If I could have chosen the 10 new civs in Beyond the Sword, I would choose the following:


Europe

Portugal
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Netherlands
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Poland
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Africa (Mali, Zulu and Ethiopia should be enough for subsaharan Africa, the remainder are more or less barbarians for gameplay purposes).

Ethiopia
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Asia

Khmer
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Pathan (Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran)
Unique Unit can move freely in mountains.
Unique Building

Babylon
Unique Unit
Unique Building


Americas

Maya
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Native American
Unique Unit
Unique Building

Others

Lapps
Unique Unit can move freely in ice, tundra
Unique Building

Nigeria? ...

I aren't that excited about Sumer, but I am about the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empire.
I would go with Firafix current selection and replace Sumer with one of the Polynesian civilizations or with the Moors.

What's so spectacular about Lapps?

Lapps could be the special cold weather Civ, with UUs handling tundra and ice terrain better than the rest.

I'd like to have the Bulgarians and the Israelis :)

Wow, now that all the "what civs will be in" are nearly gone, we have "what civs should have been in" starting.

Oh well, we want Hitler. And Poland

Africa (Mali, Zulu and Ethiopia should be enough for subsaharan Africa, the remainder are more or less barbarians for gameplay purposes).

Everybody always forgets that Egypt and Carthage were African civs too.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I have noticed a lot of Americans dont seem to think Egypt is African... why is this? Its weird because despite the Arab culture, its completely in Africa, Morrocco, for instance is also an Arabic cultured nation but no one seem think confuse it as being middle eastern, why is that? Is Egypt reefered to as middle eastern in US history books or something?

Lapps could be the special cold weather Civ, with UUs handling tundra and ice terrain better than the rest.

Cos they built such a huge and influental empire there.

Wow, now that all the "what civs will be in" are nearly gone, we have "what civs should have been in" starting.

Oh well, we want Hitler. And Poland

It is not going to take long for some people to open threads like 'what civs would you want for the next xp'. ;)

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I have noticed a lot of Americans dont seem to think Egypt is African... why is this? Its weird because despite the Arab culture, its completely in Africa, Morrocco, for instance is also an Arabic cultured nation but no one seem think confuse it as being middle eastern, why is that? Is Egypt reefered to as middle eastern in US history books or something?

Culturally the Mediterranean countries of Africa are more tied to the middle East and to Europe than to the rest of Africa. There obviously is a long history of cultural interaction across the Sahara (represented in the game by the Mali civ), but that desert is a pretty big dividing line. It's not just the US, but international organizations will often group Sub-Saharan Africa seperately from the northern Arabic speaking countries who have strong ties to the middle East.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I have noticed a lot of Americans dont seem to think Egypt is African... why is this? Its weird because despite the Arab culture, its completely in Africa, Morrocco, for instance is also an Arabic cultured nation but no one seem think confuse it as being middle eastern, why is that? Is Egypt reefered to as middle eastern in US history books or something?

just because a civilization is in a certain place doesn't mean it shares the places' characteristics. ancient Egypt, culturally, is subject to debate, so i won't go there. Roman Egypt, culturally, was pretty much Roman and "Coptic", i.e., Egyptian Christian. after the Islamic invasion, Egypt because pretty much like the Muslims. modern day Egypt is actually one of the standards of modernized Arabic nations. its language, "Egyptian Arabic", is the standard Arabic, i think.

I'd like to have the Bulgarians and the Israelis :)

Me too! I'd like to see Brazil too, a better south american representation in an expansion that is about modern age.

Oh well, we want Hitler. And Poland These are the kind of comments i hate.

And if i were to choose i'd choose:

1. Dutch
2. Portugal
3. Austria
4. Poland
5. Isreal
6. SE Asian <Siam or viet
7. Ethiopia
8. Babylon
9. Polynesia
10. Venezuela.

if I could choose...

1. VIETNAM (duh)
2. Babylon
3. Sumer
4. Dutch
5. Portugual
6. Byzantines
7. Polynesia
8. Nubia
9. Ethiopia
10. fine, POLAND

10. fine, POLAND

THE POWER OF KIELBASA!!!!

Polynesia all the way to!

I actually like most of the civs they chose so far

1. Bablyonian Empire
2. Sumerian Empire
3. Dutch Empire
4. Portuguese Empire
5. Bzyantine Empire
6. Mayan Empire
7. Native American Empire (although I would prefer a specific tribe/nation)

I would add:
8. Vietnamese Empire
9. Frankish Empire or Polish Empire
10. Antartica-Polynesian Penguin Empire :D ;)

I left out my African choice because I would make a third expansion pack where the focus is on more diversity, that and I needed a spot for my last choice. ;)

1. HRE
2. Can't think of more...

Everybody always forgets that Egypt and Carthage were African civs too.

Maybe that's why he said subsaharian civs. As some have commented, it is usual to make a difference between subsaharian africa and the mediterranean one, in wich Carthage and Egypt would be located.

Maybe that's why he said subsaharian civs. As some have commented, it is usual to make a difference between subsaharian africa and the mediterranean one, in wich Carthage and Egypt would be located.

Oops, didn't catch the sub-saharan part. Point taken.


To answer RedRalphWiggum's question, when our school's teach world history we very rarely delve into African history. In fact, you'll find most of the world teaches very little about African history after the whole "Out of Africa" thing. It really is the dark continent in terms of knowledge. Egypt on the other hand we know much about and due to it's cultural importance (and the fact that it's extremely interesting) we often teach seperately. In other words, it's rarely grouped with the rest of Africa, if ever. That's not to say that people think it isn't African; it's just that it's very rarely associated with it because its cultural ties are so seperate from sub-saharan Africa (though early Egyptian culture this is debated, yes).

Personally I believe that it is a Middle-Eastern country, but only because I don't like to tie my beliefs to a place's geographic location. Technically the people in Istanbul and the people in Beijing are both Asian after all, so when you think about it, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to hold some steadfast belief that Egypt is African.

Hi.

As a member of the American public school system, we have been taught very little on the History of Africa (I'm currently in 9th grade.) Soon, though, world history classes will be available, which would (presumably) teach on Africa. All I have been taught on Africa is rudimentary histories of the Ghana, Mali, and Songhai Empires and material relating to the slave trade. But you are correct that African history education is lacking in the US. (I do know alot about Africa by my own means, but not very much.

Waffles
:)

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I have noticed a lot of Americans dont seem to think Egypt is African... why is this? Its weird because despite the Arab culture, its completely in Africa,

I'm American, and I admit to oversights and erors in my education.

I thought a portion of the sinai peninsula belonged to Egypt, and that portion is on the Arabian plate.

Perhaps someone could explain this to me.

I'm American, and I admit to oversights and erors in my education.

I thought a portion of the sinai peninsula belonged to Egypt, and that portion is on the Arabian plate.

Perhaps someone could explain this to me.

It does. Egypt is technically part of two continents depending on who you ask. The border of Africa and Asia is "The Isthmus of Suez" but what constitutes that is ambiguous and Egypt extends a good way past it. It technically doesn't matter because the question of what land is Africa and what land is Asia is inconsiquential compared to what land is Egypt and what land is Israel.

In my opinion, Egypt straddles the Africa-Asia border the same way Russia straddles the Europe-Asia border.

Thanks , Mango.

Actually, I tend to view the world as climates/watersheds, making Egypt part of the Mediteranean Basin.

1. Babylon
2. Netherlands
3. Portugal
4. Byzantines
5. Native Americans (or some tribe like Iroquois, Cherokee etc.)
6. Mayans
7. SE Asia (Siam or Vietnam)
8. Poland
9. Austria
10. Israel by David, Solomon, or Moses (liberator like Ghandi)

Sorry Sumer, you just bore me to death...

Lads, by your logic the USA is European because almost all its inhabitants are descended from Europe, most speak European languages, and its culture is a derivation of European culture. Egypt is an African country. the Middle East is entirely in Asia

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the usual "Americans know nothing of outside America" argument, because I know it isnt always true, but I've never encountered anyone but North Americans who think Egypt is anyhting other than an african country. Would ye classify Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania etc as African?

Lads, by your logic the USA is European because almost all its inhabitants are descended from Europe, most speak European languages, and its culture is a derivation of European culture. Egypt is an African country. the Middle East is entirely in Asia

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the usual "Americans know nothing of outside America" argument, because I know it isnt always true, but I've never encountered anyone but North Americans who think Egypt is anyhting other than an african country. Would ye classify Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania etc as African?

*is north american* Yeah... plenty of people here I know aren't that great with geography... Apparently Mexico is in South America... :lol: I didn't know that continental drift was that fast.

Lads, by your logic the USA is European because almost all its inhabitants are descended from Europe, most speak European languages, and its culture is a derivation of European culture. Egypt is an African country. the Middle East is entirely in Asia

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the usual "Americans know nothing of outside America" argument, because I know it isnt always true, but I've never encountered anyone but North Americans who think Egypt is anyhting other than an african country. Would ye classify Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania etc as African?

Well, most of us are descended from Europeans, but most of us are also descended from Africans and Amerindians as well. People generally hid that part of their ancestry from their children, though, so many 'whites' aren't aware of those branches of their family tree.

And while the US is culturally linked to Europe, it is at least as tied to Mexico, Cuba, and Canada.

You certainly can talk about those countries and Europe as part of a larger culture, but you'd probably call it the 'Western World' instead of Europe (and you'd also throw in Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps South America).

It's all about using classifications that make sense. The idea that Europe is a separate continent from Asia while India/Packistan is a mere subcontinent of Asia is silly. The term Europe is still quite useful as a description for an area of a shared culture and history. The Ural mountains have been a barrier that slowed cultural diffusion, but it didn't stop it. The Sahara desert has probably been just a big a barrier as the Urals.

Morroco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt all have more in common with Saudi Arabia and Iraq than with Senegal, Nigeria or Kenya. The Sudan, Mauritania, and Eritrea are probably equally culturally tied to north and south.

When people talk about Africa generally they're talking about Sub-Saharan Africa, just as when people talk about Asia they're normally referring to South or East Asia. If they want to talk about Iran or Egypt or Palestine they'll generally use the term 'Middle East'. 'Middle East' is a completely arbitrary term. Many people will have different definitions of what countries are included in the phrase, but I think most would certainly include Egypt. According to the Wickipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east), the airline industry has one of the most widely used definitions of the 'Middle East'. According to them, Egypt, Somalia, and the Sudan are all part of the Middle East.

And this isn't just Americans. I've lived in Europe and generally watch a little bit of news from European networks regularly. If they're running a story from Libya or Morocco they're not likely to mention the word 'Africa' in their story at all, while if it's from Niger or Kenya the word Africa is more likely to come up. Perhaps they refer to it as an African country (as opposed to a Mediterranean country, or a Middle Eastern country). Or maybe they'll be talking about the African Union or one of the regional economic organizations. Tunisia's membership in the African Union might come up in a story about the country, but it's membership in the Arab League is more likely to be mentioned.

Yes, taking 'Africa' as shorthand for 'Sub-Saharan Africa' isn't technically correct, but it's not senseless. And when people in these forums talk about giving Africa and Asia representation before another Europe or Middle Eastern civ, I don't think you should assume they aren't aware that Sumer is in Asia and Carthage is in Africa.

I taek your points, but to me every country is located in some continent, at least every non island country, culture dosent come into it. I know every people can be not descended form where they are living (everyone except Kenyans probably) but to me the Middle East starts at the suez Canal and ends at Irans border with Afghanistan...

to me the Middle East starts at the suez Canal and ends at Irans border with Afghanistan...

Just because thats the way you think doesn't mean its right.

I know Tobi, thats why I said "to me"

Lads, by your logic the USA is European because almost all its inhabitants are descended from Europe, most speak European languages, and its culture is a derivation of European culture. Egypt is an African country. the Middle East is entirely in Asia

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the usual "Americans know nothing of outside America" argument, because I know it isnt always true, but I've never encountered anyone but North Americans who think Egypt is anyhting other than an african country. Would ye classify Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania etc as African?

Why shouldn't we classify countries by their historical origins? You realize the concept of "continents" is Eurocentric, right? It was the Europeans who decided that everything under the Mediterranean would be one thing and everything east of the Suez would be another thing. Do you think the ancient people of Egypt identified with the sub-saharan Africans as much as they did with the Middle-East or the Mediterranean?

Sometimes I think it helps to think outside the box a bit. After all it makes no sense to group the Middle-East with East Asia just because they're on the same continent. Why should we group Egypt with sub-saharan Africa?

And for that matter, I've never heard anyone say Egypt wasn't in Africa, just that it wasn't similar to other African countries. Morroco, Tunisia, Libya and all the other North African countries are more influenced by the Middle-East and Mediterranean culture today than they are the rest of Africa. In many ways I consider Africa to have two halves seperated by the Sahara, just like I consider Asia to be split into many pieces by the Slavs, Middle-Easterners, the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and the Asian archipelagoes. You don't see anyone group those regions together, so why would you group Africa together? You don't see anyone group Western Europe and Eastern Europe together. You don't see anyone group the US and Canada with the other North American countries... (I could go on)

No europeans didnt invent the consepts of continents, theyre self evident. north and South America are split by a tiny isthmus, europe is divided form Asia by the Urals and Caucasus, Australia is an island, Africa is divided from Asia by a tiny Isthmus... plus they are all on seperate techtonic plates. Its not a european idea.

I'm not denying Egypt is influenced by Arab culture, how could I when the national language is Arab and its a Muslim country, but Egypt is in Africa ergo its an African country, albeit one with Arab culture. If you odnt apply that logic then Australia is a British Country, Canda a French and British one and not a North American country, Cuba a European country, and for that matter Mexico a South American country. Its the same logic as saying Egypt isnt an African country just because it dosent fit in with your idea of African countries as being populated by black people, not speaking Arabic and having a subsaharan culture.

Every continent has a diverse range of cultures, to be african is not simply to be Subsaharan african, no more than to be European is to be Slavic.

If I could have chosen the 10 new civs in Beyond the Sword, I would choose the following:

...

Pathan (Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran)



When you say Pathan, do you mean Parthian?

Charlemagne is a very good leader option. His Civ is not.

No europeans didnt invent the consepts of continents, theyre self evident. north and South America are split by a tiny isthmus, europe is divided form Asia by the Urals and Caucasus, Australia is an island, Africa is divided from Asia by a tiny Isthmus... plus they are all on seperate techtonic plates. Its not a european idea.

The idea of Europe being a separate continent from Asia is most certainly a European idea. Europe is on the same plate as most of Asia. India is on it's own plate.

There is some arbitrariness in what is called a continent.


I'm not denying Egypt is influenced by Arab culture, how could I when the national language is Arab and its a Muslim country, but Egypt is in Africa ergo its an African country, albeit one with Arab culture. If you odnt apply that logic then Australia is a British Country, Canda a French and British one and not a North American country, Cuba a European country, and for that matter Mexico a South American country. Its the same logic as saying Egypt isnt an African country just because it dosent fit in with your idea of African countries as being populated by black people, not speaking Arabic and having a subsaharan culture.

Every continent has a diverse range of cultures, to be african is not simply to be Subsaharan african, no more than to be European is to be Slavic.

Once you define the 7 continents, sure, Egypt is African because you defined it as such. And if you declare Africa can only ever have that one meaning in the English language, then whenever anyone talks about Africa, Egypt has to be included.

But words in English often take on different meanings. Africa doesn't always mean a part of a rigidly defined continent; it often means a collection of cultures, peoples, and civilizations that has it's history rooted south of the Sahara. When academics talk about the African diaspora or someone asks about African music in a record store, they're not referencing things from the top 1/3 (1/4?) of the Continent of Africa.

The concept of continents is about as self-evident as the concept of race. It's all superficial in other words. People are seperated by cultural differences, not what continent they live on.

OK so following that logic do you accept that the USA and Australia are European countries?

OK so following that logic do you accept that the USA and Australia are European countries?

I'd accept that Ethnically but not Geographically.

I'd accept that Ethnically but not Geographically.


Fair enough. As would I.

I taek your points, but to me every country is located in some continent, at least every non island country, culture dosent come into it. I know every people can be not descended form where they are living (everyone except Kenyans probably) but to me the Middle East starts at the suez Canal and ends at Irans border with Afghanistan...

So if you consider Egypt entirely African, did you consider the USSR entirely Asian, or entirely European?

I'm a fan of representing many areas, and would love the following ten civs:

1) Mesopotamia
2) Maya
3) Khmer
4) Lithuania
5) Polynesia
6) Israel (ancient Israel I may add, not the unconnected modern state)
7) Native Americans (of the USA :o)
8) Axum
9) Srivijaya/Malays
10) Mapuche/Araucanians

I'd also love the Hittites and Australians (Aboriginals, rather than English), or if there were more places, separate existence for the Sioux, Iroquois and Anasazi, and for the Assyrians, Sumerians and Babylonians. But these are only my dreams.

If your into Represented unrepresented areas why don't you chose one for eastern europe?

If your into Represented unrepresented areas why don't you chose one for eastern europe?

Lithuania, LastOne. My reasons are historical and emotional. Few people know that pagan Lithuania, while being surrounded by Christian states, rose to become the largest state in contemporary Europe swallowing up much of what was then thought of as Russia against the will of the Mongols! Impressive indeed (and cool I'm sure if most civfanatics knew about it they'd demand pagan Lithuania), culminating in the annihilation of the German Order under the leadership of Jogaila, who was the first publicly Christian ruler (ignoring Mindaugas) and one of the greatest rulers of Poland as I'm sure you know.

Don't take that as a slight on Poland; I'd not be opposed to Poland-Lithuania (so long as the city list was in English ;)), but would prefer Lithuania on its own or Hungary. This may be no more than my prejudices as a medieval historian ... Poland's golden age lies largely after my period of interest. But hey, I'd take the Duchy of Sandomierz, anything, other than the HRE!!!!!!!!

Anyways, strictly speaking, Eastern Europe is already decently represented compared with other similarly sized areas of the world. The problem is that Western Europe is way over-represented! Anyways, as I've pointed out, the Germans, Romans, Ottomans, Byzantines, Greeks and Russians already represent eastern Europe in that they controlled large parts of it, though of course in origin only the Russians and Greeks lie in the eastern half of Europe (actually though, most recent research argues that the Greeks came from Anatolia, not Europe!). I know few Poles will take this point seriously, as they're trying to establish equality with the overrepresented West (but remember, the game makers are Westerners inherently and unapologetically biased towards Western Europe, hence mediocre civs such as the Dutch) it should be pointed out that guys such as Diocletian and Constantine were eastern Europeans, and the most of the inhabitants of the pre-Slavonic invasions European Byzantine Empire were speakers of the vulgar Latin dialects (also not widely know) from which Romanian and the other Vlach languages descend; i.e., Romans and Byzantines became eastern Europeans. Since the Ukraine and Belarus are essentially Russian in civilizational, religious and linguistic terms, only the stretch of countries from Poland and the Baltic down through Hungary to the Danube frontier (or to Bulgaria and the Greek border if you don't count the Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans), are unrepresented; and geographically speaking that is only about a quarter of the land of Europe east of Germany-Austria-Italy! Hey, have some sympathy for the Scots, Irish and Welsh, the only contemporary historical peoples in Western Europe totally unrepresented in the game (although even they could be covered by the Celts! Yes, Western Europe is totally over-represented!).

I don't mind at all if it's Lithuania Ukraine or Poland. I personally would like slavic representation other then Russia but, so i'd go with Poland. Besides Ukraine screw's up russia's uu.

The concept of continents is about as self-evident as the concept of race. It's all superficial in other words. People are seperated by cultural differences, not what continent they live on.

That's it, in a nutshell.

The concept of continents is about as self-evident as the concept of race. It's all superficial in other words. People are seperated by cultural differences, not what continent they live on.

I agree with Mango. America and Australia might be on separate continents but there European no matter what you say.