And Austria. Mmmmhhh ... I'd like to play as Maria Theresia (as she ruled my country Belgium), but I think they're too similar to the Germans. And we already have the Dutch and the Portugese as European civs. And I think they'd prefer Byzantium to Austria.

I'd like to see Austria, because Austria was a major power in Europe. Although if Austria is added, then German civilization should be changed to Germany or Prussia. After all, Austria was a german nation. Personally I think there should be much more non-Europe civilizations.

And one more thing: If they are going to add industrial era leader to Japan, they should also add Shinto-religion. But I guess it's not going to happen. It could be too controversial.

so 6 new leader of already existing civ's.
As I said in the other thread "10 new civs, 16 new leaders" does not have to mean "6 new leaders of existing civs".

In fact, my theory is that there will be a Native American civ with two leaders, one for Sioux and one for Iroquis.

And one more thing: If they are going to add industrial era leader to Japan, they should also add Shinto-religion. But I guess it's not going to happen. It could be too controversial.

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.

I know Shinto is not world religion, but basically nor is taoism. Shinto was important factor in Japan imperialism-era policy, and it's still contoversal in East-Asia, so it would be nice.

But I know they won't add it. I would like to see new religions anyway.

Actually, Taoism spread beyond China, into Korea and south east asia. So do confucianism. Hinduism was influential in south east asia for a long time too.

What do you mean by controversial? Japan's war time record is controversial but not Shintoism the religion itself imho.

What do you mean by controversial? Japan's war time record is controversial but not Shintoism the religion itself imho.

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...

Japan shrine visit angers S Korea

It was the prime minister's fourth visit while in office
South Korea has summoned the Japanese ambassador to protest over a visit to a controversial war shrine by Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The Foreign Ministry in Seoul said it was "deeply regrettable" that Mr Koizumi had visited the shrine.

The Yasukuni shrine honours 2.5 million Japanese who have died in conflicts since 1853, including a number of war criminals.
BBC, January 2004

Well, at least Yasukuni Shrine is controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni

Shinto is not a "world religion". That means, it doesn't spread beyond the country it's founded in. So it's unlikely it'll be added.
Neither is Judaism then.

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...

Japan shrine visit angers S Korea

It was the prime minister's fourth visit while in office
South Korea has summoned the Japanese ambassador to protest over a visit to a controversial war shrine by Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The Foreign Ministry in Seoul said it was "deeply regrettable" that Mr Koizumi had visited the shrine.

The Yasukuni shrine honours 2.5 million Japanese who have died in conflicts since 1853, including a number of war criminals.
BBC, January 2004

Well, at least Yasukuni Shrine is controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni

You are confusing things here. If Germany made a Christian chapel to honour nazi war criminals, and the German politicians visited it every year to pay their honours, people around the world would be angered, but not because it is Christian.

I think for example in Korea, people think that Shinto is some kind of symbol of Japaniese imperialism and one reason for war crimes. A few years ago Japan's prime minister visited Shinto-shrine, and Koreans get mad...


You're way off the mark here. The controversy is not over whether or not it is Shinto, but the fact that it enshrines and glorifies convicted war criminals and that Japan continues to defend it while attempting to whitewash the history of its brutal subjugation of Korea and China.

As for new civs, I'm kinda neutral on it since civs can be modded in anyway. However, I would like to see Poland (to further represent Eastern Europe), Nubia (as another great African civ), and the Khmer Empire (or perhaps even Bagan, the ancestor of Burma, since they're including Shwedagaon Paya).

I know Shinto is not world religion, but basically nor is taoism. Shinto was important factor in Japan imperialism-era policy, and it's still contoversal in East-Asia, so it would be nice.

But theres a distinction there. Taoism is practiced mainly in China, but theres nothing inherently "chinese" about the religion. The Tao Teh Ching is a series of poems advocating following the "tao" which all things have.

Shintaoism, is an inherently Japanese religion. It combines myth with Japanese history to such an extent that you can't seperate the two. Shintao is based around quasi-historical Japanese figures such as Emperor Jimmu. Its easy to allow Taoism, because while Taoist England is unusual, its comprehensible. The Idea of England founding a religion based around the history of a civ that they haven't made contact with, and then not neccessarily have good relations with, even though their religion says their leader is a god, and England's is not, is not just unusual, but completely non-sensical.

This is why I say Judaism should remain a religion only, because Shintao and Judaism are both inherently tied to the Civ.

You're way off the mark here. The controversy is not over whether or not it is Shinto, but the fact that it enshrines and glorifies convicted war criminals and that Japan continues to defend it while attempting to whitewash the history of its brutal subjugation of Korea and China.
It enshrines war criminals along with 2,466,532 other people.

The Dutch, Portuguese, Native Americans & Babylon are known.

My 6 civs would be; Sweden, Ethiopia, Khmer, Maya, Polynesians & Kongo

for sure (according to posts i've read):
babylon
portugal
sioux nation
netherlands

and then maybe (i hope):
mayans
polynesians
hittites

and a few others.

There is a voting thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215534) where you can discuss your suggestions.

Who supports Vietnam, go here and vote :)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215534

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon
those r the 1s we know but i hope they have more aggressive civs. they probably won't though

Who supports Vietnam, go here and vote :)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215534

im from nam... and i would quite enjoy playing it...

and if they do include vietnam, i think the best leader for them would be one of the Trung sisters (led unsucessful rebellion against the chinese) because there is an apparent lack of asian female leaders.

So we'll have 10 new civ's plus 6 new leader from previous civ's. A grand total of 16 new leaders.

New civ's:
● Portugal
● Netherlands
● Babylon
● Sioux (Native Americans)
The other 6 still incognito.

My Opinion:
● Gran Colombia
● Israel
● Brazil
● Maya
● Thais
● Poland

The 16 new leaders:

● Babylon – Hammurabi
● Native Americans – Sitting Bull
● United Stades – Abraham Lincoln

● Portugal – Infante D. Henrique (more probably)
● Netherlands – William (more probably)

● Simon Bolivar
● King Salomon
● D. Pedro II
● (?)
● (?)
● (?)

The remaining 5:
● France – Charlemagne (have a small suspicion)
● Egypt - Cleopatra (she's a classic in civ)

● Spain – Charles V
● Native Americans – another leader maybe Hiawatha
● I have some others ideas for example: Persia – Xerxes; Germany – Barbarossa; Cuba – Fidel Castro; South Africa – Nelson Mandela; (?)

My pics would be

Civilizations
Native American Empire
Babylonian Empire
Dutch Empire
Portugese Empire
Siamese Empire
Polynesian Empire
Polish Empire
Austrohungarian Empire
Hun Empire

Leaders
Abraham Lincoln (American Empire) [Akbar should really be in, he would be the best representative from Mughal India]
Akbar (Indian Empire)
Abu Bakr (Arab Empire)
Xerxex (Persian Empire)
A Japanese leader (maybe Hirohito?)
A Greek leader (that's not Macedonian, like no Phillip II)
I would say Cleopatra as well, but Egypt got a new leader last expansion.

And also: something I'm surprised to see hasn't been suggested at all in this thread: the EU! A European Empire would be awesome! Instead of cities they could have member states (and capital could Belgium since Brussels is the de facto capital)! Short description: Europe, Long description: European Empire, Adjective: European.I

think four from the previous civ games is enough, and then in the next expansion they can finish it off with four more civ III civs (so we can get lots of new faces, but also finish off with all of the old civs).

@ everyone who suggested Australia:

Australia? AUSTRALIA?!?!?!?!? Are you insane?!

Firstly, who would our leader be, Ned Kelly? That guy we had during WWII?

Secondly, what would our unique unit/building be? Maybe there could be some Unique Unit from WWI or WWII, but there is definately no Aussie Unique Building.

And thirdly, we have NEVER been a civilization. We are STILL part of the British Empire. We may be a nation, but we aren't independent from Britain.

Btw I am a proud Aussie, but Australia is not an important civ whatsoever. Actually, it's not even a civ!

^ Agreed! This is "Civilization" not "Tribes" or "Nation States". (And I say this as an Aussie, too!)

And also: something I'm surprised to see hasn't been suggested at all in this thread: the EU! A European Empire would be awesome! Instead of cities they could have member states (and capital could Belgium since Brussels is the de facto capital)! Short description: Europe, Long description: European Empire, Adjective: European.I

The EU is a modern creation. Why it's even younger than Australia! But all of Western Europe is essentially one civilisation, that is, Christian civilisation. If the varied regions of India can be cobbled together into one "civilisation" than surely all of Western Europe can too, technically.

(Voting thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215534) is supposed to be closed, but you can still vote in there, it just won't be counted unless someone else other than me do the counting I'll be too busy from this week onwards)

Wow! Anti-Aussie Aussies :goodjob:

I agree though (being an Aussie myself :mischief:), But I agree for a different reason. I don't have a problem with Australia being in the game dispite our being apart of the 'British empire' (which I think is a silly argument). We do have a rather strong Aussie identity, but we really don't have any leaders that rival the likes of the leaders in the current game.

Just please forget that Xerxes ever existed. For the love of God...get the other great Achaemenid(Darius the Great) or get a Sassie, just no Xerxes. The man was a loser...

I'd really like to see an Pacific civilization like the Polyneasians, but I doubt it will ever happen. :(

This list is what I think is most likely going to happen. There are other civs I would like but I don't see Firaxis putting them in the game.

1. Portugal
2. Netherlands
3. Bablyon
4. Some sort of representation of northern American Indians, Sioux and Iroquois are the likely takers or just a general Native American civ.

5. Maya
6. Sumeria
7. The Bzyantines
8. It seems like Austria is looking like it might make it.
9. Another Asian culture, Khmer, Siam/Thailand and Tibet are probably the most likely.
10. Another African culture, Ethiopia/Aksum(sp?), Zimbabwe and Kongo seem like the most likely.

I never said anything against new things. Infact, I would love some more contemporary civs. I just said that Australia isn't a civilization. We are part of the British civilization. That's the reason we don't have Athens and Sparta as seperate civs, even though they where only united after being conquered by a foreign force, they where still Greek culture. Australia isn't unique enough.

However, there is European culture, plus, the EU is a new kind of empire, which I think deserves representation in civ. Also, it's not just western europe, the likes of Romania are in the EU.

I changed my mind on my list. I would like to see:

New Civs
Native American Emprie (Sitting Bull)
Babylonian Empire (Hammurabi)
Portugese Empire (Henry the Navigator)
Dutch Empire (William of Orange)
Polynesian Empire (King Kamehameha)
Siamese Empire (Mongkut)
Mayan Empire (Pacal)
European Empire (Jacques Delors)
Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne)
Abyssinian Empire (Menelik)

New Leaders
Lincoln (American Empire)
Xerxes (Persian Empire)
Charles de Gaulle (French Empire)
Abu Bakr (Arab Empire)
Akbar (Indian Empire)
Attaturk (Ottoman Empire)

And city names....?
For the Native Americans? Couldn't you have different tribe names? Like you could have Sioux, Iroquois, Cherokee, Apache, etc.

the Khmers and the Indonesians should be there
Canada, and a South America nation should be there

Canada, and a South America nation should be there
No.

This is not NationStates, this is Civilizations.

Polynesian Empire (King Kamehameha)

I know it's bad but that made me laugh :sad:

No.

This is not NationStates, this is Civilizations.

What I mean is a SA country (ex. a Brazilian civ)

What about the Holy Roman Empire?

Yes, they were mostly Germanic, but there are a lot of overlapping civilizations. Charlemagne could be the leader, and Frederick the Great could transfer over.

What about the Holy Roman Empire?

Yes, they were mostly Germanic, but there are a lot of overlapping civilizations. Charlemagne could be the leader, and Frederick the Great could transfer over.

Don't you mean Frederick Barbarossa? The current leader is Frederick of Prussia.

What I mean is a SA country (ex. a Brazilian civ)

No SA countries. None of them are civs. Inca is a good enough representation from SA. There weren't really any other civs there.

Well Maya?

Okay, Ten new empires:

IN
Native American with Sitting Bull (and Hiawatha)?
Dutch with William of Orange
Portuguese with Henry the Navigator
Babylonian with Hammurabi

Please be in:
Mayan with Smoke Jaguar
Polynesian with King Kamehameha
Austro-Hungarian with Franz Ferdinand (Take me out, indeed).
Khmer with Jayavarman II
Gran Colombia with Simon Bolivar
Abyssinian with Menelik II

Other five new leaders while I'm at it:
Spain: "El Cid" Ruy Diaz
America: Honest Abe
France: Charlamegne
Japan: Showa (Hirohito)
Greece: Socrates

I would love this batch. I liked Israel and the Huns and Byzantium, but this would be a great batch. While Geographically the Inca shared a lot of land with Colombia, there really wasn't a cultural overlap.

No SA countries. None of them are civs. Inca is a good enough
representation from SA. There weren't really any other civs there.

Not true. Other major civs in that region include the Moche, Nazca, and the builders of Tiwanaku. There have been various civilizations that predate or competed with the Inca in Pre-Columbian South America. However, for the purpose of a game expansion, I can't see any likelihod of including those other civs. ;)

Woah... I've never heard of any of them. But the Incas are still the only SA civ that will end up in Civ IV, unless Civ IV turns into a game full of stuff like Canada, Australia and Brazil to please fans. Or if a SA american nation somehow conquers everyone in a year or two. Or if aliens land, make their capital in South America, and conquer everyone.

What on earth is the point of waffling on about what the expansion will contain, be it civilisations, leaders, or whatever ? The decisions have already been made, and we must wait for the expansion to be released to find out what they were. I suppose that a few posters will then have the possibility of crowing "I was right !" but that's about all that these discussions will lead to.
Let us hope that the future of Civ4 will indeed be better, if not tomorrow then in due course.

Here is my suggestion for a future expansion or for a mod:

The Hawaiians were a tremendously significant culture to the British, Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Portugese, other Polynesians and many other cultures. Hawaii became a major trade station between the western and eastern hemisphere and a melting pot of race and culture from all over the world.

Due to it's key location in the Pacific, the United States of America overthew the Hawaiian Monarcy in 1893, created the Republic of Hawaii in 1894, and officially annexed Hawaii as a US territory in 1898. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941 by the Japanese is what threw the US into WWII. Hawaii became a state in 1959. With the overthrow, tourism and the infusion of world cultures in Hawaii, Hawaiians as a race has become diluted, but recent resurgences of culture, music, language, and political issues concerning native Hawaiian rights have brought Hawaiians back into recognition as a race with a unique culture and history.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Arms.gif

Hawaiian Empire

Starting Technologies: Agriculture, Fishing
Unique Unit: Koa (Spearmen)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Kamehamehaportrait.jpg
Leader 1: Kamehameha the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha), another biography (http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/history.php)
Trait: Aggressive
Trait: Spiritual
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Kingdavidkalakaua.jpg
Leader 2: David Kalākaua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalakaua)
or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Liliuokalani.jpg
Lili'uokalani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliuokalani)
Trait: Creative
Trait: Financial
Favorite Civic: Hereditary Rule

The images presented here are from Wikipedia which state that these images are for public use. For more on ancient Hawaiian culture, warfare, and religion, see http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/hacul/index.html and http://www.hiarmymuseumsoc.org/museum/exhibits.html

Woah... I've never heard of any of them. But the Incas are still the only SA civ that will end up in Civ IV, unless Civ IV turns into a game full of stuff like Canada, Australia and Brazil to please fans. Or if a SA american nation somehow conquers everyone in a year or two. Or if aliens land, make their capital in South America, and conquer everyone.

Hey Canada was picked to please the richest market base that hinders to tough antipirating laws making them the greatest market besides the US for non counterfeit custumers. Canada was picked the same reason a lil Civ like the Zulus where added to Warlords, to legitamize the theme, this time of nations who are strong 'beyond the sword'.

The title means two things and We cater to both. One, Civs who lead in the days after sword conflicts (this elimates half the worthy candidates right there and while we had buddies in every modern war that meant riding with the best (gear /resouces) we could still stick out our chests for over acheivin to prove we could pull or weight with the best of the best.
We were pround to snub the nutrual nations and instead got oursleves included in the most important battles ever, 'WW1' and '2' . Then we got dirty in the Korean war ,even sent 40000 to Veitnam and now we are waste deep in the CIA's opium 'afganiscam'
Yep, we were on the war path ( with are good buds :smoke: ) beyond the day of swordplay, thats a no doubter.


Canada' locks in the themes second meaning which is the emphasis on peaceful alternatives to succeed.
THe Big G8 member, Canada has a widely approved and envied social standing in many facets of non military areas
Canada's peacful ways yet advanced science and thriving economy makes it a shiny example of a winner on the world sceane that never needs to waste wads of miltary moola to look coola then the rest

Canada is also needed for the modern scenarios such as WW2, Coldwar war and the future scenario thats coming out

Pull all that together and really you all shoudn't be so surprised when I tell you its a done deal.

Sorry boys, you may not like it, but were in :p

To understand the relationship:

Hawaiians are to Polynesians
as French are to Europeans
and as Chinese are to Asians

Polynesians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia) (Greek for "many islands") are a group of Civilizations that live in the Pacific, more specifically, the Polynesian triangle. Polynesians are not a single civilization, thus, Kamehameha was not king of the Polynesians, but king of the Hawaiians.

@T.A. Jones
Zulu where in vanilla civ3, so your "Zulus where in to fit the theme" is flawed. You could also argue that many civs had great generals.

@WingedPaladin
I know. I donnot want Polynesians anymore, I think it would be interesting if there was Hawaii, Maori, etc. Though are there any notable Polynesian civs other than Hawaiians and Maoris?

My picks:

Maya
Ethiopia
Habsburgian Empire
Siam
Hittites
Thrace FTW!! :goodjob:

@WingedPaladin
I know. I donnot want Polynesians anymore, I think it would be interesting if there was Hawaii, Maori, etc. Though are there any notable Polynesian civs other than Hawaiians and Maoris?

Yes. Tonga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga) is still a kingdom and the only remaining kingdom in the Pacific. Samoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa) is broken into two parts: American Samoa and Western Samoa. American Samoa is governed by the USA and is more modernized. Western Samoa is currently independent and lives a more traditional way of life.

These two groups, the Tongans and Samoans, are also culturally rich and have their own dances and religious traditions. They are both fun loving people and love to dance. From my observations, Tongans seem to be more reserved/dignified and darker-skinned, while Samoans tend to be louder and more outgoing. (Individuals may vary.) They also tend to be fiercely loyal to family and friends.

Being in close proximity to one another in south Polynesia, wars between the Tongans and Samoans have gone on for millennia and though those wars have ceased, some strife has continued between the two cultures. This is most apparent in competitions they have with one another and gang activity occurring on the continental US. Samoan and Tongan parents feel a solution to this is to send their teens back to Samoa and Tonga to live with relatives, learn their cultural roots, respect for elders and themselves in culture-identity, and simpler way of life.

Because of their high protein diet and large build, Tongans and Samoans are often recruited and known to make some of the best defensive football players.


The Tahitians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahiti) and the Marquesas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesas) are both within French Polynesia and consist of many islands. They are a thinner build and many historians believe the Hawaiians stem from the Tahitians and/or the Marquesas due to the similarity in the language. These two cultures are similar in that they wear a lot of feathers and mother of pearl, especially when they dance. They are known for their fast drums, shaking hips and bird-like dancing. Currently, their major export is Noni Juice. Noni Juice is grown in all of Polynesia, including Hawaii (http://www.northshorenoni.com).

There are also the Fijians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji). The Fijians look different than other Polynesians due to their darker skin and afro-like hair. They were also a very warlike people in history and much of their dancing portrays that history. The Fijian government has also tended to be unstable with military coups rising up to take power.

And as you have mentioned, there are the Maori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori) of New Zealand. Other historians believe the Hawaiians came from the Maori and some legends hint to that. The Maori also had wars among themselves and bore tattooed faces with wide eyes and protruding tongues to intimidate their foes. They are also well known for their intricate carvings in buildings, totem poles, weapons, and jewelry. Historically, the English deported ships to New Zealand and Australia, hence the British-like accent. To me, Maori are the most Native American looking group in Polynesia, and some, even they themselves believe they stemmed from the Native Americans.

If you ever come to Hawaii, a great place to visit is the Polynesian Cultural Center (http://polynesia.com). You will be able to experience many of the cultural aspects of the groups that I have mentioned.

The Polynesian civilizations I have mentioned above are considered in Polynesia to be the major civilizations. There are some smaller islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia#Island_groups) include the Cook Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_islands), Easter Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_island) (famous for the large stone heads), Christmas Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_island), etc.

During Captain Cook's time, I believe the native Polynesian population was at its peak, but due to the diseases western sailors introduced to the otherwise isolated and diseaseless islanders, many of them were wiped out, so today their population is only a small fraction of what it used to be about 200 years ago. Western culture has modernized many of these islands, but the native islanders still have strong ties to their ancient culture.

If we're gonna make changes, how about introducing Atheism?

and on a not-so-serious level:

Obviously Mrs Margaret Thatcher should be included on the England Team, showing Aggressive and Financial traits. Unique Unit: The Handbag. Unique Building: The Single-seater Cabinet Office. Technologies: Shouting Stridently and Picking Fights.

I already said who I think they will put here, but this is what I would like to see regardless of how likely it is. Besides the 4 that are already there.

1. Maya
2. Holy Roman Empire
3. Siam
4. Vietnam
5. Byzantines
6. Zapotec

@T.A. Jones
Zulu where in vanilla civ3, so your "Zulus where in to fit the theme" is flawed.



They what? they were? shucks, I hadn't played that Civ3 thingy much. I wasn't aware, thanks! ;)
Civ4 is the chapter taking the themed approach. Thats why Canada is justified Its like they designed a reason for it to be included.
Civ3 scatterd some 31 Civs in the game all the greats where included then they chose the Zulus to represent a unique culture (culture being the theme if any)

Canada had no chance in Civ3. Sadly this time Civ4 has catered to them with its expansion approach. The Zulus got lucky twice ;)

Considering the modern nature of the expansion I would guess at Korean, Slovakia, Slav, Mexico, Vietnam, Argentina, Turkish, Finland, Prussia and Australia could be there.

Considering the modern nature of the expansion I would guess at Korean, Slovakia, Slav, Mexico, Vietnam, Argentina, Turkish, Finland, Prussia and Australia could be there.

They won't all be modern civs. A few have to be left out oldies.(scenarios need em) Mostly shiny examples of new modern nations that would tie in nicely like a G8 member, whos people coincidently make up the target market for Civ4 sales, will be included.


Sorta off Base but how may nations you listed there can the average citizen afford a computer that runs CIv4 + two expansion paks correctly? If its 'lots' then can they buy a legal copy just as easily?. The Firaxis marketing suits know the anwsers to this. Im just trying to break you in for whats coming ;) this is after all the "I told you so thread" eh?

They won't all be modern civs. A few have to be left out oldies.(scenarios need em) Mostly shiny examples of new modern nations that would tie in nicely like a G8 member, whos people coincidently make up the target market for Civ4 sales, will be included.


Sorta off Base but how may nations you listed there can the average citizen afford a computer that runs CIv4 + two expansion paks correctly? If its 'lots' then can they buy a legal copy just as easily?. The Firaxis marketing suits know the anwsers to this. Im just trying to break you in for whats coming ;) this is after all the "I told you so thread" eh?

Well if you are referring to Canada I cant see them being in - theyre not exactly know for their global importance and havent had any kind of empire. And isnt everyone in Canada too busy stopping bears from stealing their picnics to contribute anything to the world :p

Well if you are referring to Canada I cant see them being in - theyre not exactly know for their global importance and havent had any kind of empire. And isnt everyone in Canada too busy stopping bears from stealing their picnics to contribute anything to the world :p

Just wait until the world's supply of fresh water runs out.

Just wait until the world's supply of fresh water runs out.

Thats if Nestle hasn't bottled and shipped it all by then. Canada charges corps less then 5% what Europe does for access to water reserves. Hey mybe Bottled water will be Canada's Corporate entity in BtW, at least in the future scenarios ;)

@WingedPaladin
I said notable. I dunno, having Polynesians as a civ would have those obscure little islands (and possibly their leaders) representation. Plus, aren't the Polynesians simmiliar in culture? Like they aren't a very big continent... any differsity is probably the same as the diversity in East Asia.

@WingedPaladin
I said notable. I dunno, having Polynesians as a civ would have those obscure little islands (and possibly their leaders) representation. Plus, aren't the Polynesians simmiliar in culture? Like they aren't a very big continent... any differsity is probably the same as the diversity in East Asia.


Yes and no. Because they sprang from generally the same source, some aspects of their culture and language are similar, like they all had a polytheistic religion before western missionaries came. Some are not, such as their styles of dancing. Due to their living on islands, some Polynesians, like the Hawaiians, were isolated from other Polynesians and thus developed a culture unique to themselves. Many legends, religious aspects, governing methods, clothing style, are unique to only Hawaii. Western influence was different for each group also. Some were more influenced by the British, Americans, French, and/or Portugese and which westerner influenced them has had a big impact on modern culture and economy. Some groups welcomed westerners while others resisted them and their obtaining land on the islands. This is why Tonga is still a kingdom and Hawaii is not. The Polynesian islands are a great example of evolution due to separation and isolation in both the human sense and flora and fauna.

The languages of the Polynesians have a similar difference Portuguese does to Spanish. Different enough to be distinct, but similar enough to kinda sorta understand one another.

They what? they were? shucks, I hadn't played that Civ3 thingy much. I wasn't aware, thanks! ;)The Zulu were also in Civ2 aswell. I don't know anything about Civ1, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Zulu were in there too.

The Zulu were also in Civ2 aswell. I don't know anything about Civ1, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.

Zulu were in Civ1. My first Civ game was as the Zulu. :)

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

Nothing to explain it but the fact There a lucky lil Civ. THe Civ gods smile down on them and They round out the cultural spectrum nicely.
At least that explains the first two shows As for gettin in CIv4, What better Civ can you drop in A warlords X pack?. (I know, theres a few better but they were picked aswell :) )

Im only saying whats next to come and why. Its not logical to pretend the fact the Zulus made it to other Civ titles takes away from the reasons they derived the Zulus were justified candidates in Warlords. Therefor my original reasonings that this continued pattern, or course of the theme, will bring Canada into the forefront is still sound.

Its the better support Firaxis builds around its Civ picks now that explain why other underdog civs like the Zulus have surmounted the usual obstacles to make it in areas other then the standard war civ or unique culture for a change

omg how can the zulu be in all of these games if they were a really backwards civ.... forgive me if im wrong but didnt they fight british colonials with spears and shields during the 1700's-late 1800's... or some late period like that when every other civ including the native americans were adopting gunpowder?

If it makes you feel better: in the SNES version of CIV I the Zulus were replaced by the Japanese. (Yes, they were not in the original game.)

Moai Statues are apparently going to be one of the new wonders. I guess that means the Polynesians are probably being added. Of this I approve. For what it's worth ... and it's worth little as they've already been decided ... I'd want the following seven civs:

1) The Gaels (i.e. the pre-modern Irish and Scots; I'm biased for this)
2) (Aboriginal) Australians
3) Polynesians
4) Abyssinians (call them Ethiopians if you must, but Ethiopia refers to the whole of sub-saharan/Black Africa until the modern era; was a good word, shame it was usurped by one country)
5) Maya
6) Israel (frankly a must)
7) Khmer

If the Hittites were added, I wouldn't be displeased, but I'm skeptical about adding any more European/western Eurasian civs. You'd think the Hittites would be likely, as they were in Civ 3 Conquests. If they are going to add Canada, then I'll have to find a way of excluding them from random epic games. I hope the "Byzantines" aren't added, and esp. not the Austrians, who are German. While the Germans are an important people, we don't need two German civilizations. If we're gonna have that, add the Saxons instead, who are more historically important and distinctive. If we have the Austrians (as sadly we may very well have), we should have the Californians; please don't turn Civ into a game for post-war Nation-states. If you want that, there are much better games than Civ 4 out there.

I agree, Israel is a must. So what if their country is small today? The influence of Israel in this world is colossal. Due to the scattering of Israel, most people around the world have their lineage go back to Abraham. But who to make a leaderhead? Abraham would be an awesome choice for an ancient leader (we may see a tug-o-war here since so many religions want to claim him) and so would his grandson Jacob who is named Israel. Judah would be a great choice too being the main branch from Israel and progenitor of the Jews in Israel. Moses is a great choice, but looks like he already occupies the position of prophet in the game. David... Solomon... so many choices! Jesus could be king of Israel, but historically he was a religious figure and not a politician despite his lineage to be so if it weren't for the Romans taking over. I'm sure if Firaxis did that they would have a controversy on their hands, so I doubt they will. Hey, it's good for a mod.

Some often mentioned civs for the expansion are: Habsburg empire, holy roman empire, prussia, austria or even saxony. None of them represents a unique civilization. They are all german. Even Austria considered itself a german state until the end of the second world war. They might be good for some scenarios but i would be disappointed seeing them as a regular civ.

They were part of the greater Mesopotamian culture (much like France was part of the Medieval culture, but one could argue France gained notable cultural distinction by the Renaissance), thus should be bundled up with Babylon.

Another thing is, it's far too controversial to just slap in Israel into a game just like that. You may not feel bad if you place Jesus as a leader in-game, but it might be taken as an insult by Christians (who believe in Jesus as God) and Jews (who do not consider Jesus as an important figure in their history). Place Abraham in, and you'd be insulting the Jews. It is not a matter to play around with--it's a matter of an entire way of life.

Of course, if Firaxis wants to scorch a few papers with things like "Israeli government bans the import of 'Civilization' games" or something for the satisfaction of the players, then let them. :D

That didn't happen when the Hebrews were included into Call to Power, flyingchicken. You're talking nonsense!

Zulu were in Civ1. My first Civ game was as the Zulu. :)So that would mean that the Zulu were kept for consistancies sake. Personally, with western thought influencing the choices, I am surprised that the Mongols and the Zulu ever got in, let alone stayed in. I'm glad though, and hope they (well, at least the Mongols) stay in with future versions.

As for the 10 civs: It would be really cool if we had Assyria and Babylonia together. Much history between the two. Mind you, Assyria was a warmonger, so maybe it wont get in. .... come to think of it, Assyria would have been a great choice for Warlords considering all the Vassalise, become Vassalised, Vassalise, become Vassalised, etc, etc, etc that went on in their history. Most appropriate.

NONE of the Warlords civilizations were new to the Civilization series. In fact, their leaders weren't, either (with the exception of Mehmed, I think, although he was considered a "great leader" in Civilization III - Ramses II and Augustus were also in the "great leader" title, so the addition of Churchhill was the only purely original one). Following this predictable path where Firaxis seems to want to be consistent, it wouldn't be too far-fetched if we see all of the civilizations from the previous games simply copied over - and probably with the same leaders, too. If not the exact leaders themselves, then people listed under the "Great Leaders" category (found in the CivFanatic's website).

We already know that Portugal, Babylon, and the Netherlands will be released. So as it stands from the announced civilizations, my theory holds true. I can also say, with 80% certainty, that "William of Orange" will lead the Netherlands, "Prince Henry" will lead Portugal, and "Hammurabi" will lead Babylon. We also know that there is some Native American civilization, and many people believe that the picture shown is Sitting Bull of the Sioux, which could very well be a possibility. Given that Sitting Bull was considered a "great leader" (I don't know what this means - I never played the game) under the Iroquois in CivFanatic's Civilization III, however, perhaps he will be the second leader of the Iroquois faction, next to Hiawatha. In Civilization III, the term "Iroquois" represented all of the northern Native American tribues, so maybe the same will occur here. Given that we're supposed to have ten new factions, I am tempted to say that the Sioux will be a separate faction as compared to the Iroquois, with Sitting Bull leading the Sioux and Hiawatha leading the Iroquois, though the problem with this is that there might not be much of a difference between the two. This brings our total count to four or five, depending on if you think the Native American faction will be split. You then have the Mayans, Byzantines, Sumerians, and Hittites, bringing the total count to eight or nine. Given the Maoi Statues wonder, we might be seeing the Polynesians, putting the count to nine or ten... which pretty much accounts for everything.

As for the five additional leaderheads (the ten new factions ones plus five more additional leaderheads), I'm again going to say that they'll just be copies from the older games. In other words - Xerxes of Persia, Joan d'Arc of France, Cleopatra of Egypt, Abu Bakr of Arabia, and Osman of the Ottomans. Pachacuti of Inca might replace one of the above. Of course, they said sixteen additional leaderheads, whereas I said five before. The sixth is Abraham Lincoln, which only further proves my point that Firaxis seems to enjoy sticking to tradition (or at least not veer too far off the path).

Of course, this is all mere prediction on my part, but if my prediction holds to be true then I feel that what we will be seeing in Civilization V will be extremely predictable (except whether the civilizations will be put into the original or the expansions).

That didn't happen when the Hebrews were included into Call to Power, flyingchicken. You're talking nonsense!
Why yes, I am. :crazyeye: My noobness shows! Okay, add the Hebrews, fine. I'm just going to pout in a corner.

Anyhow, how about a Prophet Muhammad leaderhead, icon, and model? I have seen the light, and have realized that religious people don't get as easily offended as I thought they did. :joke:

Given that Polynesians are made up of a number of civilizations and governments, I think it is a funny idea to glop Polynesians together as one civilization.

If this is serious...we could also glop Asians, Europeans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, and South Americans together also. That would really simplify everything as we would only need 8 civilizations to worry about (if we're including Antartica also) and less civilizations would feel left out since they would be considered included in that region of the world...

The fun and replay ability in Civilization IV is due to the sheer variety of civilizations. Thank goodness we don't go to that extremity of simplicity with this game, otherwise boredom seeps in and we would have no use for expansion packs. ;)

I'd say, if we use Kamehameha as the leaderhead, let it be the Hawaiians. If we use Tāufaʻāhau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taufa%27ahau), let it be the Tongans, and so on.

Given that Polynesians are made up of a number of civilizations and governments, I think it is a funny idea to glop Polynesians together as one civilization.

If this is serious...we could also glop Asians, Europeans, Africans, Australians, North Americans, and South Americans together also. That would really simplify everything as we would only need 8 civilizations to worry about (if we're including Antartica also) and less civilizations would feel left out since they would be considered included in that region of the world...

The fun and replay ability in Civilization IV is due to the sheer variety of civilizations. Thank goodness we don't go to that extremity of simplicity with this game, otherwise boredom seeps in and we would have no use for expansion packs. ;)

I'd say, if we use Kamehameha as the leaderhead, let it be the Hawaiians. If we use Tāufaʻāhau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taufa%27ahau), let it be the Tongans, and so on.

Not really comparable.Polynesians share a common origin and to some extent even today a common culture and language group, to a much greater extent than Native Americans or even "Celts". As it appears the Native Americans will be a civ, and the "Celts" (in fairness the developers meant Gauls rather than Celts) are already are one, I wouldn't go too much by this logic.

BTW, the civilization franchise is at the lowbrow end of the historical simulation market; it is intended as a fun strategy game .. which it is; it is not and never has been an in depth historical simulation. If you want higher brow historical simulation, play paradox games like Europa Universalis II, Hearts of Iron and Crusader Kings.

Anyways, on the Polynesians again, no individual Polynesian culture is significantly more important than the rest. Polynesians should only get in the game in my POV only as Polynesians; the only possible exception to that I'd say would be Maoris, but even then I would regard this a an imperfect waste.

If it makes you feel better: in the SNES version of CIV I the Zulus were replaced by the Japanese. (Yes, they were not in the original game.)

This would make sense considering the SNES version was ported by a Japanese company (Koei, I believe).

Yawn. I hope there are not more instances of giving barbarians the title of "civilisation" becuase they aren't white. Yawn.

Celts are also barbs btw. And Zulus.

What is a barbarian but an "uncivilized" person. And what is "uncivilized" but a purely social construct, defined by the cultural context as to where a person lived and grew up.

What is truly uncivilized is a society without any social constructs, without a definition of what is the "right" way of living. Hence there are no such things as uncivilized societies.

Of course, the "right" way is not always a "good" way. Roman civilization was more comfortable than Gaelic civilization, yet both were civilized in their own ways.

What is a barbarian but an "uncivilized" person. And what is "uncivilized" but a purely social construct, defined by the cultural context as to where a person lived and grew up.

What is truly uncivilized is a society without any social constructs, without a definition of what is the "right" way of living. Hence there are no such things as uncivilized societies.

Of course, the "right" way is not always a "good" way. Roman civilization was more comfortable than Gaelic civilization, yet both were civilized in their own ways.

"Barbarian" is really just an elevated way of saying "foreigner" or "outsider"; e.g. in the early and high middle ages the Welsh called the English barbarians, and the English likewise called the Welsh that, though from our point of view in the modern world their civilizations were identical in developmental levels.

A Roman living as an aristocrat in Rome or Antioch was of course more comfortable that a Gael from central Scotland or Ireland, but of course 99.9% of Romans led lives just about as comfortable as 99.9% of Gaels. Of course the Gaels were the most literate people in the early medieval West (who were the Frankish emperors turning to for instance?), so if they were "barbarians" in our sense, the French, Germans, Spanish and Vikings were "savages". :goodjob:

Yep. So everyone's a barbarian ROAR I'M GONNA DRINK YOUR BLOOD

Not really comparable.Polynesians share a common origin and to some extent even today a common culture and language group, to a much greater extent than Native Americans or even "Celts". As it appears the Native Americans will be a civ, and the "Celts" (in fairness the developers meant Gauls rather than Celts) are already are one, I wouldn't go too much by this logic.

BTW, the civilization franchise is at the lowbrow end of the historical simulation market; it is intended as a fun strategy game .. which it is; it is not and never has been an in depth historical simulation. If you want higher brow historical simulation, play paradox games like Europa Universalis II, Hearts of Iron and Crusader Kings.

Anyways, on the Polynesians again, no individual Polynesian culture is significantly more important than the rest. Polynesians should only get in the game in my POV only as Polynesians; the only possible exception to that I'd say would be Maoris, but even then I would regard this a an imperfect waste.

Europeans share a common origin don't they? Asians too? Many of them look the same and have similar customs. Is any one European culture "significantly more important than the rest"? I have mentioned in a previous post how some civilizations in Polynesia had a greater impact on the world than others. I've also mentioned how the civilizations in Polynesia look different from one another. Many Native American tribes on the continental US didn't have a government that the world recognized as an established government when the Europeans invaded. Many of the civilizations of Polynesia did. "Polynesians" never existed as a civilization and government called Polynesians but as Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, etc. What I am suggesting is that Civ IV be true to form in recognizing the civilizations and their leaders and not glop it together according to region which advances the ignorance of the distinct civilizations and cultures within Polynesia.

Europeans share a common origin don't they? Asians too? Many of them look the same and have similar customs. Is any one European culture "significantly more important than the rest"? I have mentioned in a previous post how some civilizations in Polynesia had a greater impact on the world than others. Many Native American tribes on the continental US didn't have a government that the world recognized as an established government when the Europeans invaded. The civilizations of Polynesia did. "Polynesians" never existed as a civilization and government called Polynesians but as Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, etc. What I am suggesting is that Civ IV be true to form in recognizing the civilizations and their leaders and not glop it together according to region which advances the ignorance of the distinct civilizations and cultures within Polynesia.

Most of the world didn't know about Native Americans, as most of the world were peasants in Asia. All native Americans had government! Sorry to tell you, there was no utopian anarchist fantasies in operation in the Americas. Countries ... or rather local commanders from European countries ... "recognized" the states it was convenient to "recognize"; Polynesians such the Maori were treated little differently from, say, the Nez Perce or Chinook peoples of the Pacific north-west (Native Americans encountered at roughly the same time and in the same circumstances as these Polynesians).

Of course Europeans have common ancestry. Polynesians can be compared to Romance peoples, French, Spanish, etc; difference is no individual Polynesian island or archipelago culture is very important individually; but the Polynesians, colonizing so many oceanic islands at such distance are important. Simple as that. That's the difference.

Most of the world didn't know about Native Americans, as most of the world were peasants in Asia. All native Americans had government! Sorry to tell you, there was no utopian anarchist fantasies in operation in the Americas. Countries ... or rather local commanders from European countries ... "recognized" the states it was convenient to "recognize"; Polynesians such the Maori were treated little differently from, say, the Nez Perce or Chinook peoples of the Pacific north-west (Native Americans encountered at roughly the same time and in the same circumstances as these Polynesians).

Of course Europeans have common ancestry. Polynesians can be compared to Romance peoples, French, Spanish, etc; difference is no individual Polynesian island or archipelago culture is very important individually; but the Polynesians, colonizing so many oceanic islands at such distance are important. Simple as that. That's the difference.

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.

Yes, I know all of the Native Americans had a government. However, most of them were disregarded by the Europeans due to the lack of documentation recognized, land boundaries, and seen as roaming barbarians. Due to the distinct land boundaries held by the civilizations in Polynesians being islands this distinction between civilizations could not be missed.

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.


It's nothing to do with me ... there are only 7 civs in the new xp. Are you seriously arguing that any Polynesian archipelago or island culture is important enough in the international historical context to take one of these places? Not feasible. The Polynesians in general are feasible however.

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.

Yes, I know all of the Native Americans had a government. However, most of them were disregarded by the Europeans due to the lack of documentation recognized, land boundaries, and seen as roaming barbarians. Due to the distinct land boundaries held by the civilizations in Polynesians being islands this distinction between civilizations could not be missed.

What is the point of this in relation to your general argument?

It's nothing to do with me ... there are only 7 civs in the new xp. Are you seriously arguing that any Polynesian archipelago or island culture is important enough in the international historical context to take one of these places? Not feasible. The Polynesians in general are feasible however.

What is the point of this in relation to your general argument?


Well, the Celts were feasible, the Zulus were feasible. With the large impact the Hawaiians have had on the countries of the Pacific Rim, why wouldn't they as a civilization be feasible? If "Polynesians" is feasible, then "Asians" and "Europeans" should be feasible as civilizations. I'm saying the idea of "Polynesians" as a civilization to someone living in Polynesia is funny.

Well, the Celts were feasible, the Zulus were feasible. With the large impact the Hawaiians have had on the countries of the Pacific Rim, why wouldn't they as a civilization be feasible? If "Polynesians" is feasible, then "Asians" and "Europeans" should be feasible as civilizations. I'm saying the idea of "Polynesians" as a civilization to someone living in Polynesia is funny.

Not the same. Asians and Europeans are geographically based concepts. An Indian has almost nothing to do with an Israeli or Mongolian. The Polynesians are not a geographical concept ... but a cultural concept, a people who in the west's middle ages spread from a common origin point and settled in island environments all over the Pacific.

The Zulu are an idiosyncrasy kept in the game because they've always been there. Not sure you can compare the Celts to the culture of Hawaii ... a fitting comparison would be Lordship of the Isles, similar in size and regional impact. The Celts as a whole dominated most of western and central Europe for more than half a millenium, and remained in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Wales and western England into the middle ages and beyond ... though the "Celts" in Civ 4 refer only to the Gauls. And no, I don't think the Gauls should be in Civ 4 ... but there you go, it's already done.

Not the same. Asians and Europeans are geographically based concepts. An Indian has almost nothing to do with an Israeli or Mongolian. The Polynesians are not a geographical concept ... but a cultural concept, a people who in the west's middle ages spread from a common origin point and settled in island environments all over the Pacific.

The Zulu are an idiosyncrasy kept in the game because they've always been there. Not sure you can compare the Celts to the culture of Hawaii ... a fitting comparison would be Lordship of the Isles, similar in size and regional impact. The Celts as a whole dominated most of western and central Europe for more than half a millenium, and remained in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Wales and western England into the middle ages and beyond ... though the "Celts" in Civ 4 refer only to the Gauls. And no, I don't think the Gauls should be in Civ 4 ... but there you go, it's already done.


Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance. The points of the Polynesian Triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_Triangle) are Hawaii, New Zealand and Easter Island.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Polynesiantraiangle.jpg/300px-Polynesiantraiangle.jpg

Thus the civilizations within that triangle are in the geographical Polynesian region.

Hawaiian diplomats traveled to the US, Asia, and Europe and to other countries around the globe before the United States government took over. Hawaiians didn't go to war with outside countries, but the cultural impact is huge. Japanese have hula competitions in Japan for crying out loud! The Chinese want their own polynesian cultural center. Where do you think the Californians got their idea to surf?

Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance. The points of the Polynesian Triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_Triangle) are Hawaii, New Zealand and Easter Island.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Polynesiantraiangle.jpg/300px-Polynesiantraiangle.jpg

Thus the civilizations within that triangle are in the geographical Polynesian region.

Erm ... the triangle is named after the Polynesians, not the other way around.

Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance.

Ok, goodbye. I'm not gonna talk to you any more if you're gonna be like that.

Erm ... the triangle is named after the Polynesians, not the other way around.

"Polynesia" is a Greek word meaning "many islands"

Ok, goodbye. I'm not gonna talk to you any more if you're gonna be like that.

I'm sorry to offend you. I am a Hawaiian and I'm being told my culture and heritage is insignificant. I am also Chinese, English, Irish, Scottish, and French. My husband is also Hawaiian AND Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, Portugese, etc. and I'm being told Hawaiians are insignificant internationally.

For starters, we need:

Polynesians
Indonesia
Siam
Burma
Viet Nam
Babylon
Byzantine Empire
Lydia
Phrygia
Hittites
Armenia
Phoenicia
Israel
Mahgreb
Ethiopia
Kongo
Zimbabwe
Portugal
Switzerland
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Hungary
Serbia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Romania
Scotland
Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Ukraine
Lithuania
Poland
Bohemia
Mayas
Canada
Australia
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia

Remember, Polynesia is a region not a civilization so split Polynesian into:

Hawaiian
Maori
Tongan
Samoan
Tahitian
Fijian

Above are what I'd consider to be the most dominant civilizations in the Polynesian region. Others include:

Marquesas
Cook Islanders
Kiribati
Rapa Nui

I think everybody has a lot of regional pride, and wants to represent. My theory as that if they can have a "Native Americans" civ, why not have a "Pacific Islanders" Civ as well?
My guess is there are going to be two leaders for Native Americans, Sitting Bull and Hiawatha, so you can sort of play as Sioux and Iroquois, in a way. Why not have two leaders from opposite ends of the Polynesian triangle, maybe New Zealand and Hawaiian?
It isn't as great as having a distinctly Hawaiian Civ, but that's what mods are for. I think if Pacific Islanders are in there, it'd be a step in the right direction.

Sorry to horn in on a private conversation, obviously not too sorry ...

Yes, some of those islands were cut off from each other, but they do share a number of cultural characteristics. Besides, you could also dismember every other civ down to cities and towns if you were to apply the same principles to them. "Polynesians" is the only reasonable way to include them in the game.

Yes, some of those islands were cut off from each other, but they do share a number of cultural characteristics. Besides, you could also dismember every other civ down to cities and towns if you were to apply the same principles to them. "Polynesians" is the only reasonable way to include them in the game.

Hawaii, Tonga, and New Zealand are not "cities and towns" but were/are countries. They aren't as similar as you assume them to be.

WingedPaladin,

What would the UU/UB be for Pacific Islanders? My wife is a huge rugby fan, she wants it to be a rugby pitch instead of a colliseum (she says rugby is the sport in the Islands, I wouldn't know myself). As for UU, I can't think of anything.

Hawaii, Tonga, and New Zealand are not "cities and towns" but were/are countries.

As were Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, Brandenburg, Palatinate. Or Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples. Or Athens, Sparta, Syracusse, Crotona, Ephesus.

Yet we don't have a civ for each of them.

"Polynesia" is a Greek word meaning "many islands"


Yeah ... ?


I'm sorry to offend you. I am a Hawaiian and I'm being told my culture and heritage is insignificant. I am also Chinese, English, Irish, Scottish, and French. My husband is also Hawaiian AND Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, Portugese, etc. and I'm being told Hawaiians are insignificant internationally.

You didn't offend me, just don't wanna talk to people with those kind of manners. Anyways, no-one said Hawaiian culture is insignificant, just not significant on the kind of stage many see as needed for inclusion in Civ 4. Plenty of Canadians are arguing on different threads that Canada shouldn't be a civ, but they aren't complaining that their nation is being disrespected.

Hawaii is just smaller than, for instance, the medieval mormaerdom of Ross, and being geographically isolated until Europeans came, had no significant impact on any other county's history, never mind world history in general (if arguably influencing a few aspects of modern pop culture and diplomatic contact with a few countries hungry to eat it up is the limit of Hawaiian contributions to civilization, then there'd be more argument for a Cuban civilization). Native Hawaiians are happy to be regarded as Polynesians (e.g. here (http://www.polynesia.com/)), and I'm afraid no Polynesian island or island group is quite got the historical muscle to get into such a limited list on any traditional argument. I think you're being over ambitious on this one. The only more localized Polynesian culture I might approve of for the game is, like I said, the Maoris, but even then I'd much much rather prefer the Polynesians.

As to UU, some kind of boat would be good. That was the UU in some of the civ 3 mods. I remember that in at least one it was an ocean going ship available very early, but one that only moved one square per turn. That wouldn't be too overpowered for civ 4, would it?

Yeah ... ?

You didn't offend me, just don't wanna talk to people with those kind of manners. Anyways, no-one said Hawaiian culture is insignificant, just not significant on the kind of stage many see as needed for inclusion in Civ 4. Plenty of Canadians are arguing on different threads that Canada shouldn't be a civ, but they aren't complaining that their nation is being disrespected.

Hawaii is just smaller than, for instance, the medieval mormaerdom of Ross, and being geographically isolated until Europeans came, had no significant impact on any other county's history, never mind world history in general (if arguably influencing a few aspects of modern pop culture and diplomatic contact with a few countries hungry to eat it up is the limit of Hawaiian contributions to civilization, then there'd be more argument for a Cuban civilization). Native Hawaiians are happy to be regarded as Polynesians (e.g. here (http://www.polynesia.com/)), and I'm afraid no Polynesian island or island group is quite got the historical muscle to get into such a limited list on any traditional argument. I think you're being over ambitious on this one. The only more localized Polynesian culture I might approve of for the game is, like I said, the Maoris, but even then I'd much much rather prefer the Polynesians.

I'm saying Europeans named the region Polynesia, not the people whom they found there.

During the 18th century, Hawaii became a major source of Sandalwood until that source was depleted. As a result of this export, many Hawaiians starved to death since they were ordered to leave the fields to cut down and drag the Sandalwood from the mountains. Hawaii was also a stop used by many whalers and sailors.

During the 19th century and early 20th century, Hawaii became a major exporter of sugar and pineapple. Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Portuguese and others from Southeast Asia sailed to Hawaii to work in the fields. Due to Hawaii's key location, millions of people from all over the world have come here and continue to come here and experience the culture of the Hawaiian people.

I grew up in the town in which the Polynesian Cultural Center is located. Presidents of the US, leaders and diplomats of China, Japan, Korea, Kings of Tonga, religious leaders, and leaders and representatives from many other countries come here. They apparently don't consider us to be so tiny and insignificant to their country.

We Hawaiians do consider ourselves Polynesians just like Chinese consider themselves Asians, but we see ourselves as a distinct race, culture, nation and history and not the same as others in Polynesia. That is why the Polynesian Cultural Center is broken up into sections according to the nations and not jumbled up into one mass group.

Now many Hawaiians are striving to be recognized as a nation since we have been politically oppressed having had our government overthrown over a century ago.

I'm not understanding why you say you are bent on just the Maoris. I'm guessing this could be because Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand or that might be the country you visited so that is what you are most exposed to. It just seems from your comments that you have been focused on your side of the world and haven't been aware of the influence we have had on this side.

Nope ! Cristo redentor fits Portugal addition. Sorry for Brazil ( remenber : 3-0 )

Oo
how cristo redentor is a portuguese addition? they construct that in 1931, and brazil is independent as 18 - something... its the same thing u say the statue of liberty is a english addition oO

i think brazil will be added :) or a native brazilian civilization, like the guaranis or the caigangs :D

For starters, we need:

Polynesians
Indonesia
Siam
Burma
Viet Nam
Babylon
Byzantine Empire
Lydia
Phrygia
Hittites
Armenia
Phoenicia
Israel
Mahgreb
Ethiopia
Kongo
Zimbabwe
Portugal
Switzerland
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Hungary
Serbia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Romania
Scotland
Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Ukraine
Lithuania
Poland
Bohemia
Mayas
Canada
Australia
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia

brazil needs to go first!
*evil laugh*

Don't you mean Frederick Barbarossa? The current leader is Frederick of Prussia.



No SA countries. None of them are civs. Inca is a good enough representation from SA. There weren't really any other civs there.

OMG!
every country is a civilization! Oo It can be the people from brazil, argentina, uruguay, colombia...
i call this preconception.

I shall post in here what I posted on another thread:

There are several reasons for why Brazil could/should be in it. Allow me:

1) The Cristo Redentor was built in 1931. That's entirely Brazilian with *no* Portuguese influence. Putting it in there as a Portuguese reference would be beyond wrong.

2) There is a *severe* lack of South American representation in the Civ games, with the Incas being the only ones.

3) Brazil was the only country in the Americas to ever have its own true empire/monarchy; it lasted from 1822 - 1889. Mexico's combined 4 years with no real hereditary rule is not really an empire.

4) The Brazilian Empire was a major force in South American politics and was the major player in the War of the Triple Alliance, the continent's most important military conflict between the sovereign nations.

5) Pedro II is widely acclaimed as a great leader and would fit perfectly within the Civ roster of leaders.

6) The vast majority of the Civilizations in Civ 4 had absolutely no world-wide impact, only regional. The Mali Empire is a perfect example of that. Also, with Sitting Bull a confirmed leader, that means the Sioux are going to be included and they are also another great example. Brazil had enormous impact in South America without being a colony.

7) The Zulu nation has a history just as short as sovereign Brazil (almost 200 years). But the short history they do have is extremely vital to the regional South Africa and that is why they are included.

8) Civ 3 had a lot of Civs that are on the same scale of importance as Brazil.

9) As for the cities in Civ 3 that belonged to Portugal: Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro *were* Portuguese cities. When Brazil was a colony. If Brazil is not a present Civ, then sure, it makes sense to give Portugal those cities, like Civ 3 did. But if Brazil is, then those cities would clearly go to it.

10) Santos-Dumont would make such a good Great Engineer.

Granted, I believe it's just wishful thinking, but there *are* reasons as to why Brazil would be a good choice for a civilization.

The most important reason being the severe lack of South American representation.

Brazil or Argentina are the only countries that could really fill in the shoes of that representation. But since Brazil had more impact in the whole continent (due to its larger borders and contact with the other nations), it would be a better choice. And that is why I believe they should be in it.


And I'm also well aware that you don't need to have a civilization in the game in order to use its wonder. The Hanging Gardens is in the game already and the Babylonians themselves won't get here until July with the expansion.

All in all, I know that Brazil probably won't be in it, but I figured it was a worth a shot to explain why it should be considered.

And yes, I fully support someone from "down under" since we also need some Oceanic representation around here. =D

Thanks for reading this novel!

P.S.- I'll probably think of the unique units and buildings soon enough...

OMG!
every country is a civilization! Oo It can be the people from brazil, argentina, uruguay, colombia...
i call this preconception.

Civilization does not nessesirily equal civilization. That would be like saying each greek city state was their own civilization.

1) The Cristo Redentor was built in 1931. That's entirely Brazilian with *no* Portuguese influence. Putting it in there as a Portuguese reference would be beyond wrong.
Who brought Christianity to Brazil, eh? No Portuguese help, but the influence was all Portuguese.

3) Brazil was the only country in the Americas to ever have its own true empire/monarchy; it lasted from 1822 - 1889. Mexico's combined 4 years with no real hereditary rule is not really an empire.
Ehem. The Incas had a hereditary monarchy. 'Nuff said. And hereditary monarchy alone doesn't make a civilization or an empire, it only makes a hereditary monarchy.

8) Civ 3 had a lot of Civs that are on the same scale of importance as Brazil.
This is Civ4.
___________

Like I said in some other thread, let us just include every friggin' 170+ modern nation-states (not civs, nation-states) in Civ4 as their own "civilizaitons." That will make everyone happy.

Don't stop there, though -- look into the history books and add every single nation-state in the known history of mankind, and you have one helluva expansion pack.

:joke:

Who brought Christianity to Brazil, eh? No Portuguese help, but the influence was all Portuguese.

And who brought Christianity to Portugal, to Spain, to France? T'was the Romans/Byzantines. Shouldn't we then credit the Notre Dame wonder to Rome? Clearly it was their influence that established it and therefore it shouldn't be considered French. Right? Or how about the Church of the Nativity wonder? That's Roman too, right?

Ehem. The Incas had a hereditary monarchy. 'Nuff said. And hereditary monarchy alone doesn't make a civilization or an empire, it only makes a hereditary monarchy.

Except the Incas weren't a country. Notice how I specifically used the word "country" exactly because I am well aware of the Incas and of the other Mesoamerican peoples that weren't a country but had hereditary rule.

I mentioned it simply because it adds to the status. Most civilizations in the Civ games were Empires at one point. Brazil was one too. It adds historical context. Not because I think an empire automatically makes a nation a civilization or because I think it makes them important, but because it just gives the nation a more "classically historic" side if they have it.

This is Civ4.

Precisely why Brazil could be in it. New game, new civilizations. What was in Civ 3 (ie Portugal having Sao Paulo and Rio as cities) should have no effect on what will be in Civ 4. That's my point.
___________

Like I said in some other thread, let us just include every friggin' 170+ modern nation-states (not civs, nation-states) in Civ4 as their own "civilizaitons." That will make everyone happy.

Don't stop there, though -- look into the history books and add every single nation-state in the known history of mankind, and you have one helluva expansion pack.

:joke:

It's funny how everyone seems to think that only world-affecting civilizations should be in the game. Because when you consider it, most civilizations did not affect the world. They affected their region.

Does anyone object to Mali? Zulu? Korea? Babylon? Carthage? No. And yet none of those had world importance. But they had tremendous regional importance that is remembered by the world. That's why they're there.

Why are the Inca so important? Because they were an "old" civilization that conquered parts of Eastern South America? Never affected much else than their relatively small region. They didn't do much, really. Ah, but they were "ancient" so that makes them great.

If one takes South American history, then one sees how monumental the Brazilian Empire was in the shaping of the entire continent. It had tremendous impact and a lot of history. But it's not ancient. Nor did it ever become a world power. Therefore it should just be ignored?

Then why aren't we ignoring the Zulu? Why aren't we ignoring the Sioux (which will be in BTS since Sitting Bull is a confirmed leader)?

Because of representation.

South America and Oceania need representation.

Africa needed representation and so we got Zulu and Mali. North America has USA and Aztecs, and we're getting Sioux and likely Maya to add to their representation.

Now it's South America and Oceania's turn. Or will they continue to have 1 and 0 civilizations, respectively?

We can keep pumping out Europeans and Asians, or we can get some diversity and maybe learn something about the Polynesians and the Brazilians...

South America and Oceania need representation.

Africa needed representation and so we got Zulu and Mali. North America has USA and Aztecs, and we're getting Sioux and likely Maya to add to their representation.

Now it's South America and Oceania's turn. Or will they continue to have 1 and 0 civilizations, respectively?

We can keep pumping out Europeans and Asians, or we can get some diversity and maybe learn something about the Polynesians and the Brazilians...

Exactly! The game is already too much concentrated in Europe and european culture. We need more not European/Mediterrean Civilizations.

This western ignorance is sometimes unbelievable!

I want an alien civilization :)
starting tech are warpspeed and desintegration :p

South America and Oceania need representation.

Africa needed representation and so we got Zulu and Mali. North America has USA and Aztecs, and we're getting Sioux and likely Maya to add to their representation.

Now it's South America and Oceania's turn. Or will they continue to have 1 and 0 civilizations, respectively?

We can keep pumping out Europeans and Asians, or we can get some diversity and maybe learn something about the Polynesians and the Brazilians...

Yay! All of my postings have not been for naught and I appreciate that some have noticed that we have had zero official representation as of yet. I apologize if I have offended anyone with my postings due to my frustrations in my heritage being treated as sub-par.

I just think Kamehameha would look really awesome in the game since his style of dress is very unique. Check these out:

King Kamehameha's ceremonial feather cape. Hawaiians caught a lot of birds to make this. The creators caught the birds using tree sap on a branch, plucked a few feathers, then set the birds free.

http://www.theinsider.com/Aloha/Photos/BishopCape.JPG

This is the original Kamehameha Statue

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/13/300px-Kamehameha_statue_Kohala.jpg

Here's the famous statue in front of the State Capitol:

http://www.deephawaii.com/photo_gallery/oahu/Kamehameha.jpghttp://www.alohafriendshawaii.com/web%20art/King_Kamehameha_statueKamDay04vfront.jpg

Statue of Kamehameha (http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/kamehameh/aa_kamehameh_subj_e.html) at the US Capitol in Washington D.C.

This is an artist's rendition of King Kamehameha from this page: http://www.elliecrowe.com/book6.html

http://www.elliecrowe.com/img/kamehameha.jpg

Follow this link for More great pics (http://www.hawaiiweb.com/hawaii/html/sites/kamehameha_the_great_statue.html) of this unique traditional feather outfit.

Wow, and in my search for great pictures of Kamehameha, I found this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/printthread.php?t=41995&pp=20

What about Kazakhstan - it is a great exporter of Potassium! :D

Just kidding - no offence Kazakhs! :) I couldn't resist when I saw how important exporter of sandalwood was Polynesia :)

I couldn't resist when I saw how important exporter of sandalwood was Polynesia :)

Sweet smelling wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandalwood) was really popular back then and it is still a popular wood with the Chinese. ;)

When I went to China in 1994, I bought foldable fans that were made out of strips of carved sandalwood.

This website gave a good synopsis of what had happened in Hawaii:

"Kamehameha The Great had seized power as a ruthless military dictator. Although he became somewhat benevolent in later years, he continued to hold absolute power as the giver of laws and the owner of all the lands and waters of Hawai'i. When he wanted to buy weapons and consumer goods from Europeans and Americans, he ordered thousands of Hawaiian men to stop fishing and taro farming and to collect sandalwood and deliver it to the harbors, until all Hawai'i was stripped of sandalwood and many men and their families died of starvation."

Quote from http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kauikeaoulistpatricksday.html

Another website featuring the sandalwood trade:

http://www.hawaiiweb.com/molokai/sites_to_see/SandalwoodPit.htm

WingedPaladin,

What would the UU/UB be for Pacific Islanders? My wife is a huge rugby fan, she wants it to be a rugby pitch instead of a colliseum (she says rugby is the sport in the Islands, I wouldn't know myself). As for UU, I can't think of anything.

Well, my uncle loved to play rugby in college and I sometimes see big Samoan and Tongan men on a grass field playing rugby so I would assume they play that a lot in their homeland. I was attending a college in the continental US, and met a few Fijian and Tongan rugby players there as well. :) Football and volleyball are big here in Hawaii, but then Hawaii is more like the US than most of the other islands in the Pacific. A lot of my high school Samoan, Tongan, and Hawaiian guys get recruited for college and professional football.

If the civilization is the Hawaiians, then the Unique Unit would be Nā Koa, or the spearmen. (Nā means "the" plural, Koa means warrior)

http://gracegalleries.com/images/HAW/HAW143.jpghttp://www.alternative-hawaii.com/activity/beachbi/images/24b.jpg

Some wore helmets made of tightly woven fibers and feathers. Others wore helmets carved from gourds.

http://www.hawaiiantrading.com/herb-kane/image-pg/nuuaunu_battle.jpg
From http://www.hawaiiantrading.com/herb-kane/pages/battle-at-nuuanu-pali.html

Here is more on Hawaiian weaponry (http://www.coffeetimes.com/weapons.htm) as observed by Captain Cook and other westerners.

The ancient Unique Building would be a heiau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiau) or Hawaiian temple. It was probably the most prominent and lasting structures Hawaiians built before western contact. http://www.nps.gov/puhe/photosmultimedia/index.htm
http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/hawaii/heiau/
This is an interesting article: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jul/02/ln/ln22p.html

A more modern structure for the Hawaiians would be the Iolani Palace (http://www.iolanipalace.org/).

I've heard rumors about the large heads, Moai, of the Rapa Nui / Easter Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island) being considered. I really don't know much about Easter Island besides there was a civilization that lived there that made big stone carvings of faces. Apparently those early islanders had ancient and more modern ties to Chileans due to its close proximity to South America.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Moai_Rano_raraku.jpg/200px-Moai_Rano_raraku.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Moai_and_Esmeralda.jpg/180px-Moai_and_Esmeralda.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/AhuTongariki.JPG/180px-AhuTongariki.JPGhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Ahu-Akivi-1.JPG/180px-Ahu-Akivi-1.JPG

It really is a stunning wonder produced by an ancient civilization in Polynesia.

My 10 cent:

1 Portugal
2 Netherlands
3 Sioux
4 Babylon

5 Maya
6 Iroquis
7 Sumer
8 Khmer, Siam/Thailand
9 Ethiopia
10 Cathage

Neither Canada, Hawaii, Finland or Poland are interesting enough for me.

Poland only in a Europe 16. century-scenario. And then Sweden should be included as well. (But that could be the Vikings with a twist)

My 10 cent:

1 Portugal
2 Netherlands
3 Sioux
4 Babylon

5 Maya
6 Iroquis
7 Sumer
8 Khmer, Siam/Thailand
9 Ethiopia
10 Cathage

Neither Canada, Hawaii, Finland or Poland are interesting enough for me.

Poland only in a Europe 16. century-scenario. And then Sweden should be included as well. (But that could be the Vikings with a twist)

Carthage is already in the game. It's in Warlords and the leader is Hannibal.

Carthage is already in the game. It's in Warlords and the leader is Hannibal.

Argh! :D :mischief: How embarrassing

I guess this leaves a slot open for ... the Byzantines or Hittites or something.

My problem with the Hittites in civ3 was that I always mixed them up with the Carthagians.

Well, maybe Poland is up for her debut then? If the next civ is getting a gunpowder-age-theme.

What about Kazakhstan - it is a great exporter of Potassium! :D

Just kidding - no offence Kazakhs! :) I couldn't resist when I saw how important exporter of sandalwood was Polynesia :)

and a scientific leader named Borat?

I don´t get it. Are you serious when you want Brazil to be in bts. Never. It´s the same with Australia and Canada.
And you who have taken both the Sioux and the Iroquis, to you I ask if you´ve been on firaxis.com. Well, on firaxix you can reed that there will be one Native American civ in bts.

But here´s my 6 choices to the new civilizations:
1 Polynesia
2 Maya
3 Kush
4 Khmer
5 Austria-Hungary
6 Israel

Other civs such as Byzantia, Poland, Sweden, Siam, Ethiopia, Sumer, Assyria and Hettites also looks good to me.

i think the new civilizations will be:
portugal, babylonia, dutch, gods, mayans, summeria, poland, byzantine, iroquies, and the huns...i bet would be i dont know i cant wait to see the new civs

abcdefg...

Charlemagne was not a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire came about after the fall of Charlemagne's Empire. He was a Frank. Now, as for the open spot in the Holy Roman Empire, it would be Otto I.

Here is what i would like to see in beyond the sword.;)

New Civilizations
Assyrian Empire – Shalmaneser
Babylonian Empire - Hammurabi
Byzantine Empire - Constantine & Justinian &* Basil II
Holy Roman Empire – Otto I & Frederick (taken from Germany)
Ethiopian (or Aksum) Empire – Ezana
Mayan Empire – Pacal
Siamese Empire – Mongkut
Amerindian Empire – Sitting Bull
Austrian Empire – Charles VI & Francis Joseph
Dutch Empire - William I
Belgian Empire - Leopold II
Portugese Empire – Manual I

Notice that the latter three are all colonial powers. The symbol &* stands for “and/or”:D

New Leaders
American Empire – Lincoln &* Reagan &* Theodore Roosevelt
Spanish Empire – Philip II & Francisco Franco
French Empire – Charles De Gaulle
German Empire – Wilhelm II &* Hitler
Japanese Empire – Hirohito
Chinese Empire – Chiang Kai Shek
Ottoman Empire – Attaturk
Persian Empire – Xerxes
Indian Empire – Akbar
Arabian Empire - Abu Bakr
Roman Empire – Marcus Aurelius
Greek Empire – Agamemnon & Menelaus
Egyptian Empire – Mathayus

Ok, this list may be a bit extensive, but these were the largest and most important empires that the world has ever seen. And the new leaders had many trials and tribulations that they had to maneuver through and their names are still of vital importance!:goodjob:

edit: there is also some things that i beleive should be in the game. each civ has its own unique unit and unique building. well, what about a unique power. something that everyone knows about each civ... the current civilizations already have their own unique power in Rhye's and Fall of Cililization. i also think that the frigate should be renamed clipper. the frigate should become a weaker form of destroyer. there should be a cruiser unit that is weaker than a battleship, but stronger than a destroyer, and should be able to take damage in place of more important ships (battleship, carrier) and can bombard cities (20%) AND inland tile improvements. there should be a national wonder that allows nukes toe be pre targetted to anywhere in the world. and when one is launched on you, (dont need to be at war, but launch will result in war against the attacker) all of your nukes that have been pre targetted onto your new enemy will be launched. thanx to the M.A.D. Nukes Mod. and some other stuff.

edit2: air units need to become more involved with the gameplay. upgrades, special charachteristics, etc. they should also have their own battles. like ships and soldiers. an airship unit would also be pretty cool

Dutch Empire - William I


No. You should never take leaders that destroyed their respective civilization.

New Civilizations

Byzantine Empire - Constantine & Justinian &* Basil II
Holy Roman Empire – Otto I & Frederick (taken from Germany)
Ethiopian (or Aksum) Empire – Ezana
Siamese Empire – Mongkut
Amerindian Empire – Sitting Bull
Austrian Empire – Charles VI & Francis Joseph
Belgian Empire - Leopold II


Ok, this list may be a bit extensive, but these were the largest and most important empires that the world has ever seen.


I had originally written a long response to this.

But that would lead to a lot of discussion and debate, so I figured I'd just leave it out.

Suffice it to say, I greatly disagree with your claim when it comes to these particular empires. They're a far cry from being the most important to the world. A far cry.

Charlemagne was not a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire came about after the fall of Charlemagne's Empire. He was a Frank. Now, as for the open spot in the Holy Roman Empire, it would be Otto I.

Here is what i would like to see in beyond the sword.;)

New Civilizations
Assyrian Empire – Shalmaneser
Babylonian Empire - Hammurabi
Byzantine Empire - Constantine & Justinian &* Basil II
Holy Roman Empire – Otto I & Frederick (taken from Germany)
Ethiopian (or Aksum) Empire – Ezana
Mayan Empire – Pacal
Siamese Empire – Mongkut
Amerindian Empire – Sitting Bull
Austrian Empire – Charles VI & Francis Joseph
Dutch Empire - William I
Belgian Empire - Leopold II
Portugese Empire – Manual I

Notice that the latter three are all colonial powers. The symbol &* stands for “and/or”:D

New Leaders
American Empire – Lincoln &* Reagan &* Theodore Roosevelt
Spanish Empire – Philip II & Francisco Franco
French Empire – Charles De Gaulle
German Empire – Wilhelm II &* Hitler
Japanese Empire – Hirohito
Chinese Empire – Chiang Kai Shek
Ottoman Empire – Attaturk
Persian Empire – Xerxes
Indian Empire – Akbar
Arabian Empire - Abu Bakr
Roman Empire – Marcus Aurelius
Greek Empire – Agamemnon & Menelaus
Egyptian Empire – Mathayus



Atatürk was not leader of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans are just a dynastic name, of which Atatürk was not part. Blame Firaxis for calling them Ottomans rather than Turks.

Holy Roman Empire is not a civilization, just a state, and is already covered by Germany. This is like distinguishing England from Britain, or the the Tang from China. But I share your desire for a medieval German leader.

Sometimes when friends or relatives visit us in Hawaii, we take them hunting for white sand crabs on the beach at night. We take flashlights and buckets. We shine the light down the beach and watch all the crabs run for the ocean. Some get to the water while others bury themselves into the sand. We can sometimes see the disturbance in the sand if the water didn't wash over it. We brush off the top of the sand until we see the top shell of the crab. Then we grab each side of the shell above the legs with our thumb and index finger, pick the crab up out of the sand and put it in the bucket. We usually find several and when we throw them in, they start running around the bucket and onto each other. Sometimes, one crawls up and tries to climb to the top of the bucket, but then another crab tries to climb onto it pushing it down and they both fall back to the bottom. We take them home and my dad would boil them. We eat them with shoyu, or soy sauce.

so wich ones are in for SURE??

allso dosent german cover the holy roman empire, since it was a german civilazation?

allso, if u look at it a difrent way, dose the germany in the game represent the german civilazation, or the german nation??

im not a huge fan of polynesian(?) civs but i guess we could give it a try. I dont want to buy an expansion pack (BTS) that will just have all thes tuff civ3 had. I wanna see some new civs and more diversity. Personally I really don't think Poland deserves a spot because it may have some important history (just like most civs) but another european civ other than portuguese and netherlands is just OUTRAGEOUS. Polynesian sure, do what that Hawaiian person was talking about ( Just 1 civ from Polynesia so that theres space for South East Asian Civs) ALSO: I think Brazil should be civilization because as somebody said before it's 1 of the only American Civilizations after colonization that rose up built an empire actually even built a wonder and then went on to influence politics in South American. Like i said,somebody said this before but Brazil influenced a regional area and many people argue that that is y it should not be added 2 game but i disagree because zulu, korean, carthage, and inca influenced a regional area but they were STILL GREAT Civs AND were Included in CIvilization4

Charlemagne was not a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire came about after the fall of Charlemagne's Empire. He was a Frank. Now, as for the open spot in the Holy Roman Empire, it would be Otto I.

Here is what i would like to see in beyond the sword.;)

New Civilizations
Assyrian Empire – Shalmaneser
Babylonian Empire - Hammurabi
Byzantine Empire - Constantine & Justinian &* Basil II
Holy Roman Empire – Otto I & Frederick (taken from Germany)
Ethiopian (or Aksum) Empire – Ezana
Mayan Empire – Pacal
Siamese Empire – Mongkut
Amerindian Empire – Sitting Bull
Austrian Empire – Charles VI & Francis Joseph
Dutch Empire - William I
Belgian Empire - Leopold II
Portugese Empire – Manual I

Notice that the latter three are all colonial powers. The symbol &* stands for “and/or”:D

New Leaders
American Empire – Lincoln &* Reagan &* Theodore Roosevelt
Spanish Empire – Philip II & Francisco Franco
French Empire – Charles De Gaulle
German Empire – Wilhelm II &* Hitler
Japanese Empire – Hirohito
Chinese Empire – Chiang Kai Shek
Ottoman Empire – Attaturk
Persian Empire – Xerxes
Indian Empire – Akbar
Arabian Empire - Abu Bakr
Roman Empire – Marcus Aurelius
Greek Empire – Agamemnon & Menelaus
Egyptian Empire – Mathayus

Ok, this list may be a bit extensive, but these were the largest and most important empires that the world has ever seen. And the new leaders had many trials and tribulations that they had to maneuver through and their names are still of vital importance!:goodjob:

edit: there is also some things that i beleive should be in the game. each civ has its own unique unit and unique building. well, what about a unique power. something that everyone knows about each civ... the current civilizations already have their own unique power in Rhye's and Fall of Cililization. i also think that the frigate should be renamed clipper. the frigate should become a weaker form of destroyer. there should be a cruiser unit that is weaker than a battleship, but stronger than a destroyer, and should be able to take damage in place of more important ships (battleship, carrier) and can bombard cities (20%) AND inland tile improvements. there should be a national wonder that allows nukes toe be pre targetted to anywhere in the world. and when one is launched on you, (dont need to be at war, but launch will result in war against the attacker) all of your nukes that have been pre targetted onto your new enemy will be launched. thanx to the M.A.D. Nukes Mod. and some other stuff.

edit2: air units need to become more involved with the gameplay. upgrades, special charachteristics, etc. they should also have their own battles. like ships and soldiers. an airship unit would also be pretty cool


sorry 2 say this bro but u r 1 of the most retarded. people i have ever heard speak before in my life: if you ever played any of the Civ games you know no single civ ,specially america, is gonna have 5 freaking leaders, and also adding another european civ like belgium which has no history AT ALL except setting up a colony or two in africa is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

And who brought Christianity to Portugal, to Spain, to France? T'was the Romans/Byzantines. Shouldn't we then credit the Notre Dame wonder to Rome? Clearly it was their influence that established it and therefore it shouldn't be considered French. Right? Or how about the Church of the Nativity wonder? That's Roman too, right?
Blah. I wasn't saying Brazil shouldn't be credited with the statue, i was just pointing out the blatant wrongnessity of using the words "no influence whatsoever." Influence is not the same as crediting-some-world-wonder-to-some-other-country-or-civ-or-whatever.

Anyway, instead of quoting my reply all the way, I just want to say Civ is a strategy game and not a civilization-simulation game, and any country from any epoch and geography combination can be "civ" in the way the game wants to imply.

Therefore, all-in-all, there is no other message here than to "get your lazy bums out of this forum and into the XML files and 3D modeling software if the game developers didn't want to add and work on the nations you wanted to see in the game. Oh, and features they didn't add because it's quite moddable, really.":crazyeye:

sorry 2 say this bro but u r 1 of the most retarded. people i have ever heard speak before in my life: if you ever played any of the Civ games you know no single civ ,specially america, is gonna have 5 freaking leaders, and also adding another european civ like belgium which has no history AT ALL except setting up a colony or two in africa is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

Well, that post gave a fine impression of you to me...

sorry 2 say this bro but u r 1 of the most retarded. people i have ever heard speak before in my life: if you ever played any of the Civ games you know no single civ ,specially america, is gonna have 5 freaking leaders, and also adding another european civ like belgium which has no history AT ALL except setting up a colony or two in africa is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

frankly, i dont care what you think. i am giving my opinion and if you dont like it, the you dont have to read it.

to everyone else, this list is not perfect. and i understand that i have screwed up with the holy roman empire... but they were not lead by the german people. they were lead by the Habsburg family which is from Austria. with this being the case, Holy rome can just be removed.

i feel that if a country was strong enough to establish an overseas empire consisting of colonies, then it has had some major significance to human society. and could be incorporated into the game.

as for my choice in American leaders, teddy made us a colonial power, lincoln lead a ntaion torn apart by petty differences and was still able to bring us back together. reagan brought down the soviet union, and that is a big deal to me.

there is a bunch of other crap i can say, but i am just too d*** lazy

sorry 2 say this bro but u r 1 of the most retarded. people i have ever heard speak before in my life: if you ever played any of the Civ games you know no single civ ,specially america, is gonna have 5 freaking leaders, and also adding another european civ like belgium which has no history AT ALL except setting up a colony or two in africa is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

This forum is rather strange and negative. For every person who shares their ideas, there are about 5 to jump on them to drag them down to tell them their ideas are "STUPID". Why don't we encourage people to share ideas instead of beating them on the head for doing so? Moral of my story: Don't be crabs.