Since so many people complain about it, I'll do something about it.

New leaders take this form:
Leader name:
Civilization led:
Traits:
Favorite Civic:
Reason:

New civs take the form:
Civilization Name:
Color:
Banner:
Unique Unit:
Leader 1:
Traits:
Favorite Civic:
Reason:
Leader 2:
Traits:
Favorite Civic:
Reason:

So, for example:

Leader Name: Meiji
Civilization led: Japan
Traits: Industrious, Expansive
Favorite Civic: Free Market
Reason: Arguably the most important person in modern Japanese history. Reestablished the authority of the Imperial throne. Ordered the industrialization of Japan and the reorganization of the Japanese military and government along Western lines while retaining Japanese culture. Pushed Japan into a position of power in the Pacific; under his rule, the Japanese military defeated the Russians in 1905-1907 in the crushing Russo-Japanese War; it was a blow to the concept of white supremacy and took the diplomatic skills of Teddy Roosevelt to end.

And another example:
Civilization Name: Israel
Color: Blue
Banner: Yellow menorah on blue field (not Star of David to avoid confusion with Judaism symbol)
Unique Unit: Zealot (replaces Swordsman, free Guerrilla I promotion) (refers to the freedom fighters of ancient Israel)
Leader 1: Judah Maccabee
Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual
Favorite Civic: Theocracy (his title was High Priest, for crying out loud!)
Reason: Liberated Israel from Greek rule, not a prophet so portrayal won't offend Muslims.
Leader 2: David Ben-Gurion
Traits: Financial, Expansive
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion OR Environmentalism (democratic socialist)
Reason: Founded modern State of Israel. First Prime Minister thereof. One tough guy.

And another example:
Civilization Name: Israel
Color: Blue
Banner: Yellow menorah on blue field (not Star of David to avoid confusion with Judaism symbol)

Why not a silver/red Star of David on a blue field above/below a gold Menorah? or a gold Menorah on a blue field superimposed on a silver/red Star of David? Or even vice versa?

Leader 1: Judah Maccabee

I would have said King David.

.
Leader 2: David Ben-Gurion

King Solomon?

About the UU: Mossad Spy or Zealot.

Symbol:

I didn't want to make a mess of symbols (combining Star of David and menorah) or violate the rule of tincture, which most of the other of the other banners follow. Note that the Coat of arms of Israel has no Star of David on it.

Leaders: I had two things in mind: not offending Muslims (who would be offended by showing the faces of Solomon or David) and to reflect both ancient and modern Israel. Judah Maccabee is undoubtedly an important leader and relatively uncontroversial (kinda like Gandhi), and while Muslims may not like David Ben-Gurion, they can't call making a picture of him sacrelige. (for the record, I am a Muslim myself.)

Now, does anyone have any suggestions? C'mon, there are loads!

the nations of Tambora and Indochina, home of the ethnic Indonesians, Thai and Vietnamese, should be included. This is because there are no Southeast Asian civilisations present.

Great idea. Like the form, keeps things neat and tidy.


Civilization Name: Byzantine Empire (Ik similiar to roman, but still...)
Color: Cyan
Banner: Three rings connected in the middle, yellow on cyan background
Unique Unit: Greek Fire Ships
Leader 1: Justinian 1
Traits: Aggressive, Organized, Expansive, or Spiritual
Favorite Civic: Bueracracy
Reason: It played a major part in linking Europe to the Middle East for many years, and played a big part in the Crusades. It kept military tradition of the Roman empire alive, and also helped keep education and learning alive in the midst of the dark ages.

Mentioned heaps but a great leader and plenty of room for debate.

Name: Winston Churchill
Civilization Led: England (strictly UK, pos. backlash amongst Welsh, Scots, Loyalist Irish?)
Traits: Industrious and either Organized or Agressive (more for the cheap barracks/better troops than actual agressive tendancies)
Favourite Civic: Nationhood
Reason: Voted the greatest Briton ever. Truely inspirational wartime leader. Would look ace in diplomacy, chomping away on a cigar, flashing the V for victory.

Leader name: Xerxes
Civilization led: Persia
Traits: Aggressive, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Vassalage
Reason: Major part in Persian history,led a war against some Greek City states,
really cool.

Leader name:Lenin, or Stalin
Civilization led:Russia
Traits:(Lenin) Philosophical, Organized (Stalin) Aggressive, Expansive
Favorite Civic: (Lenin) State Property (Stalin) Police State
Reason:I feel the U.S.S.R. needs to be represented in the game.

And finally ik this one is going to run into a lot of opposition, but there are some leaders who are very cruel. Mao Zedong starved his people to , and Genghis Khan was an insane, torturing warmonger. I do feel it is hard to adequately represent germany without this guy.

Leader name:Hitler
Civilization led:Germany
Traits:Aggresive, Expansive
Favorite Civic:Police State
Reason:See above ^

:bump:
Hehe.
I don't like fascists, and on top of that, this was discussed ad nauseam before Civ4 came out.

In any case, here's a new one:
Civilization Name: Ethiopia (or Abyssinia, or Axum, I don't care)
Color: Hmm...Yellow?
Banner: Black Ark of the Covenant on a yellow field (the Ethiopians are positively obsessed with their possesion of that object)
Unique Unit: I don't know.
Leader 1: Negus Ezana
Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual or Aggressive, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion (pushed his religion, did not rule through it)
Reason: Arguably the greatest ruler of any Abyssinan kingdom in history. Converted to Christianity, making his country the first Christian major power. In spite of his faith's nominal pacifism (they took those verses seriously back then), he destroyed the Nubian capital Meroe.

Civ Name:Scotland
Color:Yellow
Banner:Scottish Thistle
Uniuqe unit:Highlander (Swordsman with Guriella I, Blitz and woodsman I promotion)
Leader 1:Queen Margret
Traits:spiritual, Financial
Favorite Civic:Organised religion
Reason:I'm tired of my people being represented by the Celts. They weren't unified state, just a different race. Also Queen Margret was the one who broght christianity to Scotland

Civilization Name: Hittites
Color: dark green?
Banner: A Lion (lion gates at hattusa)
Unique Unit: Anatolian Chariot
Leader 1: Suppiluliuma
Traits: Industrious, Agressive
Favorite Civic: Vassalage
Reason: The Hittites were very important people in ancient middle east, just as much as Egypt or Babylon.

Civilization Name: Carthage
Color: Light Blue (representing the sea), or purple (phoenician dye)
Banner: A column, or a tusk (hannibal's elephant)
Unique Unit: Tribal Merceneries (replace axeman), or Sacred Legions (replace spearman)
Leader 1: Dido
Traits: Industrious, financial
Favorite Civic: Free Market
Leader 2: Hannibal
Traits: Agressive, Organised
Favorite Civic: Nationalism
Reason: Carthage! The Richest City in the Ancient World (before 146BCE, when it became a salty field of ruins)

Civilization name: Atlantis
Color: Sea blue
Banner: Dolphin
Uniuqe unit:Flag spearman (sprearman with amphibous) or an improved Galley
Leader: King Neptune
Traits: Industrious, Organised
Favorite civic: Mercantalism
reason: I just went to the Atlantis hotel :D

Leader name: Theodore Roosevelt
Civilization led: America
Traits: Agressive, Industrious
Favorite Civic :Bureaucracy
Reason: Teddy Roosevelt got things done. With his leadership, the Panama Canal was built.

Civilization Name: Siam
Color: Red (red background on flags before 1917, red bands on flags after 1917)
Banner: white elephant
Unique Unit: An improved maceman
Leader 1: King Ramkamhaeng
Traits: Creative, Organised
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: the nations of Tambora and Indochina, home of the ethnic Indonesians, Thai and Vietnamese, should be included. This is because there are no Southeast Asian civilisations present.

Civilization Name: Ottomans
Color: Orange? (colour in civ3)
Banner: Red with a white crescent
Unique Unit: Janissary (musketman)
Leader 1: Suleiman
Traits: Creative, Agressive
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Dominates the Middle East and Eastern Europe from the 14th to the late 19th century.

Leader name: Emperor Wudi
Civilization led: China
Traits: Philosophical, Agressive
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Rule during the height of the Han Dynasty

Leader name: Ramesses II
Civilization led: Egypt
Traits: Organised, Expansive
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Great ruler of Egypt, rule during the last period of Egyptian supremacy in the Middle East until the Ptolemies.

question, could I make a leader for anoyher persons civ here?

question, could I make a leader for anoyher persons civ here?

Sure, knock yourself out.

Leader: Theroda
Civ led: Byzantium
Traits: Industriou, Spiritual
Favorite civic: Bureauracracy
Reason: Helped herself and Justinian stay on the throne, by helping Justinian stay during the Nike riots

Also Queen Margret was the one who broght christianity to Scotland

No she wasn't. The Scots were Christian 500 years before she set foot there, and Christianity has been present in what's now Scotland since Rome stalked the earth.

I guess my teacher shoves false info down my un-sespecting throat :eek:

Reason:I'm tired of my people being represented by the Celts. They weren't unified state, just a different race. Also Queen Margret was the one who broght christianity to Scotland
I AGREE 100% Nuclear_Kid! Having the Celts represent Wales, Scotland, Ireland etc. is like having one civ called Native Americans to represent all Red Indian tribes. Or having a civ called the Mediterraneans to represent Rome, Italy, Greece, France, Spain... or, not having the Americans in the game because 99% of them are descended from inhabitants of other nations.

Civ Name: Wales
Colour: Red, or Blue, or Green
Banner: Red Dragon on white and green background
Uniuqe unit: Welsh Longbowman

Leader 1: Llywelyn Fawr
Traits: Financial, Organised
Favorite Civic: State Property
Reason: Llywelyn Fawr (Llywelyn the Great) was Prince of Wales (i.e. King. Stupid English stealing titles) in the thirteenth century, when the nation as a whole was last at its height.

Leader 2: Owain Glyndw^r
Traits: Aggressive, Financial
Favorite Civic: Nationhood
Reason: A more revolutionary and popular leader. Led a revolution against the English occupation in the early 1400s, almost deposing and destroying England as a nation (and changing the course of history, because if he had, there would have been no British Empire). He appears in Shakespeare (spelt Glendower).

Reason for Civ: Nobody's ever made Wales into a Civilization, for Civ3 or Civ4. As a nation they have a longer lasting language, culture and national heritage than England. Plus (all due respect to Scots or Irish) our language and culture is more alive than any other Celtic nation; with 300,000+ speakers today, with more and more every year.

I would be happy to provide Civilopedia entries, great people (from all categories), city lists etc. to anyone with the technical knowledge to make a mod.

Excellent! Now for some more stuff:

Leader Name: Pericles
Civilization Led: Greeks (duh)
Traits: Well, for the moment, Expansive/Organized (waiting for new traits...)
Favorite Civic: Universal Suffrage (after all, its closest equivalent in Ancient Greece gave him all that power)
Reason: Well, for one thing, it was under his influence that Athens reached its height; it was, for the longest time, the most powerful state in Greece thanks to him. He also ordered the beautification of Athens, and the Parthenon is his crowning acheivement. He presided over the revolution in Greek art which produced all the greatest works of Greek art that survive today and served as models for the Romans and the Italian Renaissance. Granted, he sparked the Peloponnesian War, but that's just another reason he should be in--they have the Peloponnesian War scenario in Warlords.

Sorry, double post...

Civilization Name: Korea
Color: Blue?
Banner: Red and blue yin-yang on a white field
Unique Unit: Either Hwacha or Turtle Ship

Leader 1: King Taejo of Goryeo
Traits: I dunno. Expansive? Spiritual?
Favorite Civic: Either Nationhood (unified Korea) or Theocracy (ruled through Buddhist organization)
Reason: Unified Korea. That should be enough. By the way, this is that "Wang Kon" guy from PTW.

I don't know about Leader 2, but Korea has such a rich history, I can't imagine there not being one.

Civ Name: Wales
Colour: Red, or Blue, or Green
Banner: Red Dragon on white and green background


You can mod this in all you like, but Wales doesn't belong in the expansion pack. I can think of several hundred more deserving choices, including plenty from western Europe. Portugal, the Dutch, Scotland, the Irish, the Aragonese, Bretons and Basques all before Wales.

They will never put aside multiple separate tags for the 'Celtic' nations. If there were a couple of dozen more slots to fill Scotland just might be justified as might Ireland, but Wales? There are too many cultures out there to include what was only ever a minor power. We will have to make do with the admittedly unsatisfactory Celtic civ as seen in previous civs.

Civilization Name: Portugal
Color: Light Blue
Banner: Red shield on green background
Unique Unit: Carrack
Leader 1: Dom Afonso Henriques
Traits: Aggressive, Expansive
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: He helped create modern Portugal, and fought important battles against the Moors.

I say they only need one leader. They deserve to be in Civ, but 2 leaders may be too much.

several hundred more deserving choices

I disagree; I think Wales is just as deserving as Scotland and Ireland to be included. Granted on a global scale they haven't influenced things as much as several civs who haven't been included that you mentioned, like the Portugese or Dutch - considering the expansion is probably only going to add 5+ more civs as oppsed to 20+ worldwide, I'm not going to write a letter of complaint when it invariably won't be included.

But to argue that it was "only ever a minor power", and then cite the Argonese, Scots, Basques and Bretons? Admittedly Scotland was independent till 1603 wheras Wales was only till 1282, but Wales came far closer than any other nation to toppling England - not just Scotland but the Spanish Armada and the second world war. Like it or not, the early 1400s was the closest they came to destruction, and because of Wales.

The difference lies in that the Scots had a Hollywood Film made out of one of their rebellions; Wales didn't.

Like it or not, the early 1400s was the closest they came to destruction, and because of Wales.

Assuming we're talking about the same event, I don't think that would necessarily have meant the destruction of the English kingdom, much less the English nation, any more than the accession of Henry VII did.

About the last chance the Welsh realistically had to destroy the English was the fifth century.

Glyndw^r and two English rebel lords whose names I forget had a plan drawn up, so that if they won, Wales would expand as far east as Nottingham (meaning Wales would make up a sizeable proportion of the British isles), and that the remainder of England would be divided between the English lords. The English Throne would be gotten rid of, in other words. Here's an article if you want to know more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Glendower#The_Revolt.2C_1400.E2.80.9315

Owain demonstrated his new status by negotiating the "Tripartite Indenture" with Edmund Mortimer and the Earl of Northumberland. The Indenture agreed to divide England and Wales between them. Wales would extend as far as the rivers Severn and Mersey including most of Cheshire, Shropshire, and Herefordshire. The Mortimer Lords of March would take all of southern and western England and Thomas Percy, the Earl of Northumberland, would take the north of England. Most historians have dismissed the Indenture as a flight of fantasy. However, it must be remembered that in early 1404 things still looked positive for Owain.

That's what I assumed you meant. Even if that plan had been realised, it was all but certain England would have reformed eventually. Magnates dividing the area of England between them by itself would not have destroyed the English nation any more than at points during the Barons' Wars or the Danish invasions.

Civilization Name:Argentina
Color: Dark blue
Banner:The argentinian flag
Unique Unit:somekind of rifleman or cavalry
Leader 1:Jose justo Urquiza
Traits:Agressive,Organized
Favorite Civic:Universal sufragge
Reason:He was the first Argentinian president,He made the final constitution of argentina,he unificated argentina ending a period of civil wars
Leader 2:Julio Argentino Roca
Traits:Organized,Comunicative
Favorite Civic:Free Market
Reason:He founded the bases of modern Argentina,he fomented the european inmigration and conquered the patagonia from the indians.
I think argentina,brasil,chile and other south american countrys should be in since there isnt any country representig south or central america

Possibly, but it would at least have assured that Wales remained independent for longer than it did.

Leader name: Theodore Roosevelt
Civilization led: America
Traits: Agressive, Industrious
Favorite Civic :Bureaucracy
Reason: Teddy Roosevelt got things done. With his leadership, the Panama Canal was built.

We alredy have rosvelt and his fav. civic is Universlsuffrage and i like ind. org.
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: to u :bump:

We alredy have rosvelt and his fav. civic is Universlsuffrage and i like ind. org.
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: to u :bump:

That's a different Roosevelt. The Roosevelt in the game is Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, in office from 1932 until his death shortly after his inauguration to a fourth term in 1945. He was a Democrat.

Theodore Roosevelt was his fifth (I think) cousin, a Republican, who was the 26th President of the United States. He served from the assasination of William McKinley in 1901 until 1908; he ran again in 1912 as the Bull Moose Progressive Party's candidate and had more popular and electoral votes than the Republican, William Howard Taft. However, both had less than Woodrow Wilson.

However, I agree that having TR (as he is affectionately known) is a bad idea. Consistently, he fails to make the top three American Presidents (though he usually makes the top ten) in surveys of historians. No, if there is to be a third American leader, it's Lincoln. Consistently, almost all surveys of historians select Washington (for setting the model of the Presidency--never before had there been a similar kind of leader), Lincoln (for holding the Union together and recognizing the power of the Presidency), and FDR (for fundamentally altering the nature of the Presidency from Chief Clerk to Center of Government Attention) as the top three Presidents of the United States. Washington is fairly consistently first; most lists put Lincon above FDR, but some reverse that.

In what way is thsi thread "official"?
Civ Name: Luxembourg ;).......
(j/k)

Civ Name:The Huns
Colour: Black or Grey
Banner: White Horse on Balck Background
UU: Steppe Cavalry (replaces HA)
Leader 1: Atilla (no shocks there) Aggressive(same),Finanacial(The Huns actulay made alot of money form taxes and similar)
Favourite Civic: Serfdom
Leader 2: Kama Tarkhan (may be a myth) Aggressive, Spiritual
Reason The Huns had a powerfull empire, and helped bring down the Roman Empire and made its enemies (like thegauls and vandals) flee before them.
Many people in history wish to be regarded as "Huns".
Problems: Huns are similar to Mongolians. Many people dont read much history and don't realise they were a civilization, not a murdering band of psychopaths.

In what way is thsi thread "official"?
Civ Name: Luxembourg ;).......
(j/k)

Civ Name:The Huns
Colour: Black or Grey
Banner: White Horse on Balck Background
UU: Steppe Cavalry (replaces HA)
Leader 1: Atilla (no shocks there) Aggressive(same),Finanacial(The Huns actulay made alot of money form taxes and similar)
Favourite Civic: Serfdom
Leader 2: Kama Tarkhan (may be a myth) Aggressive, Spiritual
Reason The Huns had a powerfull empire, and helped bring down the Roman Empire and made its enemies (like thegauls and vandals) flee before them.
Many people in history wish to be regarded as "Huns".
Problems: Huns are similar to Mongolians. Many people dont read much history and don't realise they were a civilization, not a murdering band of psychopaths.

Good one. We're not averse to semi-mythical leaders--remember Gilgamesh in C3C?

Of course, anyone who played AoE2-The Conquerors agrees with you...

Civ name: Mexico
Color: Emerald
UU: Bandit, replaces Calvary, plus 2 movement, -1 streghnth
leader 1: Santa Anna (Please come up with better, I chose him because of report on Alamo)
traits: Aggressive, expansive
Favorite civic: Police State
reason: Mexico would have probably played a big role in history, if the US didnt take a crap load of land from them

Leader name: Tamerlane
Civilization led: Persia
Traits: Organised\Aggressive
Favorite Civic: Hereditry Rule
Reason: Founder of the Timurid empire and the forerunner of the Persia that exists today (I.e Iran). Also represents Persia after Alexander the Great.

Leader name: Henry IV
Civilization led: France
Traits: Organised\Financial
Favorite Civic: Religous Toleration
Reason: Lead the Hugenots forces to victory during the majority of the first eight Wars of Religion, reunified France, enacted Economic reform, founded the Bourbon dynasty and created much of the modern French nation state.

Civilization Name: Mayan Empire
Color: Green (to repr. jungle?)
Banner: Serpent (Quetzalcoatl)
Unique Unit: Slinger (repl. archer)
Leader 1: Pacal the Great
Traits: Philosophical, Industrious
Favorite Civic: Theocracy
Reason: Mayas developed an advanced (and literate. In fact, they were the only people in pre-columbian america who were) civilization.

Leader Name: Ruhollah Khomeini
Civilization Led: Persia
Traits: Spiritual (duh), and either Aggressive or Organized
Favorite Civic: Theocracy (duh)
Reason: Since they chose both Mao and Stalin (in Warlords), I would imagine that they don't shy away from controversial figures, and Khomeini died thirteen years after Mao. Khomeini created modern Iran, complete with its problems (nukes, strict religious laws) and its advantages (not being controlled by an outside power, a good economy by regional standards, and a semi-democratic system superior to anything else in the Middle East until--and this is still uncertain--Lebanon's Cedar Revolution). He can also be said to be the founder of the modern Islamist movement, inspiring both Shiites and Sunnis to rise up and use Islam as the basis of a political movement--unheard of in the twentieth century.

I think both Isreal and Babylon should be put in the game Babylon if for no other reason than it's civ tradition, and Isreal because they have and still do play a crucial part in the make up of the entire middle eastern world. Also they would obvisouly fit in quite well religiously...

Civilization Name:Greece
Color: Teal
Banner: Olympic crown
Unique Unit: Essentially a early calvary unit similar to the war chariot, but with very little defense, but more movement
Leader 1:Athena or Ares
Traits:Spititual/Creative & Agressive/Organized respectivly
Favorite Civic: Theocracy & Hereditary rule respectivly
Reason: Athena being the mythical goddess of wisdom, and Ares being the mythical god of war would be an interesting addition. Greece is obvisouly most well known for Alexander the Great, however if you were to "ask" Alexander, if would most definatly pay tribute to both Athena for directing his ways, and to Ares for his aid in warfare.

I don't think that that would pass. Gilgamesh as a Sumerian leader has some basis in history; historians tend to beleive that there was a real king named Gilgamesh who fought barbarians rather than monsters.

Athena and Ares, however, are totally mythical.

Of course they are both totally mythical, however it certinatly wouldn't be the first time civ has incorperated fictional leaders... Livia, Ishtar, Aramasuta (sp) ect... however I still believe that they would be interesting to have...

Since when has Civ included entirely mythical leaders?

Of course they are both totally mythical, however it certinatly wouldn't be the first time civ has incorperated fictional leaders... Livia, Ishtar, Aramasuta (sp) ect... however I still believe that they would be interesting to have...

I mentioned some of them above.. they were all in civII I believe there were a few in call to power as well....

CtP isn't a Sid Meier civ, so it doesn't count.

If you'll look at Civ3, there weren't any entirely mythical leaders. C3C had Gilgamesh, but he's only semimythical. And I think that this was a subtle and unannouced policy change--historical figures only.

Hitler, but he's obvious. Maybe his favourite civic should be Slavery, not Police state. He definately used the whip to get production done in Germany. (perhaps you should be able to chose which pops/religions you can whip as well).

Constantine or Aetius for the Romans. Constantine has been said before, so I will elabourate on Aetius.

Aetius
Rome
Favoured Civic: Nationhood
Defensive (new Warlords trait right?)/ Spiritual
Aetius is from the often forgotten late Roman period. He basically held the empire tougether against the Huns in a time it should have fallen appart utterly. He was a brilliant general, even in the face of the incompetence of his emperor (who later had him murdered). His career was brilliant, if not doomed.

Oliver Cromwell
England
Favourite Civic: Theocracy
Spirtiual/Philo.
Important to England's history for obvious reasons.

Add the Zulu's!!!

Add the Zulu's!!!

Confirmed in Warlords.

Civilization Name: Polynesia
Color: Blue
Banner: Totem form of Tangaroa, God of the sea
Unique Unit: Outrigger (Replaces Galley) - Can enter ocean - can hold 3-4 units
Leader 1: Kamehameha I
Traits: Organized, Spiritual
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Organized because he unified Hawai'i, spiritual because he advocated the preservation of his people's values and beliefs; hereditary rule, as he advocated his hereditary dynasty.
Polynesia in one form or another (Hawaiian, Maori, etc. or just Polynesian) should be added because Pacific Islander civilization has yet to be represented in Civ IV. Some may say it is akin to how Barbarians are represented in Civ IV, but it seems it was a genuine Civilization, even in the Civilization series sense.

A galley that can enter ocean squares? Aside from being overpowered (particularly on a Terra map, but any map becomes a lot different once the age of galleons arrives), since when did Polynesians leave their islands and travel great distances across the sea?

Civilization Name: Khmer (Cambodia)
Color:Dark Blue
Leader 1: Jayavarman VII
Traits: Spiritual, organized
Favorite Civic:
Reason: He ruled over an empire that contained parts of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and commissioned the building of Angkor Wat, the world's largest religious complex.

This is my first post, and the main reason I'm bringing this up - and the main reason I know anything about it - is my fiancee is Cambodian and she's always saying she wishes she could use the ancient Khmer empire in the game. The civilization's greatest wonder (Angkor Wat) is already in the game, so I don't see what the harm would be in adding them. The Khmer empire lasted from 802 until the Thai army captured the city of Angkor in 1431.

A galley that can enter ocean squares? Aside from being overpowered (particularly on a Terra map, but any map becomes a lot different once the age of galleons arrives), since when did Polynesians leave their islands and travel great distances across the sea?

Since forever. They made it from what is now French Polynesia to Hawaii by at 1000 AD at the latest.

True, getting to Hawaii wasn't exactly a task your average galley could do, but if a player had that power, he'd have a colony on every continent in the world by the time he researched Astronomy. It may not have been accurate to say that they didn't travel "great distances" over the ocean, but an oceangoing vessel that early in the game automatically gives the owning civ a free circumnavigation bonus and an instant foothold in the entire world. Imagine that on a Terra map. Even on Pangaea you'll be able to meet civs on the other side of the continent immediately.

Civ Name: Scandinavia
Colour: Red
Banner: Yellow background and red cross
Unique unit: Peasant riflemen (replaces riflemen, -1 strenght, costs 10 less shields, 2 movement)
*EDIT!:* Unique building: Colony ports [since Scandinavia was the first Colony power, colonizing Iceland (inhabited by Irish) and Greenland (inhabited by Inuits)] (replaces harbor, -25% cost from distance from palace)

Leader 1: Queen Margareth I of the Kalmar Union
Traits: Charmistic, Finincial
Favorite Civic: Hereditary rule
Reason: She united Scandiavia in one kingdom, making it the largest in Europe, and about the size of the Ottoman empire. AND she was a woman in a difficult time and people loved her

Leader 2: King Gustav Adolf of Sweden
Traits: Imperialistic, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Vassalage
Reason: He beat Russia, Germany and Poland. That says all that has to be said!

I understand your likely objections, but this will probably be voted down on account of the Vikings in much the same way that Italy is never included on account of the Romans.

CtP isn't a Sid Meier civ, so it doesn't count.


But It's a Civilization game, so It counts.

It's not a "Civilization" game in the sense that its part of the "Civilization" series developed by Sid Meier. It only has the word "Civilization" in its title, nothing more.

Good Evening.
i would like to suggest an alternate Hun civ:

Formal:Hunnish Empire
Adjective:Hunnish
Hungary[for lack of a better name]

UU: Hunnish Horsearcher [25% vs melee 7 attack]
Flag:golden bow of the huns [black field]
Colour: 1-darkyellow 2-black [like the scythians in greekworld]
Leaders: Attila [shock] Traits:agressive financial fav civic
Vassalage [he made a great many vassals of conquered goths]

leader2: Motun [leader of Hunnu tribe in mongolia] Aggresive Industrious
fav civic:Hereditary rule.

Civilization Name: Khmer (Cambodia)
Color:Dark Blue
Leader 1: Jayavarman VII
Traits: Spiritual, organized
Favorite Civic:
Reason: He ruled over an empire that contained parts of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and commissioned the building of Angkor Wat, the world's largest religious complex.

This is my first post, and the main reason I'm bringing this up - and the main reason I know anything about it - is my fiancee is Cambodian and she's always saying she wishes she could use the ancient Khmer empire in the game. The civilization's greatest wonder (Angkor Wat) is already in the game, so I don't see what the harm would be in adding them. The Khmer empire lasted from 802 until the Thai army captured the city of Angkor in 1431.
being part cambodian i like your ideas. I also got a couple of cities that any modder could use for a new civilization. yosodharapura and kohker are a couple of cambodian early cities a longer list can be brought up if needed. also i got the current cambodian flag if they want to use that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:flag7_of_cambodia.svg#file i think that's right

On the subject of Polynesia:

While not delving into the issue of whether to include them or not, I think that by making the Outrigger have a 25-50% chance of sinking in Ocean is a good bet, giving the Outrigger greater mobility but preventing it from becoming overpowered.

It's not a "Civilization" game in the sense that its part of the "Civilization" series developed by Sid Meier. It only has the word "Civilization" in its title, nothing more.

It's maybe not a part of the Civilization series by Sid Meier, but it's still a real Civilization game, derived, but it's a Civilization game, and there are things in it that are much better than the Sid Meier's ones. (not destroying buildings on capture, bombardment, aircrafts control...)
Saying "It only has the word "Civilization" in its title, nothing more.", is just absurd, because it's a Civilization game in itself, you build cities, in a turn based game, the combat is almost the same, you have resources, it's a Civilization game.
The creator is not the same but it's the same type of game : Civilization.

No, no, our point is that FIRAXIS, which will develop any expansions or sequels, will not consider Call to Power a real Civ game. Whether or not it actually IS a Civ game is irrelevant. What matters is the Firaxis official line.

And anyhoo, it's just plain better to have historical leaders only. It makes things a bit more educational. You want mythological leaders? Mod them in or play Age of Mythology.

A galley that can enter ocean squares? Aside from being overpowered (particularly on a Terra map, but any map becomes a lot different once the age of galleons arrives), since when did Polynesians leave their islands and travel great distances across the sea?

Erm...the Polynesian civilisation is based upon travelling great distances.

See:Maori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori) and:Polynesia History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia#History)

I'd support a Polynesian Civilisation, perhaps the Waka (Galley replacement) could navigate Ocean squares but have a 25% chance of sinking and the Civ be limited to 2 at any one time.

Persia/Iran....

Leader name:Khosrau (khosrow) I
Civilization led:Persia/Iran
Traits:Agressive, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrau_I


Leader name:Shah Abbas I
Civilization led:Persia/iran
Traits:Spiritual, Creative
Favorite Civic:Theocracy
Reason:the person truely responsible for the modern Iranhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_I_of_Persia

Erm...the Polynesian civilisation is based upon travelling great distances.

See:Maori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori) and:Polynesia History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia#History)

I'd support a Polynesian Civilisation, perhaps the Waka (Galley replacement) could navigate Ocean squares but have a 25% chance of sinking and the Civ be limited to 2 at any one time.

Having a limit of two would make this WAY underpowered. How would the Polynesians transport armies across Coast?

No, no, our point is that FIRAXIS, which will develop any expansions or sequels, will not consider Call to Power a real Civ game. Whether or not it actually IS a Civ game is irrelevant. What matters is the Firaxis official line.


No, Firaxis is not the center of the world, the game is just important.
Now we can see that we have 2 types of game that are based on the same system : the Civilization game type.
So both CTP and Sid Meier's/Firaxis games are Civilization games, because they have both the same system, there is nothing to say more and there is no debate about this.
It's not to Firaxis to consider a game to be Civilization or not, just the game in itself tells if a game is Civilization or not, not the first creator.
So yes, CTP is a Civ game because it's a Civ game, and Firaxis's opinion has no importance about games' nature.
Firaxis is not important, just the game is, CTP is a real Civilization game.

-

Then, having mythologic leaders is impossible in Civilization which is not a supernatural game, you are obliged to have historical leaders.

:bump:
Hehe.
I don't like fascists, and on top of that, this was discussed ad nauseam before Civ4 came out.

In any case, here's a new one:
Civilization Name: Ethiopia (or Abyssinia, or Axum, I don't care)
Color: Hmm...Yellow?
Banner: Black Ark of the Covenant on a yellow field (the Ethiopians are positively obsessed with their possesion of that object)
Unique Unit: I don't know.
Leader 1: Negus Ezana
Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual or Aggressive, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion (pushed his religion, did not rule through it)
Reason: Arguably the greatest ruler of any Abyssinan kingdom in history. Converted to Christianity, making his country the first Christian major power. In spite of his faith's nominal pacifism (they took those verses seriously back then), he destroyed the Nubian capital Meroe.

An other Ethiopian leader you colud have is (say what is that one king of Ethiopia during WWII)I fregot his name but.. o well

1. What in #@!! are you saying? I'm arguing AGAINST mythological leaders!

2. My argument was not that CtP wasn't a Civ game, it was that it is IRRELEVANT whether CtP is a Civ game or not, because Firaxis, which would make the decision about whether or not to include a given leader in the game, chooses whatever criteria it pleases. With that said, it will NOT use CtP as a precedent for using mythological leaders, because IT does not consider CtP a Civ game, whatever the reality on the ground may be. It's like the Supreme Court deciding that pornography is not prostitution, because it is a SIMULATION of sex in exchange for money, not the act of sex for money itself. The fact remains, however, that pornography is prostitution with a camera in the room, but the law does not see it that way. What is ACTUALLY TRUE and what is OFFICIALLY TRUE are often two totally different animals.

Leader name:cromwell
Civilization led:english
Traits:aggressive spirit
Favorite Civic: represntatoin
Reason:leader of the english civil ( he killed the king)war he had 5 years in power .then the power went to the kings son aggianst his will.
the first fialure of demorcy

1. What in #@!! are you saying? I'm arguing AGAINST mythological leaders!

I know, and me too.

My argument was not that CtP wasn't a Civ game

No, you meant that CTP is not a Civ game, you also said "No" to my saying "CTP is a Civ Game", that means that you think that CTP isn't a CIV game...

it was that it is IRRELEVANT whether CtP is a Civ game or not, because Firaxis

It's not a question of Firaxis, just the game, CTP is a real Civ game.

which would make the decision about whether or not to include a given leader in the game, chooses whatever criteria it pleases.

I don't talk about leaders.

With that said, it will NOT use CtP as a precedent for using mythological leaders

There are no mythological leaders in CTP.. there are only historical leaders as in Civ4.
I understand that Firaxis won't use CTP, because it's a product of another producer, but some ideas can be interesting to take from it to include them in Civ4.
But this doesn't imply that CTP is not a Civ game...

because IT does not consider CtP a Civ game, whatever the reality on the ground may be

You mean that in fact CTP is a real Civ game, but Firaxis, doesn't consider it as a Civ game?
I don't think that Firaxis ignore CTP and that they consider that CTP isn't a Civ game, they just consider that it's a game from the concurrence, and so they prefer not to see it.
But in all cases, CTP is a real Civ game, Firaxis can't say anything on this point.

It's like the Supreme Court deciding that pornography is not prostitution, because it is a SIMULATION of sex in exchange for money, not the act of sex for money itself.

..Uhuh?
Pornography is real sex..
I don't see the link with the other thing.

that pornography is prostitution

Not exactly..

but the law does not see it that way. (...) What is ACTUALLY TRUE and what is OFFICIALLY TRUE are often two totally different animals.

Yes, I see your point now, the law can be wrong, as well as the official consideration, so even if Firaxis (official) does not consider CTP as a Civ game, in reality, CTP is a real Civ game, it's ok, Firaxis should be interested by CTP because there are many things interesting that are much better in CTP and if they take them for CIv4, it can really improve their own game.

Again, I must reiterate: I DON'T CARE WHETHER CtP IS OR IS NOT A CIV GAME!

Otherwise, thank you for your clarification.

Though I must say, you would be well advised to study the case law on pornography if you didn't understand my point. Granted, I don't pretend to be an obscenity lawyer, but I have a vague idea of what it is.

Again, I must reiterate: I DON'T CARE WHETHER CtP IS OR IS NOT A CIV GAME!

Otherwise, thank you for your clarification.

Though I must say, you would be well advised to study the case law on pornography if you didn't understand my point. Granted, I don't pretend to be an obscenity lawyer, but I have a vague idea of what it is.
I thought this was aboght new civ and leader ideas not whatever you are talking abought.

Again, I must reiterate: I DON'T CARE WHETHER CtP IS OR IS NOT A CIV GAME!

Maybe, but you meant that in your first post, so that's why I argued about CTP is a real Civ game.

Otherwise, thank you for your clarification.

Which one ?

you would be well advised to study the case law on pornography if you didn't understand my point.

I'm not really interested by pornography ~~
I don't know what considers the law.
But pornography isn't equal to prostitution, if law think it, they are untrue.

Leader name:Abraham Linclon
Civilization led:America
Traits:Agg,Fin
Favorite Civic: Emancipation,Nationhood
Reason:He freed the slaves,He led the nation in a time of crisis and restored the union. Enough said (as if it was needed anyway)

Civ Name: Cherokee
Color: Dark Brown
Banner: ?
UU: Brave, Scout that can attack, str: 2, Guerilla and woodsmen I, treats all terrain like road.
Leader 1: Chieftess Nancy Ward
traits: Spiritual, Protective
Favorite Civic: Free Speech
Leader 2: Chief Kingfisher
traits: Aggressive, Financial
Favorite Civic: Police State
Uniuqe building: Longtom, replaces baracks, all units built there recieve medic I promotion.
Reason: One of the most powerful (and in the white's eyes) Civilised tribes in the U.S.

UU: Brave, Scout that can attack, str: 3, Guerilla and woodsmen I, treats all terrain like road.

Overpowered.

UU: Brave, Scout that can attack, str: 2, Guerilla and woodsmen I, treats all terrain like road.

So... A Warrior with 4 moves regardless of terrain? Ouch. They'd have everything mapped before their neighbors popped a single goody hut.

Sorry for the critical voice here, guys, but as I suggested in another thread, and if I'm not mistaken even implemented in a modpack, rather then the birth of (too many) new civs and leaders I would like to see the creation of one more Great Person, the Great Statesman, which can be a well-chosen mix of the Great Merchant, Great Artist and Great Scientist, and possibly acting as a mini-Forbidden Palace, limiting maintenance in some neiboring cities.

You guys have suggested so many leaders. They could then pop up as Great Statesman, there's plenty of them to choose from, even from the same nationality as the mother civ.

Jaca

Civilization Name:Great Britain
Color:Red
Banner:The Union Jack
Unique Unit:Redcoat (already in the game but the country that used them was Britain not just England)
Leader 1:Queen Victoria (also already in the game but she was the queen of Great Britain not just England)
Traits:Imperialistic & Financial
Favorite Civic: Vassalage
Reason:Because Britain was at the height of her coloniel power under her
Leader 2:Winston Churchill
Traits:Charismatic & Protective
Favorite Civic:Nationhood
Reason:Becuase he was a great leader and saved us from being invaded by Nazi Germany

Was that post just a request to rename "English Empire" to "British Empire"?

Was that post just a request to rename "English Empire" to "British Empire"?

Probebly not a rename but a option to play as either becuase a huge part of england history is being part of Britain, so if you were given a choice and obviosly if you were playing as another nation there couldn't be 2 AI's in the same game being Britain and england

Basic idea: in each "slot" where there is now a single nation (e.g English) with one or more leaders, instead the "slot" can be filled with a selection of (mutually exclusive) nations, each with one or more leaders (or just one leader?).

So instead of (e.g.) English with Vic/Liz as monarch, you could have the "slot", the geographical area, as the spawning ground for a civ that can be different in every game, reflecting the foibles of history.
Example:
1) Bouddica (Boadicea) as monarch of the Britons. Or Arthur!
2) Celtic or Gaelic leaders
3) Normans like Richard I
4) Anglo-Saxons like Elizabeth I
5) German imports like Victoria :-)

Same could apply to Africa: have 1 or 2 slots for the continent but rather than always having the Malinese (and/or Zulus) as the sole sub-Saharan nation, throw in a mixture (Kush) to make every game different.

Likewise Carthaginians are also associated with Phoenicians and possibly Canaanites, but you'd only want one such nation in play.

Replace Rome with Etruscans every now and then for a bit of variety.

Japan/China/Korea/India are nations of long vintage, but what about the rest of S.E.Asia/Pacific coast. Isn't there room for one nation there? Could be different every game, e.g. Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam etc; how about a timeline where native Australians got beyond the neolithic before Europeans discovered the place?

Only the bare bones of an idea, but you can probably see the consequences... Although you could customize a game, the normal way to play would be choose your nation but let the others be chosen randomly. E.g. in the Roman slot (if you didn't choose from there), 95% of the time Rome would be playing, but 5% of the time you'd get Etruscans - with a completely different leader and attributes. Add a little bit more variety and spice to new games - without altering the rules in any way, just the starting positions.

The idea would work particularly well on an Earth map.

Not sure these were created yet, but...

Leader name: Liu Che
Civilization led: China
Traits: Imperialistic(spread lands into other countries), Expansive(borders spread), Spiritual(created a heavily Confucian centered state), Organized(like the last one said)
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion, Bureaucracy?
Reason:Considered one of the greatest emperors, long rule, had an effect on the culture with spread of Confucianism
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leader name: Alfred the Great:king:
Civilization led: England
Traits: Philosophical(well educated, sought to reform education), Organized(first king, set up base for modern day England), Protective(defended england from invaders, this is a maybe)
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: First king of England, credited with vast amounts of government orginization

Civilization Name: Sri Lanka

Color: Yellow

Banner: Lion with sword (Symbolizing the Lion race and defiance) and the four bo leaves (symbolizing buddhism)

Unique Unit: Armoured Elephants (Popular in ancient warfare in sri lanka even exported them to india)

Leader 1: King Dutugemunu

Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual
: Aggressive since he fought against the tamil indian king Elara and united sri lanka in 161 BC.
: Spritual since he patronized and developed monastries and sent emisarries to south east asia to spread buddhism.

Favorite Civic: Nationhood

Reason: United Sri Lanka by going to war against his fathers wish often reffered to as the greatest victory in the history of sri lanka, then developed the capital hence building some of the tallest monuments of the ancient world such as the Ruwanwelisaya.

Leader 2: Parakramabahu the Great

Traits: Aggressive, Financial
: Aggressive since fought locally to unite sri lanka in 1153 AD, then invaded myanmar and india.
: Built extensive irrigation canals and reservoirs and financially making the country very succesful.

Favorite Civic: Nationhood

Reason: United sri lanka, sucessfully invaded myanmar and india. Built the jetavanarama the third tallest ancient structure and the largest brink structure in the world todate. Also constructed the "sea of parakrama".His reign is considered to mark the zenith of Sinhala greatness.


I would be able to provide detailed info if a person with the technical knowledge is intrested in making a mod.

We want great civilizations, not tiny tribes... sri lanka lol ...

From my post in the "grand visions" thread....

Ethiopia would be good, the only African nation to never fall to the European invaders... leader, Queen Sheba (ancient); Haile Salisse (modern).

Israel:
Ancient: King David or King Solomon; Spiritual and Organized; Special: warrior-priest.
Modern: David ben-Gurion, Spiritual and Militaristic, special: F-15 or Merkava tank.

Ottoman/Turkey:
Ancient: Suleiman the Great; spiritual and aggressive; special: assassin.
Modern: Kemal Ataturk; organized and militaristic; special: mountain troops (mountain trooper, no movement penalty for hilly terrain movement).

Arabia: Modern leader:
Gemal Abd-al-Nasser, aggressive and nationalistic (or militaristic).
Special: either RPG tank-buster or SAM battery.

Japan: Modern Leader:
Emperor Hirohito (understandable there may be some controversy since he was a WW2 leader).
Organized, militaristic.
Special: Kamikaze aircraft or Mini-Submarine.
(Also provides religion: Shintoism).

Spain: Modern Leader:
Francisco Franco (again, probably controversial)
Nationalisitc, commercial.
Special: Nationalist troop (mountain trooper, no movement penalty for hilly terrain movement)

Russia: Modern Leader:
Leonid Brezhnev: Expansionist, Militaristic.
Special: Artillery units and 1/2 cost, or, Spetznaz commandoes.
Additional: instead of a transport helicopter and a gunship helicopter, the Russians make one helicopter, the M-24 Hind, which serves both as gunship and troop-carrier.

Zulus: Modern Leader:
Nelson Mandela: Religious, Organized
Special: Guerrilla Commando (come with the jungle/forest defense promotion as standard).

Ethiopia would be good, the only African nation to never fall to the European invaders...

I think it fell to one European invader.

I think it fell to one European invader.

Yeah, but they had to resort to nerve gas... and even then they couldn't hold it. :D

I think it fell to one European invader.

u need some history lessons aparently ///:lol: :crazyeye: :king:

What about the Huns? You could have Attilla with the aggressive trait.

I'd also like to see the Iraqouis, they were in Civ3.

Don't forgot that civilizations in civilization IV are great civilizations and not barbarians or tribes...

u need some history lessons aparently ///

I know that Italians were defeated by they but I think that another European country won against them after.

Don't forgot that civilizations in civilization IV are great civilizations and not barbarians or tribes...

Would you mind clarifying this ??? :)

Leader name:Julian the Apostate
Civilization led: Rome
Traits: Spiritual, Philosophical
Favorite Civic:Pacifism
Reason:He was the lost polytheistic roman emperor. He was raised Christian but converted back to the Greco-Roman Religion hence he was an apostate

So, he's an apostate. Why does that make him a good choice? Also, doesn't giving someone the "Pacifism" civic as a favored civic essentially doom them militarily?

Would you mind clarifying this ???

France, Russia, England, Roma, America etc. are all great civlizations.
And now you are talking about Huns, Sri Lanka, Cherookee and others insignificant groups....
You can't add in Civilizations these kind of "civilizations".

Canis Latrans:

1. The only nation interested in Ethiopia was Italy. The Germans did help Mussolini, but that's it.

2. Israel: Despite my Islam, I agree--this is a civilization whose importance is, like England's, far disproportionate to its size, thanks to the imprint it left on Western culture. As to the leaders, that was the example I gave at the beginning of the thread!

3. Turks: The assassins were never under ANYBODY'S control. Change it to Jannissary.

4. Arabs: Nasser's a good idea, but so is Sadat. He coordinated the almost-successful 1973 war, the final great attempt of the pan-Arab movement.

5. Hirohito==figurehead. Meiji==awesome.

6. Brezhnev==idiot.

7. Mandela==Xhosa. Xhosa=/=Zulu. Get your tribes straight.

France, Russia, England, Roma, America etc. are all great civlizations.
And now you are talking about Huns, Sri Lanka, Cherookee and others insignificant groups....
You can't add in Civilizations these kind of "civilizations".

I would point out some facts for you, as simple as i can.
Since i know about the Sri Lankan civilization i would add details about it for your information.

I will put up some links as well so that you can read them.

Highlights :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#History

Sinhalese (Sri Lankans) are perhaps responsible for introducing the concept of dedicated Hospitals to the world. According to the Mahavamsa, the ancient chronicle of Sinhalese royalty written in the 6th century AC, King Pandukabhaya (4th century BC) had lying-in-homes and hospitals (Sivikasotthi-Sala) built in various parts of the country after having fortified his capital at Anuradhapura. This is the earliest literary evidence we have of the concept of dedicated hospitals anywhere in the world.

Prof. Arjuna Aluvihare ("Rohal Kramaya Lovata Dhayadha Kale Sri Lankikayo" Vidhusara Science Magazine, Nov. 1993) contends that there is no evidence, literary or otherwise, to show that hospitals were known elsewhere before and during the time of King Pandukabhaya. Heinz E Muller-Dietz (Historia Hospitalium 1975) describes Mihintale Hospital as being perhaps the oldest in the world

Anuradhapura : -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura

* UNESCO heritage site.
* Founded in 10th Century BC
* Protohistoric Iron Age which spans from 900 - 600 BC
*The great building era was when vast monastery complexes and some of the tallest buildings in the ancient world were built. The Jetavanaramaya dagoba of the city is still the highest brick structure in the world.
*Ruvanveli Seya - The stupa is one of the world's tallest monuments which stands at 300 ft and has a circumference of 950 ft.
*The chronology of early India depends upon that of the Mahawansa
* The Buddhist scriptures were first committed to writing at Aluvihare in Sri Lanka.
*Anuradhapura attained its highest magnificence about the commencement of the Christian era. In its prime it ranked beside Nineveh and Babylon in its colossal proportions—its four walls, each 16 miles (26 km) long, enclosing an area of 256 square miles (663 km²) —in the number of its inhabitants, and the splendour of its shrines and public edifices. The city also had some of the most complex irrigation systems of the ancient world, situated in the dry zone of the country the administration built many tanks to irrigate the land. Most of these tanks still survive. To date, it is believed that some of these tanks are the oldest surviving reservoirs in the world today.

I can go on and on posting facts and figures, but if you are intrested in having a informed argument please do go through the sites and then reply. You should not at any poing comment on something without knowing about the subject.

Polonnaruwa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonnaruwa
http://www.polonnaruwa.org/

Sigiriya
http://www.lankalibrary.com/heritage/sigiriya2.html

Kandy
www.kandycity.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandy

Dambulla
www.lankalibrary.com/heritage/dambulla.htm

Galle
www.lankalibrary.com/heritage/galle6.htm

Kataragama
www.kataragama.org

Further : -
http://www.kataragama.org/lh_network.htm
http://www.lankalibrary.com/heritage.html#2

......................................

I was going to answer this a long time ago, but my comp crashed and I forgot about it. So:

While the civilization of Sri Lanka is unquestionably important, it is so inextricably linked to the civilization of India that it isn't worth including. At the point at which one civilization (Sri Lanka) can only really be understood in the greater context of another civilization (India), they become one civilization. The differences between one part of India and another part of India--say, between Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, or Kashmir and Karnataka--are little larger than the differences between many other parts of India--say, West Bengal or Uttar Pradesh--and Sri Lanka.

Canis Latrans:

3. Turks: The assassins were never under ANYBODY'S control. Change it to Jannissary.

Definitely a superior UU. I think a scimitar-wielding Jannissary to replace the Swordsman. A musket-equipped one to replace the Musketman would be too short-lived to be fun.

4. Arabs: Nasser's a good idea, but so is Sadat. He coordinated the almost-successful 1973 war, the final great attempt of the pan-Arab movement.

True, but Nasser was the man who truly birthed modern Arab nationalism... and many of the strongman Arab leaders since then (ie, Hussein, Assad, Khadafy) are all-too-obviously trying to cash in on his legacy. Although I do truly admire Sadat as a warrior turned peace-maker. He had the street cred to make a deal that no one else could make.

5. Hirohito==figurehead. Meiji==awesome.

Very true-- Meiji or perhaps Yamamoto (Seafaring, Militaristic) even though he was never an actual ruler.

6. Brezhnev==idiot.

Yeah, but a long-lived one and the caster of the shadow of the 'Brezhnev Doctrine' of armed intervetion within the Soviet sphere... Kruschev would also be a good choice. Stalin is in a way too obvious, and despite his longevity he is inextricably tied to a particular era, that being WW2.

7. Mandela==Xhosa. Xhosa=/=Zulu. Get your tribes straight.

Damn, I wondered about that. I think I got him mixed up with the firebrand guy that started the Inkatha Freedom Party. The Zulus so overshadowed the social scene down there as an organized group I tend to make the mistake of assuming all the movers & shakers are associated with them.

On Brezhnev: I prefer Khrushchev; despite his negative image, he's actually very important, considering that he was neither insane (like Stalin) nor a complete idiot (like Brezhnev), and, in foreign policy at least, mostly did what he genuinely believed was in the USSR's best interests. Of course, it sometimes was not (read: Cuban missiles), but that's besides the point.

You're thinking Mangosuthu Buthelezi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangosuthu_Buthelezi) on the Zulus one.

Canis Latrans

?

The only nation interested in Ethiopia was Italy

I thought that another nation too ...

toyya : If you say it's a great civilization, why did we never hear of them ?
We heard about France, Aztec, Spain, Germany, Egypt etc. as great civilizations, but I never heard about Sri Lanka and everytime I heard of them, it was to think to a lost african tribe...
You can't add in Civilization IV, a nation that it's so bad known in History.

While the civilization of Sri Lanka is unquestionably important, it is so inextricably linked to the civilization of India that it isn't worth including. At the point at which one civilization (Sri Lanka) can only really be understood in the greater context of another civilization (India), they become one civilization. The differences between one part of India and another part of India--say, between Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, or Kashmir and Karnataka--are little larger than the differences between many other parts of India--say, West Bengal or Uttar Pradesh--and Sri Lanka.

So what do you mean ?

When I wrote

Canis Latrans:

I meant

@Canis Latrans:

Adapt to my style, OK?



What I meant (in very simplified form) in my post is that Sri Lanka (the little island at the tip of India) does have a vibrant civilization, BUT it's really an extension of Indian civilization. Got it?

Civilization: Dutch
Color: Navy Blue
Unique Unit: Galleass replaces Caravel, str 4 move 3
Leader 1:Philip IV; Financial and Organized
Favorite Civic: Free Speech or Free Religion
Capital: Amsterdam

Adapt to my style, OK?

Heh, how can I guess ? This has nothing to do with what it means!

What I meant (in very simplified form) in my post is that Sri Lanka (the little island at the tip of India) does have a vibrant civilization, BUT it's really an extension of Indian civilization. Got it?[/

You mean that Sri Lanka doesn't need to exist in Civ4 because it's already included in the big circle of India ?

You mean that Sri Lanka doesn't need to exist in Civ4 because it's already included in the big circle of India ?

Precisely.

Leader:Mohammed Ali
Civilzation:Egypt
Traits:Industrious,organized or aggressive
Favourite civic:vassalage
Reason:He's the one who made modern egypt,before him egypt was livin through the medieval era.Despite he's not egyptian (he's turkish but he was sent by the ottomans to egypt) but he made Egypt a strong country in the middle egypt again,he's the one who built a modern army for egypt,spread education,supported economy,built factories.He wasn't an angel but he was the one who made modern Egypt.
I guess Nasser or Sadat would be better choices but it'd be nice to have him too.

Leader: Vladislav Joghaila
Civilization: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Traits: spiritual, aggressive or expansive
Favourite civic: Vassalage
Reason: Eastern Europe and Western Slavs lack representation in Civ4, as if only Russia existed in this part of the world. PLC was a loose federation of Poland, Lithuania, Belorus and Ukraine (its big simplification), and belonged to greatest land powers in Europe from XIV to XVII century. Almost one quarter of Europe's population that time lived within its borders. It has fought succesful wars with Teutonic Order, Tartars, Ottoman Empire, Russia and Sweden. PLC has been torn apart by its neighbours in the end of XVIII due to wrong internal affairs policy, which resulted in ethnic conflicts and financial crash.
Spectacular achievments: victory in Battle of Grunwald - largest medieval land battle, secularization of Teutonic Order and vassalization of Prussia, victory in Battle of Vienna, which stopped Ottoman advance in Europe.
Great people: Nicolai Copernicus, Jan Hevelius, Adam Mickiewicz, Tadeusz Kosciuszko.
If you want to extend PLC over contemporary Poland, Lithuania, Belorus and Ukraine cultural heritage, creating sth like meta-civ, there will be few more (for example Marie Sklodovska-Curie, John Paul II and Lech Walensa from polish side)- but it may cause some controversies from different national points of view.

Civlization name: Italy
Color: green
Banner: Italian flag (red, white, green)
Unique unit: not sure, any suggestions?

Leader 1: Benito Mussolini
Traits: aggressive, expansive
Favorite civic: police state
Reason: If there are going to be so many WW2 scenarios, and if Hitler is to be added as someone suggested earlier, why not add Mussolini? Also, it seems annoying that there is a Roman civ, but not an Italian one!

Well, seeing as this thread has died down, I figured I would post some of mine that I have been working on. I don't have the graphics or modding skills to add these leaders in, but they are kind of a wishlist for new leaders in the next expansion pack. A lot of the these people have been mentioned before, but I gave them a facelift using the Warlords traits.

America
President Abraham Lincoln
Traits: Organized, Protective
Civic: Emancipation
Reason: Honest Abe is the third great American leader (besides Washington and FDR).

America
President James Polk
Traits: Expansive, Imperialistic
Civic: Nationhood
Reason: This is more of a joke--I just couldn't resist!

Greece
General Pericles
Traits: Creative, Philosophical
Civic: Free Speech
Reason: Influential Greek politican, shaped Athenian democracy.

Incas
Inca Pachacuti
Traits: Financial, Organized
Civic: Hereditary Rule (?)
Reason: Transformed the Inca into an empire...

Japan
Emperor Meiji
Traits: Charismatic, Industrious
Civic: Free Market
Reason: Already mentioned, but he was a great modernizing Japanese leader.

Ottomans
Sultan Suleiman
Traits: Aggressive, Organized
Civic: Vassalage
Reason: There is a reason why he is remembered as Suleiman the Magnificent.

Persia
Emperor Darius
Traits: Imperialistic, Industrious
Civic: Hereditary Rule (?)
Reason: I wanted an extra Persian leader...and he was a very important Persian leader...

Spain
King Charles V
Traits: Industrious, Philosophical
Civic: Organized Religion
Reason: He was a very influential leader, plus I can do something cool with him. Technically, he ruled over both Spain and Austria later in his life, so the Austrians and the Spanish will both have one "unique" leader (I'm thinking Maximilian I and Isabella, obviously) and Charles V available. Thus, you can play as the same leader, but for two different civilizations (not simultaneously, of course).



I don't have the time to write out all the new civs I've been working on, but I'm looking at a list consisting of the Austrians, Babylonians, Byzantines, Dutch, Hittites, Iroquois, Mayans, and Portuguese. I ran out of trait combos, so either I have to start doubling up on traits or create a new one and balance it...

Either way, other civs that I'm working (but out of traits for) are Poland and Ethiopia. But I don't have leaders or UUs/UBs for them.

Civlization name: Italy
Color: green
Banner: Italian flag (red, white, green)
Unique unit: not sure, any suggestions?

Leader 1: Benito Mussolini
Traits: aggressive, expansive
Favorite civic: police state
Reason: If there are going to be so many WW2 scenarios, and if Hitler is to be added as someone suggested earlier, why not add Mussolini? Also, it seems annoying that there is a Roman civ, but not an Italian one!

1. There will be no Hitler.
2. Better Italian leader:

Count Camillo Benso di Cavour
Traits: hmm...charismatic and protective?
Favorite civic: Nationhood or Representation
Reason: The Italian Bismarck.

3. Best Italian UU would probably be the Redshirt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirts) (Giuseppe Garibaldi's militia), probably a cheaper Rifleman.

3. Best Italian UU would probably be the Redshirt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirts) (Giuseppe Garibaldi's militia), probably a cheaper Rifleman.

Don't be ridiculous. Redshirt is the UU of Federation Starfleet. It has 0 strength but is always the first to die in lieu of important people.

Crying shame this is on the second page.

So:

The Carabinieri might also work for an Italian UU, perhaps as a Rifleman replacement with -1 Unhappy in cities where it is stationed.

Civilization name: Atlantis
Color: Sea blue
Banner: Dolphin
Uniuqe unit:Flag spearman (sprearman with amphibous) or an improved Galley
Leader: King Neptune
Traits: Industrious, Organised
Favorite civic: Mercantalism
reason: I just went to the Atlantis hotel :D


May I use some of this to suggest a real nation? :)

Civilization Name: Minoans
Color: Sea blue
Banner: Dolphin
Unique Unit: Not really sure - maybe a primitive form of trireme without prerequisits
Leader 1: Minos
Traits: Again not sure. Any combination of Creative (minoan culture expanded fast and had great regional impact even after the destruction of minoan palaces), Financial (the minoans thrived on commerce), Organized (they were obsessive in the development of burocracy) or Spiritual (very stable society, probably under theocratic government). It could be interesting to add a second leader (Sarpedon or Radamanthys) to use the four traits.
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion or Pacifism
Reason: The minoan civilization of Crete was unique in many aspects, and was one of the craddles of western culture. Minos, Radamanthys and Sarpedon are all semi-mythological characters said to have ruled over the island or parts of it. They may be real (like Gilgamesh or Arthur also may be), fictional, or actual titles for minoan leaders (like pharao). But are good historical guesses, specially Minos, whose name labelled the entire civilization.

I expect that other Australian's will differ in opinion, but this is my bid:

Civilization Name: Australians
Colour: Khaki
Banner: Blue with the Southern Cross in white stars
Unique Unit: Either Light Horse (to replace Cavalry, although they were not cavalry) or the SASR (to replace Marine, not a close fit but the best option).
Leader 1: Lachlan Macquarie
Traits: Industrious and Organised
Favourite Civic: Bureaucracy
Reason: Referred to as the “Father of Australia”. His building and development programs laid the foundation for Australia’s future growth.
Leader 2: Robert Menzies
Traits: Financial and Organised
Favourite Civic: Free Market
Reason: Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister.

Hmm. A good idea, but I doubt that the Firaxis people will put it in. Good for a mod, tho': if the Canadians can do it, why not you?

Heres for giggles and memories

Civ Name: Irauq
color: Camo
Banner: Islam symbol
UU: Republican Guard replaces SAM, Cheaper, less strength, Guerila I,
Civ leader: Sadam Hussien
Traits: Spiritual, Aggresive
Favorite Civic: Either Police State or Theocracy
reason: Itd be good to have for a Cold War/ Modern Day Scenario, Also, had one of the largest Armies in the world. Heavily influinced U.S. Security policy and U.S. Foerign relations

Heres for giggles and memories

Civ Name: Irauq
color: Camo
Banner: Islam symbol
UU: Terrorist replaces SAM, Cheaper, less strength, Guerila I,
Civ leader: Sadam Hussien
Traits: Spiritual, Aggresive
Favorite Civic: Either Police State or Theocracy
reason: Itd be good to have for a Cold War/ Modern Day Scenario, Also, had one of the largest Armies in the world. Heavily influinced U.S. Security policy and U.S. Foerign relations

Interesting but Saddam's elite units where called Republican Guard.

Terrorist didn't have much influence in Iraq until after the fall of Saddam Hussien.

I suggest, every civ should get a second leader, and some of those, who have two, a third. Here are some iedeas:

Americans: Abe Lincoln

Arabs: Tarique

French: Carlemagne/Charles de Gaule

Germans: Barbarossa

Greek: Perikles

Persians: Darius/Xerxes

Spanish: El Cid

Celts: Vercingertorix

Vikings: Canute

Leader name:Jan III Sobieski (John III Sobieski), Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir The Great)
Civilization led: Poland
Details: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3380653#post3380653

I guess there's two hundred billion more of the Swedish civilization suggestions, but I'll do some anyway. From my own perspectives.

Civilization Name: [Imperial] Sweden
Color: Whatev?
Banner: The three crowns
Unique Unit: Carolean
Leader 1: Charles XII
Traits: Organized and Aggressive
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Brought the Swedish Empire to it's greatest extent - and back... An important leader, what so ever.

Leader 2: Gustavus Adolphus
Traits: Aggressive and Imperialistic
Favorite Civic: Theocracy (?)
Reason: He created the Swedish Empire, more or less. He founded many Swedish cities, much therefore the Imperialistic trait. Due to the faster production of settlers, y'know.
Though I'm not sure which favorite civic he should have; I chose Theocracy, was that very wrong?

Civilization Name: [Industrial and modern] Sweden
Color: Whatev?
Banner: The Swedish flag
Unique Unit: Some kind of airplane? Perhaps 'Gripen' or something...
Leader 1: Gustav III
Traits: Creative and Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Reason: Important leader, whatever.
Leader 2: Per Albin Hansson
Traits: Protective and Charismatic
Favorite Civic: Universal Suffrage
Reason: Important figure for the Swedish welfare model...

Leader name: Sejong
Civilization led: Korea
Traits: Philosophical or Creative (he was a HUGE patron of technology, and there was the whole matter of developing hangul to let the commoners maintain their knowledge of agricultural techniques et al. more easily {no matter how little the yangban scholar class thought of these plans}. There's a reason he's often referred to as a "Confucian humanist". I can't figure out which of the two traits I listed fits better, though), Protective (based upon his campaign to stamp out the Tsushima pirates, and the campaign against the Jurgen raiders which ended up fixing Korea's borders to where they are now...North Korea's northern borders, anyway; in both cases, the motive was primarily to protect Korea from would-be predators)
Favorite Civic: Representation (this one's a bit of a nettle. Because of his neo-Confucian beliefs, Caste System would fall in nicely. However, I'm not sure how well this works, given that Sejong wasn't exactly hidebound about class considerations, as the case of the artificer Jang Yeong-sil indicates. Representation is the best I can think of for a segue of then-traditional stratification and Sejong's...pragmatism?)
Technology flavors: Science 5, Culture 2
Reason: Only two Korean monarchs ever received the posthumous appellation "the Great", and Sejong's one of them (the other is Gwanggaeto, and he was "only" king of one of the three component kingdoms. Now someone tell me why Wang Kon, who UNIFIED the kingdoms, didn't get that appellation himself!). When you look at all that he did for the common folk of Korea, you can see why he got the epithet. At the very least, a good complement to Wang Kon's legacy.

Americans
Name:Theodore Roosevelt
Traits: Imperialistic, Philosophical
Civic: Free Speech
Reason: TR dragged the USA kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Nuff said.

Romans
Name: Guiseppe Garibaldi
Traits: Organised, Expansive
Civic: Nationhood
Reason: Helped unify Italy and is probably one of the greatest post Roman Empire Italian leaders.

Germans
Name: Barbarossa
Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual
Civic: Organised Religion
Reason: Formed the Holy Roman Empire, early precursor to European unification, helped launch the third crusade although didn't participate owing to drowning.

About Sweden, Gustav Vasa should be a leader. He brought Sweden off under Danish rule and improved finances of Sweden.

I'm bumping this.

For the Arabs, I would recommend one of the following leaders:

Leader name: Mu`awiya
Traits: Expansive OR Imperialistic + _________.
Reasons: Established the hereditary Caliphate and strengthened the Muslim empire; the son of Abu Sufyan--one of Muhammad's main opponents before the Hegira--he became the leader of the Muslim world. His underhanded ways give him a bad rep among many historians (especially Muslim ones, and most especially Shiite ones, since he caused--indirectly--Ali's death), but I think it just makes him a badass.

Leader name: Harun al-Rashid
Traits: Philosophical and something.
Reasons: Made Baghdad the most cultured city of its time. Most famous Khalifah in the West. I'm not sure he should be included, though, since his buddy-buddiness with the Turkish tribes (he was either half-Turkish or quarter-Turkish, I forget which) ultimately doomed the `Abbasid Caliphate.

Leader name: Abdulrahman III
Traits: Philosophical and something.
Reasons: Though he never ruled all of the Arab world, then again neither did Saladin. Abdulrahman III was ruler of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, which in its time was the most cultured and advanced state on the European continent (with the possible exception of the Byzantine Empire...but that's another story). Abdulrahman himself was an amazing problem-solving king.

Talebans
Name: Osama Bin Laden
Traits: Aggressive, Spiritual

Austria-Hungarian empire
Princess Sissi or Franz Joseph

Leader name: Henry VIII Tudor
Civilization led:English/British
Traits:Charismatic, Aggresive
Favorite Civic:Church of England
Reason:Led the English into the Rennaissance from the Dark Ages;established the Church of England; fought wars with Spain and France and also had them as allies.

Yeah, right, four leaders to England while Spain and Japan have one...

And finally ik this one is going to run into a lot of opposition, but there are some leaders who are very cruel. Mao Zedong starved his people to , and Genghis Khan was an insane, torturing warmonger. I do feel it is hard to adequately represent germany without this guy^


I agree with you about Mao but i doubt Genghis was insane, he DID NOT torture that much and unlike hitler he was fine with opposition of the Mongol gods. In my opinion, Genghis was a saint compared to adolf. But maybe thats just because i think he is the coolest leader ever

^^

You're absolutely right, Lord Gideon was wrong about Genghis.

About new civilizations, I'd definitely add the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh. If not, at least change England to Britain and include British cities instead of English ones.
For Scots, I'd have William Wallace, Robert the Bruce or Mary Queen of Scots as leaders. Special unit - the Highlander

I'd also include Israel. Leaders - King David, King Solomon, David Ben Gurion, maybe Golda Meir? Special unit: Merkava tank, or Mossad agent with both espionage and attack features.

Also, for modern era, I'd have terrorists and suicide bombers instead of Barbarians in the earlier ones.

Finally, what about natural disasters around cities- floods, earthquakes, etc?

I am bored

Civilization Name: Austria
Color: Red
Banner: Austrian Flag
Unique Unit: Hussar (Cavalry, +1 Movement)
Unique Building: School (Replaces Library, +25% science)
Leader 1: Maria Theresa
Traits: Aggresive, Spiritual
Favorite Civic: Heredity rule (Police state maybe)
Reason: Austria was a huge factor in European politics from the middle ages until WW I. They deserve to be here

Leader name: Empress Elizabeth
Civilization led: Russia
Traits: Spiritual, Organized
Favorite Civic: Theocracy
Reason: Led Russia during the 7 years war

Civilization Name: Nubia
Color: Leapord Skin
Banner: none
Unique Unit: Fire Arrow Archers
Leader 1: King Piye
Traits: Aggressive, Industrial
Favorite Civic: Vassalage
Reason: King Piye was the Nubian king who conquered Eygpt city by city!:king:

Civilization Name: Hebrews-Israel
Reason: The Hebrews and Israel have had too much of an impact on the world to ignore. One of the main religions in the game is Judaism.
Leader: David, Soloman
Traits: Spiritual, Financial, or Industrious
Favorite Civic: Organized Religion
Unique Unit: Sickle-swordsman; replaces axemen and requires copper, some sort of attacking bonus
Reason: I saw a documentary on the History channel showing that the early Hebrews were actually really impressive warriors and they used a bronze sickle-sword to defeat their enemies to form their kingdom.
Unique Building: ??? A religious building or some sort of forge with a bonus.

Civilization Name: Almohads-Umayyads-Moors
Reason: The Muslims that took over Spain had probably one of the most if not the most civilized kingdoms in the world at their height. It might coincide with the Arabs but I think it was its own kingdom separate from the Arab caliphate. If it was not for this civilization, Western Europe may have never moved into the Renaissance.
Leader: I have no idea?
Traits: Spiritual, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Bureaucracy, Organized Religion
Unique Unit: Light Cavalry-Jinnettes (Total War theme here)
Unique Building: Special library, or university, "mosque or cathedral" building that allows more scientists, monastary that gives +25% science

Civ Name: Austria
Reason: Important empire in European History. You could make the case it is the Holy Roman Empire possibly but I have not played BTS so I'm not too sure about that.
Leader: ?
Traits: Imperialistic, Organized
Favorite Civic: Vassalage

Civ Name: Vietnam
Reason: Vietnam played a major role after WWII with France and the U.S. Neither was able from stopping Vietnam from achieving its united independence. I'm not too sure Japan accomplished a whole lot there either. So Vietnam does have a place in history.
Leader: Ho Chi Minh
Traits: Expansive, Protective
Favorite Civic: State Property
Unique Unit: Viet Cong; Riflemen with woodsman on top of the already garrison and drill

Civ Name: Russia/Soviet Union
Leader Name: Lenin
Reason: Established the Soviet Union
Favorite Civic: State Property
Traits: Organized, Industrious
Unique Unit: Red Army Replaces Infantry

Civilization- Egypt
Leader- Ptolomy
Traits- Industrial; Imperialistic
Unique Unit- Egyptian Infantry . replaces Swordsman / I think each leader sould have a unique unit/
Reason- Ptolomy was a great scientist and very important in Egyptian history.

Civilization:Papal State
Leader: St. Peter
Favorite civ: Therocracy
Traits: Spirtual; Imperious
Unique Unit: Crusader(Replaces Swordsman)7:strength: 1:move: (8:strength: 2:move: if built in a holy city)
Reason: St. Peter was the first pope in history so (obviously) he was important in the histroy of Rome and western history

Civilization:Egypt
Leader:Celopatra
Traits:Industrial; aggressive
Reason: Cleopatra inffiltrated Rome, gave Julius Ceaser a son, and was the last Pharaho of Egypt.

Civ Name: Iroquois
Reason: Formed Confederacy of 5 nations whose Constitution inspired Ben Franklin as he worked on the American Constitution. Major power in the British-French struggles in North America. Highly influential in North American trade, and fought during French-Indian War.
Leader: Hiawatha
Traits: Charismatic, Creative
Favorite Civic: Environmentalism
Unique Unit: (?) Maybe a Musket UU? I don't know enough about the Iroquois's military..

Civilization: Sparta
Leader:Leonidas
Traits: Aggressive, Charismatic
Favorite Civic:Hereditary Rule
UU: Spartan Warrior(Replaces spearman)7:strength:2:move:
UB:Spartan Barracks, +5 exp.
Reason: Do I really need to say it?:lol:

Civilization: Austro-Hungarian Empire
Reason: One of the largest empires in European History. Instrumental in world politics until collapse after WWI, and expansionist policies helped fuel current crises. Major role in WWI.
Leader: Franz Josef I
Traits: Imperialistic, Organized
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule
Unique Unit: Austrian Landwehr (replaces Infantry): same stats, but +50% against Gunpowder Units and +25% against Mounted Units
Unique Building: ?!

Civilization: Byznitine
Leader: Emperor Constine I
traits:Spiritual, Industrial
Favorite civic: Therocracy
Reason: Emperor Constine was a Roman Emperor(arguably the greatest) who captured Byzitium and created the Byzntine Empire(First Scism)

Byzantium is already here...unless you mean adding Constantine I as a leader.

I meant to add Constine as a leader.

Civ Name: Vietnam
Reason: Vietnam played a major role after WWII with France and the U.S. Neither was able from stopping Vietnam from achieving its united independence. I'm not too sure Japan accomplished a whole lot there either. So Vietnam does have a place in history.
Leader: Ho Chi Minh
Traits: Expansive, Protective
Favorite Civic: State Property
Unique Unit: Viet Cong; Riflemen with woodsman on top of the already garrison and drill

I think several southeast asian civs are missing, though they all had much more glorious days before the west showed up, presumably thats the time period that the leaders would come from.

Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand and Burma could all easily make decent civs, although it seems to be a lesser known region of great civilizations due to western conquest and colonization. They had their golden ages though, for instance, when the first spanish arrived in the philippines (1500s), they wrote that the native shipwrights were the most skilled they had ever seen.

Civilization:Gran Colombia
Leader: Simon Bolivar
Traits: Charismatic, Protective
Reason: Liberated a huge swathe of South America and is still politically relevant today, Plus Civ is very light on south american countries

Leader: Lucius Junius Brutus
Civ: Rome
Traits: philo & spiritual
Favoured: representation

Unit: "Legion" - normal swordsman at a lower price
UB: forum

Special: monarchy tech opens up the representation civic instead, for an early Roman Republic.
--------------------
Leader: Solon
Civ: Greece
Traits: philo & financial
Favoured: US

Special: gets emancipation instead of slavery and HR replaced by US ("democracy").

I like Jazzmail's idea of"specials" so I came up with some new leaders and their "special"

Civ:Sparta
Leader:Leonidas
Traits:aggressive,Charismatic
Favorite Civic: HR
Reason:took on 3,000,000 Persians with 300 spatans and 10,000? Athenians.
UB:Spartan Barracks
UU:Spartan Warrior(Replaces Spearman and Swordsman, reason; unit has 8:strength: and 2:move: and starts with Combat I)
Special: Starts of with Spartan Warrior(^) instead of Warrior

I can think of a few SE Asian Civs, but I don't know any leaders... (bold are modern, italicized are industrial-modern)


Srivijaya Empire (indonesia)
Pagan Empire
Khmer Empire (already there)
Cambodian Empire
Burmese Empire
Laoan Empire
Vietnamese Empire
Malaysian Empire
Thai Empire
Khmer Rouge

Civ: Yugoslavia
Leader: Josip Broz Tito
Traits: Charismatic, industrias
Favorite Civic: State property
Reason:Balcans must be in the official game...
UB: Nacional Barracks
UU: Partisan (replaces Inflantry)

Civilization Name: Almohads-Umayyads-Moors
Reason: The Muslims that took over Spain had probably one of the most if not the most civilized kingdoms in the world at their height. It might coincide with the Arabs but I think it was its own kingdom separate from the Arab caliphate. If it was not for this civilization, Western Europe may have never moved into the Renaissance.
Leader: I have no idea?
Traits: Spiritual, Philosophical
Favorite Civic: Bureaucracy, Organized Religion
Unique Unit: Light Cavalry-Jinnettes (Total War theme here)
Unique Building: Special library, or university, "mosque or cathedral" building that allows more scientists, monastary that gives +25% science

I'll reference you to this post:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5835093&postcount=125

Civilization:Papal State
Leader: St. Peter
Favorite civ: Therocracy
Traits: Spirtual; Imperious
Unique Unit: Crusader(Replaces Swordsman)7:strength: 1:move: (8:strength: 2:move: if built in a holy city)
Reason: St. Peter was the first pope in history so (obviously) he was important in the histroy of Rome and western history

instead of the name being Papal State. It should be The Vatican.

Though a good suggestion, The cities in which the Pope controlled were refered to as "Papal States"

You're both wrong. The sovereign political organization of the Church headed by the Pope is known as the Holy See.

Also, there's too much that can represent the Pope and Papal States already: Romans, HRE, Apostolic Palace, etc.

Vatican City is the Holy See, in history the pope controlled much more than that.ie. Papal StateS

I agree the HRE, Romans, And the Byzntines do represent the Pope. So if i did not suggest the Papal States, I would have suggested that after the Christianity is founded, a new unit called " The Pope "(4:move:) is created in that city. Then the Pope can conduct his own buisiness and what not, but the players can never control him.

Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand and Burma could all easily make decent civs, although it seems to be a lesser known region of great civilizations due to western conquest and colonization. They had their golden ages though, for instance, when the first spanish arrived in the philippines (1500s), they wrote that the native shipwrights were the most skilled they had ever seen.

Civ: Philippine
Leader: Andres Bonifacio
Traits: Aggresive, Industrious
Favorite Civic: Police State
Leader: Emilio Aguinaldo
Traits: Organized, Imperialistic
Favorite Civic: Representation
Reason: Uhm they freed philippines from spaniards and friars

EDIT:
UB: Tiangge(replaces Market) +1 food, +1 happiness
UU: U think about it

Quick History Lesson:

In the year 751, Charlemagne's brother Pepin gifted some lands in Italy which he had conquered to the Pope, at that time Stephen IX (IIRC). These lands became the Papal States. The Papal States lasted till the 1200s, when the Avignon Popes took power, and moved the Papal court to France. Finally, in 1357, the Papal States were reinstated, and now stretched from the central Tyhrennian coast (and Rome) to the northern Adriatic coast, bordering Venice. The Papal States officially died when Napoleon stormed through, and the Holy See was forced into Rome, where it founded the Vatican.

Vatican City is the Holy See, in history the pope controlled much more than that.ie. Papal StateS

I agree the HRE, Romans, And the Byzntines do represent the Pope. So if i did not suggest the Papal States, I would have suggested that after the Christianity is founded, a new unit called " The Pope "(4:move:) is created in that city. Then the Pope can conduct his own buisiness and what not, but the players can never control him.

Two points:

1. The term "Papal States" is misleading: they are all territories governed directly by the Pope in his capacity as Bishop of Rome and therefore head of the sovereign Holy See. The Holy See is a sovereign entity, dating back to St. Peter (according to the Church anyway), representing the existence of the Church as an independent entity not subservient to any state.

Long story short:The Holy See was the government of the Papal States just as it is the government of the Vatican. The Vatican is just smaller.

2. Why single out Christianity? Why would Christianity necessarily develop a Pope and Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or some other religion not? The Papacy developed out of Roman, not Jewish (i.e. original Christian), culture, a culture that put great stock in having permanent authority passed down in a regular manner, in the way of military command. Jewish culture was less hierarchical; recall that Israel was run ad hoc by Judges before the last Judge, Samuel, grudgingly installed Saul as King. (Judges; 1 Samuel; 2 Samuel).

But what if Islam had cropped up in the Roman Empire and become the official Roman religion? That's the point.

[/tangent]

I'm bumping this.

For the Arabs, I would recommend one of the following leaders:

Leader name: Mu`awiya
Traits: Expansive OR Imperialistic + _________.
Reasons: Established the hereditary Caliphate and strengthened the Muslim empire; the son of Abu Sufyan--one of Muhammad's main opponents before the Hegira--he became the leader of the Muslim world. His underhanded ways give him a bad rep among many historians (especially Muslim ones, and most especially Shiite ones, since he caused--indirectly--Ali's death), but I think it just makes him a badass.

Leader name: Harun al-Rashid
Traits: Philosophical and something.
Reasons: Made Baghdad the most cultured city of its time. Most famous Khalifah in the West. I'm not sure he should be included, though, since his buddy-buddiness with the Turkish tribes (he was either half-Turkish or quarter-Turkish, I forget which) ultimately doomed the `Abbasid Caliphate.

Leader name: Abdulrahman III
Traits: Philosophical and something.
Reasons: Though he never ruled all of the Arab world, then again neither did Saladin. Abdulrahman III was ruler of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, which in its time was the most cultured and advanced state on the European continent (with the possible exception of the Byzantine Empire...but that's another story). Abdulrahman himself was an amazing problem-solving king.

Just realized I didn't include preferred civics:

Mu'awiyah: Hereditary Rule

Harun al-Rashid and Abdulrahman III: Pacifism