View Full Version : New Civs?


kairob
Nov 15, 2006, 08:25 AM
If we arn't having the Zulu or Korea then are we going to choose any civs to replace them?

If so which ones?

holy king
Nov 15, 2006, 08:31 AM
i dont think theres any space for additional civs... theres not even space for the turks and they are in....

kairob
Nov 15, 2006, 08:32 AM
Edit; That is a good point, however I do think that the is space in some areas of the map for civs, including ones that had existed in civ 3...

Also here is a suggestion how about adding byzantium and it spawning if rome controls greece in year X, or just if greece doesnt exist in year X?

Drtad
Nov 15, 2006, 08:48 AM
This is just my opinion but I think the Turks should spawn in Central Asia, so that if they want Anatolia they'd have to conquer it. With the system now I don't think they really stand much of a chance.

Prestidigitator
Nov 15, 2006, 12:03 PM
I think the civs that were dropped are now used as 'minor nations'. Didn't one tester say that we now have the celts, some other one and independant states?

Hitti-Litti
Nov 16, 2006, 09:04 AM
No more civs, I say. Not if barbs are heavily stronger or very much more agressive AI. In my Monarch-games only few nations collapse, if any. And revolutions cause that in 1750 every civ is alive.

kairob
Nov 16, 2006, 09:17 AM
What about if civs collapse easier andwe add civs but only if others are dead, so it increases variaty and the apponants we must face but without increasing turn times,(e.g. Italy apearing in turn X if rome is dead, Byzantium appearing in turn Y is greece is dead, Timur apearing if persia is dead in turn Z etc...)

The only possible downside to this that I can see is the extra work required to impliment it, as it shouldnt slow the game down any more than the same civ comming back.

Hitti-Litti
Nov 16, 2006, 09:26 AM
^^ Nice idea, but it would be better if:
1)For Byzantium Rome must conquer Anatolia, Greece is dead and Byzantium revolts between 200-1000.
2)Even better than Timurid Empire may be Mughal Empire, which would appear if Mongols would conquer Persia and a revolution would cause between 1500-1700.
3)Italy would appear on year 1800--> if Rome is dead and France conquers Italy(France helped Garibaldi to form Italy).

Phallus
Nov 16, 2006, 09:43 AM
While it would be great to see dynamic civs in the way Kairob suggests, it seems a hell of a lot of work for something so minor.

2)Even better than Timurid Empire may be Mughal Empire, which would appear if Mongols would conquer Persia and a revolution would cause between 1500-1700.
The Timurids and Mughals had very similar backgrounds, so you might as well put them together to create a nice Central Asian empire.

3)Italy would appear on year 1800--> if Rome is dead and France conquers Italy(France helped Garibaldi to form Italy).

If Italy were included, they should spawn earlier. Germany is represented as a unified nation long before 1871, and 15th century Italy was arguably more influential than 19th century Italy, after all.

lumpthing
Nov 16, 2006, 10:30 AM
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would really like to see the Dutch and the Protuguese. It would make the struggle between the european powers for colonial dominance better and I just think you have a huge hole in world history if you leave them out. Since Portugal was under the Spanish crown for such a long time I'm more keen on the Dutch (if I had to choose between the two).

Rhye
Nov 16, 2006, 10:51 AM
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would really like to see the Dutch and the Protuguese. It would make the struggle between the european powers for colonial dominance better and I just think you have a huge hole in world history if you leave them out. Since Portugal was under the Spanish crown for such a long time I'm more keen on the Dutch (if I had to choose between the two).


never say never.
After the release of warlords version I'll stress your computers with a load of minor civs (and after a comparison with the current number (3) in terms of speed, make the final cut).
Between these, I could add script-guided Dutch and Portuguese, minor (not playable) civs.

lumpthing
Nov 16, 2006, 11:09 AM
woohoo! :D (i'm aware that what you said wasn't a promise of course)

But why not playable civs? I'd love the challenge of building a world empire from a one-city homeland.

kairob
Nov 16, 2006, 11:20 AM
then if germany is wiped out before 1930 we could witness a rise of hitler, etc...
It does seam a lot of work just for flavour that was the only downside I could think of :(, but if you could get it so they always spawn if the player chooses one it would add a lot more choice for a very little if any difference in speed.
I cant personally mod for the life of me but I am sure the are plenty of graphics available to use it is just a case of installing them all and choosing UHV/UU/UB et al...

Hitti-Litti
Nov 16, 2006, 11:31 AM
Rhye, are you going to input more nations if we, fellow forum members, make LHs and that stuff? I'd like to see Timurid Empire or Mughal Empire.

McA123
Nov 16, 2006, 01:08 PM
I agree with Lumpthing about the Dutch and Portugese. It would be challenging and fun to run one-city-in-europe empires. Besdies, it gets kind of boring only seeing Blue, Red and Yellow in the Americas. ;)

NitroJay
Nov 16, 2006, 04:54 PM
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before, but I miss the Iroquois from Civ3... They were a challenge to play in Rhye's civ3 mod and they'd be even more so with the spawn of America and the more realistic European colonization...

I'm all for leaving them out though if the Warlords AI still won't invade...

thenooblet22
Nov 16, 2006, 05:02 PM
I always depict Greece as Byzanium in my games. Even though Byzantium was the eastern front of the old Roman Empire, they adopt the Hellenistic culture.

So...

Greece = Byzantium

But, I would like to see a Iroquois Confederation to give those pesky Europeans some opposition. Even though it wouldn't be an exact match, you could use the Shaka leaderhead. Maybe even mod more appropriate skin to help blend it to the Native American culture.

Rhye
Nov 16, 2006, 06:17 PM
woohoo! :D (i'm aware that what you said wasn't a promise of course)

But why not playable civs? I'd love the challenge of building a world empire from a one-city homeland.

I know it would be fun (a kind of "Rhye's Goal-based Challanges" from civ3), but they would require extra work: UU, UB, UP, UHVs, and a leaderhead

Rhye
Nov 16, 2006, 06:18 PM
Rhye, are you going to input more nations if we, fellow forum members, make LHs and that stuff? I'd like to see Timurid Empire or Mughal Empire.

well honestly there are plenty of other minor civs imho more important and useful than Timur or Mughal.

lumpthing
Nov 17, 2006, 03:54 AM
About the native american cities... I'm all for the way it is now... Many American cities have native american names, (i.e. Tallahassee, Milwaukee, etc...) but it's not because there was a city there, it's just what the natives called that particular area. (At least that's what I learned in 5th grade...) So the current system works fine with me, you plop a settler down in Winsconsin, you get Milwaukee... I'm fine with it. Having the Europeans made to fight for every inch of the New World wouldn't be too realistic to me, (unless the Iroquois were made into a civ again, that would change my point of view...)...

I totally agree with what you are saying, but why would the Iroquois be an exception??!!

Please, please, please, no Iroquois (or any other non-urban Native American) civ in RFC. It would totally destroy the historical feel of colonizing the Americas. I do not want to see a massive Iroquois empire full of road, mines, irrigation and massive juggernaut-cities in place of the untamed West. Pleeeaasseee.....

lumpthing
Nov 17, 2006, 04:21 AM
I know it would be fun (a kind of "Rhye's Goal-based Challanges" from civ3), but they would require extra work: UU, UB, UP, UHVs, and a leaderhead

I for one would rather have them playable with no unique anything than not have them playable at all.

Incidentally there are already fan-produced Dutch unique units and a unique building (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2654). Only thing missing is a leaderhead, but there are plenty of spare european kings and queens leaderheads.

I do intend to learn 3D Studio Max one day so maybe I'll do a dutch leaderhead myself some time :).

McA123
Nov 17, 2006, 02:19 PM
I seem to remember seeing a fully-completed Portugese civ one time, with 2 leaderheads and unique units and possibly a UB. I'll see if i can find it.

Edit: Success! I remembered correctly. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141409

Tom Veil
Nov 17, 2006, 02:53 PM
I think that the Iroquois can be perfectly realistic *if* we start them at the time they were historically founded (1550), and limited them to the technology that they began with (agri, hunt, arch, animal, myst, med). We could give them a tech-trading bonus to reflect the fact that they learned modern technology faster than just about any civ in history, but otherwise they'll be what they are -- a fascinating little nation that got going about 2,000 years too late.

EDIT: Or we could do the Cherokee. The were to the southern US what the Iroquois were to the north.

Phallus
Nov 17, 2006, 05:22 PM
I think that the Iroquois can be perfectly realistic *if* we start them at the time they were historically founded (1550), and limited them to the technology that they began with (agri, hunt, arch, animal, myst, med).

I hate to say this but how would they handle cities?

Tom Veil
Nov 18, 2006, 01:30 PM
The Iroquois lived in permanent, urban settlements. The reason that they never built cities that compare with anything that, say, the Egyptians or Mayans did is that their overall population was miniscule -- probably 25,000. Considering their tech level (and that they should only start out with one settler and no workers), it would take a miracle for them to get cities above size 6. So I don't think it's much of a problem.

Phallus
Nov 18, 2006, 04:06 PM
When I asked how they handled cities, I didn't imagine they were nomadic. I was simply concerned that they

1) Lived in "urban settlements" rather than cities.

2) Had a miniscule population of about 25,000.

Tom Veil
Nov 18, 2006, 08:46 PM
I'll have to map it out again, but I thought that a size 5 city before the Industrial Era translated to 25,000 people.