civ in the game. Don't get me wrong, they're deserving of inclusion. Ethiopia is simply my personal preference (and IMHO the most deserving). As a close second Mali is interesting, and the Zulus are as popular as ever, but Ethiopia is long-lasting and was even the only African nation to remain independent of European colonization. Zara Yaqob is really a rather arbitrary choice, given that no Ethiopians are especially famous. Haile Selassie would also be appropriate. However, if one focuses on fame alone, then it'll be the Zulus with Shaka again.

*Inca, led by Pachacuti: In recent years, Firaxis has shown a desire to include at least a token South American representative (and no, the Aztecs and Mayans are not South American). While I'm not personally fond of the Incas, I can see the validity of the argument in favor of them. As for the leaders, Pachacuti is really an arbitrary choice. His reign and accomplishments are of a decent length. Huayna Capac would also be acceptable. Atahualpa, though infamous as the last Sapa Inca, really only reigned briefly before being overthrown and is thus not the best leader choice.

*Japan, led by Tokugawa Ieyasu: Though Japan didn't join the series until CivII, they've become a must. Japan is a very big part of the modern gaming world and its people will want to be represented. Plus, everybody in the West thinks Samurai and Ninja are cool anyway. Shogun Tokugawa is the best choice as the famous unifier of Japan. I might suggest the Emperor Meiji, but the depiction of Emperors in this fashion in Japan is illegal.

*Maya, led by Pacal II: In my opinion, the Mayans are the most overlooked of any Civ in the series. The only made it into CivIII and IV as virtual footnotes in the last expansions. The archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have revealed that the Mayans had a huge civilization and were quite technologically advanced. They really deserve a place in any vanilla Civ game, so why not Civ5? Pacal is the best leader choice for the Mayans, IMHO. He's the most famous, and for good reason.

*Mongolia, led By Genghis Khan: Come on, the Mongols are just cool. Seriously. It's a rush to lead a horde of barbaric horse-archers down on an unsuspecting foe. As said before, every game needs a few villains. As for Genghis Khan, do I really need to explain why?

*Persia, led by Darius I: The Persian civilization has gone through numerous changes, but is still around today. Plus, they've had a great deal of influence over the course of world history, and really ought to be included. Cyrus and Xerxes are acceptable leader choices, but IMHO Darius is the best, considering that he was both a conqueror, a builder, and more. Xerxes seems too single-minded, and Cyrus too idealized.

*Spain, led by Isabella: The Spanish are integral to world history, even if one only considers their discovery and colonization of the New World. Thus, they should be included in Civ5. Isabella is the best leader because she is well-rounded (and another token female). Philip II is not as famous, and was a bit odd anyway. El Cid is a cool choice, but again, ultimately not as well-rounded.

OK Alexander, me guess you have been busy long time before this new forum opened with thinking about possible civs included.;)
I didn't so it took me some time to read it all through, but must say I'm impressed. I fully agree with the list of the first eleven civs, based upon marketing strategy and earlier Civilization versions it makes sense.

So for a short summary the first eleven:

America
China
England
Egypt
France
Germany
Greece
India
Rome
Russia
Tenochca (Aztec)


I agree with all of them, except the name you used for the Aztecs (Tenochca). I didn't knew they called themself like this, I always learned they named themself Mexica. Though it makes sense since Tenochtitlan roughly means place of the Tenochcas and as I read some about the subject I can agree with it.

However based upon marketing strategy, while keeping in mind (some) historical accuracy, I don't think this name wil make it. Like in all previous versions of Civilization, Sid used the names for civs that are common known within the Anglo-American world, e.g. Byzantine instead of East-Roman, Dutch instead of Netherlandic, Viking instead of Thiutae/Thiudae, etc.
So Tenochca will most likely stay Aztec (though Mexica/Mexico stands IMHO a good chance as their nation name in civ).

About the next nine you supposed:
(nr. 21 being Barbarians, me guess)

Arabia *
Babylon *
Ethiopia *
Inca
Japan *
Maya
Mongolia
Persia *
Spain*


I have some doubts, not about the first three since Arabia, Babylon and Ethiopia should be in. And also some others I starred (*) should be in I think.
Also about Spain I fully agree with you, the country born by the unification of Castile, Aragon (and for some time Portugal) were the first European colonial power and the groundlayer for Latin-America. Or to put it more simple; nowadays 1 out of 13 people speak Spanish as first language.

My doubts are about Inca, Maya, Mongolia.
The Mongols are veterans from all previous Civilization versions, but they could also be incorporated within the Barbarianciv and added later on in an expansion. Similar for Maya and Inca, though I do think an extra Native American civ besides the Aztec will be in Civilization V. But it might also be the Iroquis, Powhatan or just Native America as in Civ IV. Though I hope in case the last it will not be represented by the Sioux. A great people no offense, but they have been on the warpath in the Hollywood movie-industrie already longer than the period of the Wild-West lasted.

Anyway these were my two cents..:cowboy:

[Blue Lion]

In my eyes one of the worst parts of the complete civ series is the thought of an immortal leader of a civ - a leader that was there before he/she even was born in history and stays there even when he/she was gone in history for a long time.

The much better focus for leaders in my eyes would be, if the player could identify with the civ that is played and not with the leader. So I think it would be a very good idea to give a civ several historical leaders ,that change with the time.

There is no big problem to do this. At least in my Civ 3 mod, I´m currently working on, this can be achieved without big problems. For those of you, that are not so familiar with Civ 3: Civ 3 has 4 eras and each era has era specific animations of a leader. Instead of giving an immortal leader different clothes for different times in history, there also can be used different leaders.
To give these different leaders different traits and options, in Civ 3 some buildings for that civ can be enabled that give special benefits to that civ.
In Civ 5 these options can be programmed directly, so the trick with the additional buildings that give these traits to a civ are not needed.

But what is still possible for Civ 3, should be possible for Civ 5, too. The feeling in gameplay with these changing leaders in my eyes is much better.

[Alexander]

My doubts are about Inca, Maya, Mongolia.
The Mongols are veterans from all previous Civilization versions, but they could also be incorporated within the Barbarianciv and added later on in an expansion. Similar for Maya and Inca, though I do think an extra Native American civ besides the Aztec will be in Civilization V. But it might also be the Iroquis, Powhatan or just Native America as in Civ IV. Though I hope in case the last it will not be represented by the Sioux. A great people no offense, but they have been on the warpath in the Hollywood movie-industrie already longer than the period of the Wild-West lasted.

Anyway these were my two cents..:cowboy:

Insightful comments. ;)

Yes, I think it probable that only 2 of the following 3 (Aztecs, Mayans, Incas) are likely to be included. I suggested the Mayans because I think that out of any ancient American civ, they are the most deserving of inclusion.

I'm using the term Tenochca for the Aztecs for another reason. Civ4 uses three nouns for each civ (for example, Germany, German Empire, the Germans). For the Aztecs, this is very limited (currently Aztec, Aztec Empire, the Aztecs). Calling the country 'Aztec' is not preferable, IMHO, so I'm trying to make the term 'Tenochca' more familiar at least to whoever reads here. I doubt Firaxis will use the actual term right away, but that doesn't make it any less of any accurate description.

Personally, I don't want to see a "Native American" civ, at least not in the vanilla version. That was sort of an artificial construct, meant to represent a large group of people that were never united in any real sense. I suppose they would be tolerable eventually. But the real, established civilizations like the 3 I mentioned above should come first, IMHO.

As for the Mongols, I think they are likely simply because of the popularity of Genghis Khan. Some fans get a rush from leading the Mongol Hordes to conquest, and they did conquer the largest amount of territory in world history, even if it wasn't ever properly maintained in one united empire.

[Great Pessimist]

Yeah... that's not going to happen. Honestly I don't foresee any future Civ game ever leaving out any of the more influential modern nations: America, England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, India.

It's all about marketing.


Wouldn't be so sure. The axe of Babylon and the Zulu in the release of Civ 4 and Mongolia in Civ 3 was not expected at all. The whole fan made concept of the market aren't that strong in Civ terms. I for one would buy Civ 5 if they didn't have America in it. It is an added incentive, but not a turn on. Expansions pretty get rid of that problem. (Besides in the microscopic chance China doesn't get in [Which it will], China would just add them in anyway. :) )

(I have to remeber this thread so when one of them gets axed I can put in my signature. :blush:)

[Alexander]

Wouldn't be so sure. The axe of Babylon and the Zulu in the release of Civ 4 and Mongolia in Civ 3 was not expected at all. The whole fan made concept of the market aren't that strong in Civ terms. I for one would buy Civ 5 if they didn't have America in it. It is an added incentive, but not a turn on. Expansions pretty get rid of that problem. (Besides in the microscopic chance China doesn't get in [Which it will], China would just add them in anyway. :) )

The game isn't marketed to Babylonians, Zulus and Mongols though. It is marketed to Americans, Britons, Germans, Frenchies, etc.


(I have to remeber this thread so when one of them gets axed I can put in my signature. :blush:)

You do that. :coolio:

[PurpleTurtle]

I myself would really like to see William the Conqueror in a civ game as the leader of England. I am sure many people would disagree with that choice because he was himself a Norman, however I believe that it was only after his conquest that England really came to be. England had been under Saxon rule previously and was a mix of Scots, Danes, maybe a few Britons still, and the Saxons. The introduction of Normans to the already potent brew and how they administered their conquered state (that is by letting the people largely administer themselves, surely not a democracy, but the middlemen were native) are what really made England what it is

[Alexander]

I myself would really like to see William the Conqueror in a civ game as the leader of England. I am sure many people would disagree with that choice because he was himself a Norman, however I believe that it was only after his conquest that England really came to be. England had been under Saxon rule previously and was a mix of Scots, Danes, maybe a few Britons still, and the Saxons. The introduction of Normans to the already potent brew and how they administered their conquered state (that is by letting the people largely administer themselves, surely not a democracy, but the middlemen were native) are what really made England what it is

I'll agree that William the Conqueror laid the foundations for the later British Empire, but your suggestions give me another idea.

Alfred the Great! The only English monarch to be called "the Great," he is the real father of England. :)

[MMC]

Alfred the Great, King of Wessex... Good choice.

If you want to find the father of England, you're going to want to go back to the Saxon invasion. Because it wasn't just the Saxons, it was the Angles (hence Anglo-Saxon) who settled, calling their new home Angle-land (which became Aengland, and then England).

Also, I surprised a certain Admin hasn't piped up and demanded Latvia to be added.

[GeoModder]

Also, I surprised a certain Admin hasn't piped up and demanded Latvia to be added.

He's a bit busy with a certain site lately. :naughty:

[Alexander]

Alfred the Great, King of Wessex... Good choice.

If you want to find the father of England, you're going to want to go back to the Saxon invasion. Because it wasn't just the Saxons, it was the Angles (hence Anglo-Saxon) who settled, calling their new home Angle-land (which became Aengland, and then England).

Perhaps I should have specified the preserver of England (against the Danes), or the father of a united England. :p

[Haadling]

Alfred the Great, King of Wessex... Good choice.

If you want to find the father of England, you're going to want to go back to the Saxon invasion. Because it wasn't just the Saxons, it was the Angles (hence Anglo-Saxon) who settled, calling their new home Angle-land (which became Aengland, and then England).

Also, I surprised a certain Admin hasn't piped up and demanded Latvia to be added.

More tribes than only the Saxons and Angles where included.. And the Saxons where most likely not a tribe but more of a umbrella term for several tribes, tribes who used scramseaxes and langseaxes as weapons and believed in a god named Saxnote (the Britons called all Germanic invaders Sassenach whether they were Angle, Dane, Halfdane, Jute, Frisian, Saxon or whatever historic source is used).
About the name, yeah, England became the name England most likely because in the beginning king Raedwald of Anglia (Rex Anglorum)was Bretwalda (mightiest of the Anglosaxon kings) and therefore the foreign powers of those days including the Roman church, who where busy Christianizing the AS kingdoms, designated the British Island as 'Regnum Anglorum'.
East-Anglia however was only in charge for a short timespan, but because in continental medieval Europe everything was written down in Latin as did the Roman Church in England (Bede also used the term Anglorum) this name stayed in use in all books and eventually William of Normandie conquered Angleterre (land of the Angles).

[Alexander]

Gotta love Merrie Olde Englaland! :bb:

P.S. (I think an Anglo-Saxon leaderhead would be cool.)

[i_diavolorosso]

I think there should be a SE Asia civ.
Afterall, this region take a very important place, from the discovery age, until now.

The other reason, try to open your world map, and almost all region have their representatives included(in any of the civ series) except SE ASIA civ, and well oceania too.:p

But for marketing reason, it's ok not to include them in the vanilla version.Put them in the expansion would be much safer

[Asmodeous]

My Civ5 Civilization/Leader List

I'll abduct Alexander's list from the beginning as I mostly agree with it, and make a few changes. (Annotated in Italics) so it will mostly be a commontary.

*America, led by Abraham Lincoln: Considering the market for Civ games, this one's a given. To me, Lincoln just seems the most well-rounded choice. He's industrious and dedicated, but also more earthy than the idealized Washington or the somewhat controversial FDR. I honestly think Lincoln is a poor choice, as he was a major divisive force in American History, and not the unifying force people seem to see. Washington and FDR are optimal choices because Washington WAS the "Ideal American" and FDR was the greatest unifier the country ever had.

*China, led by Qin Shi Huang: Though Mao Zedong has been a mainstay of every other Civ game, I personally consider him to be an inappropriate choice, given his policies. Qin may have been a despot, but at least he built China. Mao is a stark contrast with his "Cultural Revolution," which was an attempt to strip away China's uniqueness. Uhm. What about Chiang Kai Shek? Yesyes, he lost to Mao because the Russians were helping the communist revolution in China, but CKS was one HELL of a leader. Also you could go more deeply into the Dynasty period instead of just the Huang dynasty. What about Cao Cao?

*England, led by Elizabeth I: There are many famous English leaders that I would find acceptable, including Alfred, Richard I, Henry VIII, Victoria and Churchill. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still seems to be the best compromise between current fame and actual accomplishment, as well as a token female leader. William I (i.e. William the Conqueror). How the hell does the first guy to unify England not end up on the list? Seriously. IMHO, England should have three choices, Elizabeth I, Richard I, and William I.

*Egypt, led by Cleopatra VII: Cleopatra is just so ridiculously famous that I think she may be the best choice, although personally I find Ramses II to be a reasonable decision also. Arrogant, cultured and mysterious, she fits the Egyptian bill to a tee, despite being of Macedonian descent. Cleopatra is not a good choice, imho, as she did not actually rule all that much. She kept the nation from being crushed by tying herself to the right men. Ramses II is a NECESSITY. He IS what people think of when they think of Egypt. They don't think of Hapshetsut (the hell did she end up in the game anyway?). They OCCASIONALLY think of Cleopatra, but in the case of Cleo, Marcus Antony is a far better choice as during that period he really WAS the one running things over there, since the Romans were, in effect, completely in control of Egypt politically due to Cleopatra's dealings with Marcus Antony and Julius Caesar.

*France, led by Napoleon Bonaparte: Though Joan of Arc has been popular, and Lousi XIV was appropriate, I think Napoleon's persona is best suited to lead the French -- he's egotistical, pompous, capable, but still ultimately a loser. Napolean, JoA, and Louis are awesome choices, but Louis should, by far, be the primary. Though Napolean was the conqueror, Louis was by far the greatest leader that France has ever known (in many ways).

*Germany, led by Otto von Bismarck: First of all, to reiterate, no Hitler. He may be the most famous German, but he's not permissible in the market. Bismarck is a good fit for the Germans, pragmatic, industrious, and precise. I also like Frederick Barbarossa, but I think he's much less likely. It's sad that Hitler is not permissible in the market, because DESPITE the fact that everyone (rightly!) dispises him and portrays him as a monster, he WAS actually well loved by the German people and, though untrusted, most of Europe as well. BUT as that IS the case, Otto and Frederick are probably about the best option. In fact any Prussian leader would do fine, as would most Brandenburgian leaders from a slightly earlier period.

*Greece, led by Alexander the Great: How can anyone compete with Alexander the Great? Pericles may be the consummate Greek, but Alexander is the consummate leaderhead. Is there a Greece without Alexander?

*India, led by Mohandas Gandhi: Gandhi may not have been a political leader, but he was a true leader of his people in every other sense of the word, and is the most famous Indian. Ayup, Gandhi. Prior to that it was the Mughal Empire, and there's a few good Mughal emperors that would have been a good choice as well, such as Akbar the Great and so on.

*Rome, led by Julius Caesar: Augustus would also be acceptable, but I think Julius is just a bit more famous. Jules and Octavius all the way.

*Russia, led by Ivan the Terrible: Russia is another civ with many great leader possibilities: Peter I, Catherine II, Lenin. I'll leave out Stalin for the same reasons as Hitler and Mao. Why Ivan IV you ask? He's Terrible, you say. Well, every game's got to have a few villains, and since he's farther back in time, the wounds are not as close to the surface as with Stalin. You are too focussed on "wounds close to the surface". History is history. If we ignore it we are doomed to repeat it. Also, despite his purges and oppression, Stalin wasn't a bad leader. Ivan is not a bad choice, but really, Peter, Stalin, catherine. Not many (outside of Russia really) will think of Lenin because Lenin died too fast and Stalin usurped control when he passed. Russia would have been a very different place had that not happened, but thus is the case of history. Stalin would ALWAYS be a better choice than Lenin)

*Tenochca, led by Montezuma: First off, unless I'm mistaken, Tenochca is the proper noun for the Aztec Empire. As the most famous Aztec ruler, Montezuma is a natural choice. Civvers across the globe are dreading his Revenge. Yep.

*Arabia, led by Saladin: From not being included in CivI and II, the Arabs have recently become more and more of a staple in the Civ franchise, even making it into the toned-down CivRev. I think the achievements of Islamic civilization need a representative, and the Arabs are a perfect fit. Saladin is the best leader choice for them because he is respected by Westerners and Muslims alike, and won't stir up a controversy like some other leaders might. Also, he can be graphically represented without causing offense. I have often wondered if "Arabs" are supposed to be an amalgamation of the different Arab tribes in the area? If so then what about the Selucid leaders, too?

*Babylon, led by Hammurabi: Mesopotamia is the Cradle of Civilization really deserves a representative in the game, and Babylon is much more famous than either Sumeria or Assyria. In addition, they have Hammurabi's Code, the Hanging Gardens, and are a household name due to Judeo-Christian culture. Hammurabi is the best choice as leader because he was a builder and lawgiver as well as a conqueror. Indeed.

*Ethiopia, led by Zara Yaqob: There always has to be a token African Civ in the game. Don't get me wrong, they're deserving of inclusion. Ethiopia is simply my personal preference (and IMHO the most deserving). As a close second Mali is interesting, and the Zulus are as popular as ever, but Ethiopia is long-lasting and was even the only African nation to remain independent of European colonization. Zara Yaqob is really a rather arbitrary choice, given that no Ethiopians are especially famous. Haile Selassie would also be appropriate. However, if one focuses on fame alone, then it'll be the Zulus with Shaka again. I am one of the horrible people that when I saw they were adding Ethiopia and didn't see Zara's name as the leader and associate the proper timeframe thought to himself "What are their leader traits going to be? Poor and Hungry?" Zara is an excellent choice for an Africa-centric empire.

*Inca, led by Pachacuti: In recent years, Firaxis has shown a desire to include at least a token South American representative (and no, the Aztecs and Mayans are not South American). While I'm not personally fond of the Incas, I can see the validity of the argument in favor of them. As for the leaders, Pachacuti is really an arbitrary choice. His reign and accomplishments are of a decent length. Huayna Capac would also be acceptable. Atahualpa, though infamous as the last Sapa Inca, really only reigned briefly before being overthrown and is thus not the best leader choice. Why not both?

*Japan, led by Tokugawa Ieyasu: Though Japan didn't join the series until CivII, they've become a must. Japan is a very big part of the modern gaming world and its people will want to be represented. Plus, everybody in the West thinks Samurai and Ninja are cool anyway. Shogun Tokugawa is the best choice as the famous unifier of Japan. I might suggest the Emperor Meiji, but the depiction of Emperors in this fashion in Japan is illegal. Samurai and Ninja ARE cool. And yes, you would have to pick from Shoguns, because of the legality that would make one unable to sell the product in Japan, but Meiji would be absolutely awesome.

*Maya, led by Pacal II: In my opinion, the Mayans are the most overlooked of any Civ in the series. The only made it into CivIII and IV as virtual footnotes in the last expansions. The archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have revealed that the Mayans had a huge civilization and were quite technologically advanced. They really deserve a place in any vanilla Civ game, so why not Civ5? Pacal is the best leader choice for the Mayans, IMHO. He's the most famous, and for good reason. Indeed.

*Mongolia, led By Genghis Khan: Come on, the Mongols are just cool. Seriously. It's a rush to lead a horde of barbaric horse-archers down on an unsuspecting foe. As said before, every game needs a few villains. As for Genghis Khan, do I really need to explain why? Kublai should also be there as well. He did revolutionize Mongolia after Genghis' nosebleed offed the poor sot. Mongolia shrank considerably, but they modernized somewhat during his reign and had a bit of a cultural revolution.

*Persia, led by Darius I: The Persian civilization has gone through numerous changes, but is still around today. Plus, they've had a great deal of influence over the course of world history, and really ought to be included. Cyrus and Xerxes are acceptable leader choices, but IMHO Darius is the best, considering that he was both a conqueror, a builder, and more. Xerxes seems too single-minded, and Cyrus too idealized. Xerxes would make for an excellent Conqueror leader of Persia though. Idealization is actually a BOON in this sort of game, one of the things about the leaders in the past is they are the IDEAL specimin of that particular culture. Cyrus, imho, is a shoe-in and always should be.

*Spain, led by Isabella: The Spanish are integral to world history, even if one only considers their discovery and colonization of the New World. Thus, they should be included in Civ5. Isabella is the best leader because she is well-rounded (and another token female). Philip II is not as famous, and was a bit odd anyway. El Cid is a cool choice, but again, ultimately not as well-rounded.[/QUOTE]

To add to the list:

Native Americans - Led by Hiawatha or Sitting Bull. Or the option of both. Let us be entirely honest. They had a pretty shwanky empire over there. Even though only the Iroquois combined their tribes into a large group. I would even state that just the Iroquois is a necessity, but either the group as a whole or just the Iroquois need to be in there. The Iroquois Nation still has a massive impact on the population of the NE US as a whole, historically. Hell our counties and cities are often named after the tribes who lived here, and the lakes and most streams and rivers are named BY the tribes. This is big. :)

All in all I'd like to see more non-western civs. I know how strange that sounds, really. But being an avid Europa Universalis player, there's a lot of cultures out there that are unmentioned that were major players in their time over history. Especially in the East, it'd be nice to see them.

Me.

[Mad Man 2.0]

My Picks

America-This is an obvious choice, I just can't see them NOT being in it.
China-The Chinese have been a very Important player through out history.
Britain-England is very specific name for this civ, it's like having a Virginia civ instead of America.
Egypt-
France-
Germany-
Greece-
India-
Rome-
Russia-
Arabia-
Ethiopia-
Babylonia-
Incas-
Japan-
Cherokee-
Poland-
Yugoslavia-
Ireland/Celts-
Vikings-
Brazil-
Aztecs-
Persia-
Mali-
Zululand/South Africa-
Hawaii/Tonga/Polynesia-
Spain-
Siam/Thailand-
Kongo/Congo-
Canada-
Inuit-
Hebrews-

[Nikolai]

I like your remarks Asmo, lots of good thought there. But this:


*Arabia, led by Saladin: From not being included in CivI and II, the Arabs have recently become more and more of a staple in the Civ franchise, even making it into the toned-down CivRev. I think the achievements of Islamic civilization need a representative, and the Arabs are a perfect fit. Saladin is the best leader choice for them because he is respected by Westerners and Muslims alike, and won't stir up a controversy like some other leaders might. Also, he can be graphically represented without causing offense. I have often wondered if "Arabs" are supposed to be an amalgamation of the different Arab tribes in the area? If so then what about the Selucid leaders, too?

Seleucids were Greeks. And their empire covered an area not owned by Arabs at the time. You are a little millennium too early.;)

[Erick]

You truly are a Mad Man. LOL
Sure, I liked that you put my civ in there, but Firaxis would need to change a few things on Civ & Leader mechanics if we're going to get THAT much of choices without becoming boring to choose.

[Kangarucourt]

Civ 3 has 16 civs. Civ 4 has 18. So, I'd say 20 civs for Civ5 vanilla. Each with two leaders, perhaps?

My picks, in no particular order:

1 America - obviously. Lead by Washington and Roosevelt.

2 England/Britain - British Empire once covered > 25% of the earth and played no small part in create the modern world. Leaders are Elizabeth I and Edward I. UU should be Redcoats or something from that era.

3 China - I'd have Tang Taizong and Qin Shi Huang. If you want a modern Chinese leader, then I'd prefer Sun Yat-sen over Mao, although his actual achievements are debatable. Unique unit should be something medieval.

4 India - Lead by either Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru, and Asoka. Unique unit or building should be something classical, representative of the Gupta golden age.

5 Japan - IIRC having an Emperor as a Civ leader could cause offense so in light of that, leaders should be Tokugawa Ieyasu and someone from the 1800s or early 1900s. If not Emperor Meiji, then perhaps Sakamoto Ryoma, Ito Hirobumi or Saionji Kinmochi. UU is probably the same old Samurai so UB should either represent the Meiji period or the modern period (Japan as a world economic power).

6 Egypt - I like Hatshepsut, and Rameses II make a great second leader.

7 Persia - One leader from the Achemenid period (Cyrus, please) and one from the Sassanid period (Khosrau I is a nice choice).

8 Babylon/Sumeria - I'd like to see it named Sumeria. Babylon and other ancient Mesopotamian civilizations is really a part of/offshoot of/continuation of the Sumerian civilization. Leaders should be Ur-Nammu (administration) and Sargon (conquest)

9 Arabia - Saladin, and either Caliph Umar (the third Caliph, responsible for much of the early Arab expansion, although controversial) or Caliph Harun al-Rashid (ruling the Abbasids at their height). UU should be a fast medieval-era cavalry.

10 Rome - Leaders should be Augustus Caesar, and Trajan. The former is known for administration, the latter military skills.

11 Greece - Alexander is a given. The other leader should be Pericles.

12 Russia - Catherine and Peter the Greats at the helm.

13 France - UU, Voltigeur, UB Salon Napoleon I and Joan of Arc at the helm.

14 Spain - UU, Conquistador. Isabella and Carlos I (Charles V of the HRE) at the helm.

15 Germany - UU, Panzer. UB, Auto Plant (like in Civ4). As for leaders, Bismarck is a good first choice. As for the second leader, either Frederick the Great or Otto I would be good.

16 Mongol - Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan FTW

17 Khmer - The main reason why I'd like to see them is because SE Asia has always been underrepresented. I mean, Angkor was once the largest city on earth (and Ayutthaya also held that title briefly a few centuries later) with the world's most sophisticated irrigation system (which they eventually failed to maintain, but that's beside the point). Jayavarman VII and Suryavarman II would be good leaders, UB should be the Baray (reservoir) and UU either the Battle Elephant or a swordsman unit that is cheaper to build (Khmer Empire has immense agricultural wealth and large manpower). If not Khmer, then Korea. Leaders: Sejong the Great, and either Wang Kon or Yi Sun-sin. UU: Turtle Ship, UB: Seowon.

18 Ethiopia - One of the Africa. Mali would be fine, too.

19 Aztecs - Actually, I'd prefer the Mayas but the Aztecs seem to make it in before the Mayas every time.

20 Incas - with Pachacuti and Huayna Capac at the helm. UB should be some sort of upgraded granary (to represent the quasi-communist system of storehouses that the Incas had in place before its destruction). UU should be a fast hybrid worker/scout (can defend itself, but can't attack) with no movement penalties in mountains, to represent the Inca's fast expansion.

[Kangarucourt]

Uhm. What about Chiang Kai Shek? Yesyes, he lost to Mao because the Russians were helping the communist revolution in China, but CKS was one HELL of a leader. Also you could go more deeply into the Dynasty period instead of just the Huang dynasty. What about Cao Cao?

Chiang Kai-shek is just as controversial as Mao. He's also a despot, running the Republic of China (or what's eventually left of it) along fascist lines. If he didn't cause many deaths it was because he has less resources to work with. While on the Mainland, he couldn't keep China united. He lost the eastern part of the country to the Japanese, and then lost the Mainland to the communists. I'd like to see him in a WWII scenario (not "Chairman Zedong" ...) but I'd rather see Song Taizu, Tang Taizong, Kangxi or Qianlong.


Ayup, Gandhi. Prior to that it was the Mughal Empire, and there's a few good Mughal emperors that would have been a good choice as well, such as Akbar the Great and so on.

Agree. If there's a third leader, then Akbar should be in.


I have often wondered if "Arabs" are supposed to be an amalgamation of the different Arab tribes in the area? If so then what about the Selucid leaders, too?

Arab is a generalized term referring to Semitic people who speak the Arabic language among other shared identity. So Iranians aren't Arabs, for instance. Seleucids were Greeks. BTW, Saladin was Kurdish, although ironically he's become a symbol of Arab resistance and unity.


Samurai and Ninja ARE cool. And yes, you would have to pick from Shoguns, because of the legality that would make one unable to sell the product in Japan, but Meiji would be absolutely awesome.

I would suggest Ito Hirobumi, although he's a controversial figure.


Xerxes would make for an excellent Conqueror leader of Persia though. Idealization is actually a BOON in this sort of game, one of the things about the leaders in the past is they are the IDEAL specimin of that particular culture. Cyrus, imho, is a shoe-in and always should be.

No Xerxes. His major achievement was to lead thousands of his soldiers to their deaths on a doomed campaign. It was Cyrus who really expanded the Persian Empire, conquering Lydia, Anatolia, Media and Babylonia. And no Leonidas either, please. =P


I agree with all of them, except the name you used for the Aztecs (Tenochca). I didn't knew they called themself like this, I always learned they named themself Mexica.

Wikipedia says the Aztecs call themselves the Mexica Tenochca. Also I've noticed a trend to call the Aztec Empire the "Triple Alliance", refering to the alliance between the city-states of Tenochtitlan, Tlacopan and Texcoco.


The Mongols are veterans from all previous Civilization versions, but they could also be incorporated within the Barbarianciv and added later on in an expansion.

I guess they could be in an expansion, but the Mongols aren't merely "barbarians", as the Jin and Song and Hungarians and Persians liked to think. They conquered roughly a fifth of the world and govern it for roughly a century and had enormous effect on the world.


Similar for Maya and Inca

Personally I would get rid of the Aztecs and have the Maya and the Inca instead. The Maya has a literate civilization that flourished for more than a millennium (and still survives today) while the Incas had, although for a short time, a large and well-run (for their time) empire.

[Jack Hawksmoor]

My Civ5 Civilization/Leader List
Yesyes, he lost to Mao because the Russians were helping the communist revolution in China, but CKS was one HELL of a leader.

Stalin did not help communist revolution, at least not in the way that went over the ideological obligation. He preferred a weak, divided China and simply kept Mao as a necessary pressure tool. He doubted his abilities and power, and doubted Mao was even a true Marxist. On the other hand he extorted various benefits from CKS for USSR. Later on, Soviet lack of true support was an issue for the relations of USSR and PRC.

[Impaler[WrG]]

For all those who are anti-Stalin arguing he is as bad as Hitler I can concur on the historical or moral judgment but for the sake of the Civ franchise Stalin has several key advantages that got him in and will keep him in the game.

1 - Technically a US Alie during WW2 making him more acceptable then Hitler.
2 - Inertia, having appeared in Civ for ages it's hard to exclude him now.
3 - Still popular in his home country unlike Hitler its legal to have Stalin in a game.
4 - Universally recognized to have turned a backwards nation into a Superpower.

[veBear]

I agree with all of your chosen civ's, and here is a few more of them i would like to see:

Norse
Just one thing to say. WE CAN'T INCLUDE THE VIKINGS! That word is just far to redicilous. Viking is a verb literally meaning "to go Pirate" or "to go Plundering". So, while not used by the vikings themselves, but used by people all over europe at the time, the Norse will be a suitable name.
Then, over to the reason. We need a civ to representent Scandinavia, and this civ also have some good LH choices. I would personally prefer either Canute the Great or Saint Olaf, or, if i could decide, both of them. Ragnar is a legend, and thus would fit better as a kind of warlord, just as leonidas. While the vikings were never that one people many seem to believe (they were more like advanced celts, many different cultures spread over a large area.

Hebrews
Just as said earlier in this thread, Hebrew is a more including word than Isrealis and Jews. For leader i would prefer Solomon (pretty obivious). David may also be an option for a second leader.

Poland
We need fill-in for east europe, and these guys surely deserves a place in Civ5. Their empire were big and mostly good maintained. For leader i would suggest Jan III Sobieski, but there are more alternatives. The reason i want him is because he defeated the Ottoman Turks and stabelized the empire after civil unrest and uprisng before his period of rule.

Phoenicia
Would be better than the Carthage originally shipped with the other games, as it representents both the Colonists and the people in the Homeland. Leader would be Hiram of Tyre, while Hannibal (Barca), Dido or Hamilcar (Barca) would be good second-lh choices. Tyre could be the Capital, but Carthage surely is an early must for city naming for this civ. Maybe after Tyre, Sidon and Byblos?

PS.
I also think Stalin should be in the Game.

[Buster's Uncle]

On 40's Chinese leaders, has anyone mentioned Tse Ven Soong?

http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=17&pictureid=135

He was President of the Republic of China, and reputed to be the only man the Nationalist and Communists both trusted...

[Lord Tirian]

On 40's Chinese leaders, has anyone mentioned Tse Ven Soong?Meh, I'd keep my Mao. Is he controversial? Sure. But he's also a high profile personality. Tying in with the "CivV needs a story", I'd say high profile personality is important. And the controversy only adds to that.

Cheers, LT.

[Buster's Uncle]

That is a strong point. Extreme personalities are easier to write...

[Camikaze]

I have to say, I'm rather partial to the idea of a Bolivarian South American Civ, to be honest. That part of the world is severely lacking in representation.

[nbcman]

Poland
We need fill-in for east europe, and these guys surely deserves a place in Civ5. Their empire were big and mostly good maintained. For leader i would suggest Jan III Sobieski, but there are more alternatives. The reason i want him is because he defeated the Ottoman Turks and stabelized the empire after civil unrest and uprisng before his period of rule.



Europe is extremely full now and there is no need for another european civ in the vanilla version of Civ V. Poland can be a mod civ or a civ in an expansion pack. Jan Sobieski is definitely a good choice for the leader.

[veBear]

I see your point, nbcman, but the main problem with all the civs from europe is that all of them, exept russia, seem to be concentrated in the West and South. We need fill-in in the east, and that's why Poland would be a good civ to have, and if not in the Vanilla version, included in the expansions.

[RMcD94]

I hope they call England Britain, and stop forgetting about Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. *sighs* Glad other people have noticed this.

[GeoModder]

I say it again. "Civs" should start with their ancient tribe names and gradually switch to their more modern counterparts during the game. :doitnow!:
With this setup a player could perhaps steer things so that his modern nation is the one he likes most. For instance starting as the East Goths and ending up as Poland.

[RobWorham]

Great idea, especially if they pick up the baton and run with the narrative aspect of the game 'a la SMAC'!

Watching your initial civ morph as you play the game would add a new dimension to things!

[Mr. Scruffy]

I say it again. "Civs" should start with their ancient tribe names and gradually switch to their more modern counterparts during the game. :doitnow!:
With this setup a player could perhaps steer things so that his modern nation is the one he likes most. For instance starting as the East Goths and ending up as Poland.

Indeed a very interesting idea, that...

[Lancer]

Eh, another throne room. I don't see it adding anything but distraction to the game play. So what's the upside of the idea?

[Ahovking]

Australia ?

[GeoModder]

Australia ?

You mean the aboriginals? :cute:

[RMcD94]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aborigines


ab·o·rig·i·ne (b-rj-n)
n.
1.
a. A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a region; a native.
b. often Aborigine A member of any of the indigenous peoples of Australia. See Usage Note at native.
2. aborigines The flora and fauna native to a geographic area.

It doesn't have to be just an Australian. Native Americans were aborigines.

[PiMan]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aborigines



It doesn't have to be just an Australian. Native Americans were aborigines.

Technically, but when capitalised, "Aborigine" refers to Australian aborigines.

[RMcD94]

Did not know that.

[Alexander]

Right. now that the game is announced, we know that there will be 18 starting civs, and at least one leader per civ. That's not a whole lot, I know. We also know that the first two are:

Americans - George Washington
Germans - Otto von Bismarck

That leaves 16 more. Based on precedent (see the chart in the first post in this thread), I would extrapolate that we will see:

Aztecs - Montezuma
China - Mao Tse-tung
Egypt - Ramses, Hatshepsut or Cleopatra
England - Elizabeth
France - Napoleon, Joan of Arc, or Louis XIV
Greece - Alexander
India - Mohandas Gandhi
Rome - Julius Caesar
Russia - Peter I, Catherine II, Lenin or Stalin

These 9, plus the 2 already revealed, comprise the 11 Civs that have always been included in the first vanilla versions of each game in the franchise. Babylon used to be the 12th Civ in this elite cadre until Civ4 relegated it to an expansion.

Now, assuming that these 11 are included, that leaves 7 more to go. I'm betting they'll be off this list:

Arabia
Japan
Mongolia
Spain
Persia
Another American Civ (Maya or Inca)
An African Civ (Ethiopia, Mali or Zulu)

(Yay for Civ5.)

[Metaliturtle]

Ummm bablylon?

[PiMan]

Clearly the prediction is that Babylon will wait until an expansion just like in Civ4

[Alexander]

Clearly the prediction is that Babylon will wait until an expansion just like in Civ4

Yes, as much as I hate to say it... Babylon being among my favorite civs to play.

[Alexander]

Here is a new version of my Civs/Leaders spreadsheet, updated to include the new info from Civ5.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg121/Alexander_I/UpdatedCivSpreadhseet.png

[GeoModder]

It looks like every second (PC) version there are multiple leaders in some civs. ;)