OK, I am now that guy. The ten new civs have been announced, and now we know not only who they are, but their leaders, traits, UUs/UBs, etc. Question is: which of the new civs are you most looking forward to playing?

Wow. 100% of the voters chose Portugal! Now, if someone besides me votes.

This really depends. Some I like for flavor purposes, others I like because of their UU others or their UB and other because of their Leaders traits. But, I am going to say that when I consider all those factors combined it comes down to:

Native Americans

I went with Byzantines with no consideration of their UU, UB, or traits. It's simply a matter of loyalty to my first favorite civilization, ever since I found a book on them in junior high. If only they had dromons again as in CivIII.

Now my explanation for choosing Portugal. I don't mind the traits too much, but (1) The Unique Building is useful. You build a lot of feitoria, which I will, and you have effectively a second Colossus. If you build both, as I will, every coastal city will have huge commerce.
(2) The Unique Unit is great. You can effectively invade civilizations on other continents or take every barbarian city that you find while your carracks explore the world, as soon as you get Optics. Given how long it takes to get Astronomy, this can be a huge advantage. It won't help much on Pangaea, but it'll be a killer on Archipelago or Terra.

In order of my personal preference:
1. Babylonian
2. Mayan
3. Sumerian
4. Khmer
5. Ethiopian
6. Portuguese
7. Dutch
8. Native American
9. Byzantines
10. Holy Roman Empire

Now my explanation for choosing Portugal. I don't mind the traits too much, but (1) The Unique Building is useful. You build a lot of feitoria, which I will, and you have effectively a second Colossus. If you build both, as I will, every coastal city will have huge commerce.
(2) The Unique Unit is great. You can effectively invade civilizations on other continents or take every barbarian city that you find while your carracks explore the world, as soon as you get Optics. Given how long it takes to get Astronomy, this can be a huge advantage. It won't help much on Pangaea, but it'll be a killer on Archipelago or Terra.

I think it will give the Portuguese a leg up over the Dutch. Both are potential rivals for a vast overseas empire, with the Portuguese getting an early start. My belief is that once the Dutch get their UU, though, they will be able transport large armies to knock off the fledgling Portuguese colonies. Just a theory, mind you.

I voted for the Dutch, and I don't know why.

I think it will give the Portuguese a leg up over the Dutch. Both are potential rivals for a vast overseas empire, with the Portuguese getting an early start. My belief is that once the Dutch get their UU, though, they will be able transport large armies to knock off the fledgling Portuguese colonies. Just a theory, mind you.
Seems like the Portuguese will dominate on Terra maps - if they can take a barbarian city on the other continent, they can then start pumping out settlers and control most of the new continent before anyone else can even get there.
On the other hand, their UB (and its requirement for a harbour - and the exp trait giving them cheap harbours) mean that they will benefit more than anyone from traderoutes and peace, so an overly militaristic approach vs other civs may not be their best approach.

The Dutch, on the other hand, have a UB designed for pumping out masses of ships, and a UU for ferrying masses of troops by sea without much need for a separate escort. They strike me as more the successors to the Vikings in terms of projecting power on and via the sea.

The proof, however, will be in the pudding......

Dutch, definitely. There is a great synergy there between the UB and the leader's traits (just build a lot of coastal cities, benefit from commerce and then unleash great production in late game by building dikes).

And on archipelago maps he will simply rule unchecked.

Second choice, based more on personal preference, are the Byzantines - look like a nice mid-game conquest victory civ - and they are almost guaranteed to get a religion of their own.

Maya, just because the Maya are pretty much my favourite historical civilisation for reasons I don't quite understand.

The Dutch are probably the strongest civ, however.

Coming to think about it, HRE is probably also a strong contender for a powerful civ.

With their UB reducing maintenance and Imperialistic, they seem like an ideal candidate for REX - and with Protective, you should be able to defend your initial cities with lesser force than otherwise. Once you become stronger, the Landknechts (Pikemen with 100% vs. Melee units) will rule the day, allowing for the second, military, phase of expansion.

The dutch is my fav!

I love
the sea
and my
country
Hee hee hee.

Although Babylonia will always hold a special place in my heart, I think I'll have to go with Maya on this one.

Sorry Hammurabi baby, your UU and UB are just utterly pathetic.
Aaw.. I hope you know I love you anyway ;)

Although Babylonia will always hold a special place in my heart, I think I'll have to go with Maya on this one.

Sorry Hammurabi baby, your UU and UB are just utterly pathetic.
Aaw.. I hope you know I love you anyway ;)

I dunno I think his UU is pretty Decent, you'll have an extremely hard time axe rushing Babylonia, heck even swords will ahve a hard time attacking them, without large numbers of loses, you'll have to wait until Catapults to effectively take on Babylonia. UB isnt much... but the traits are quite nice.

Babylonia Archer. 3 str + 50% vs Melee + 50% City Defense + 25% Fortify = 6.75.

That doesn't even include the archer being on a hill or any cultural defense.

So with the Babylonia you can safely turtle your way through the ancient age until Catapults appears.

I dunno I think his UU is pretty Decent, you'll have an extremely hard time axe rushing Babylonia, heck even swords will ahve a hard time attacking them, without large numbers of loses, you'll have to wait until Catapults to effectively take on Babylonia. UB isnt much... but the traits are quite nice.

Babylonia Archer. 3 str + 50% vs Melee + 50% City Defense + 25% Fortify = 6.75.

That doesn't even include the archer being on a hill or any cultural defense.

So with the Babylonia you can safely turtle your way through the ancient age until Catapults appears.

Only, you wouldn't want to turtle when you're Aggressive and Organized (which I agree is a very nice combo) - those traits beg of conquest, conquest and even more conquest. Also, even if Blake's AI mod is any indication of BtS' improved AI, I think an early AI Axe-rush is still a long way off. Bowmen might be good for multiplayer, though, but I don't swing that way.

The Dutch UB and particularly the UU are ridiculously overpowered.

The Dutch UB and particularly the UU are ridiculously overpowered.

Don't think so, really.

The dike comes late in game (is enabled by Steam Engine) so it won't have any impact before that. Not to mention it is situational, since it depends on a map and your location if you will be able to benefit from it at all.

The galleon is powerful, but I wouldn't consider it overpowered either - it's essentially a frigate with transport capacity, which is obviously great, but again useless on pangea-type maps etc.

The only case where Dutch combo will become overpowered is on Archipelago maps.

The galleon is powerful, but I wouldn't consider it overpowered either - it's essentially a frigate with transport capacity, which is obviously great, but again useless on pangea-type maps etc. .



According to IGN it's a galleon that can transport four units, can travel in enemy territory (like a caravel) and has +2 strength. So it's actually going to hold its own against frigates, i.e. it doesn't have a counter.

According to IGN it's a galleon that can transport four units, can travel in enemy territory (like a caravel) and has +2 strength. So it's actually going to hold its own against frigates, i.e. it doesn't have a counter.

Yes, but did you pay attention to what I said? That on many maps naval units will be useless - so it is only fair that a naval UU is more powerful, relatively, than a land UU.

Yes, but did you pay attention to what I said? That on many maps naval units will be useless - so it is only fair that a naval UU is more powerful, relatively, than a land UU.



True, and I just read on IGN that there is a new ship-of-the-line which is stronger than a frigate but also slower. So there is indeed a counter for the Dutch galleon after all. I'm happy :)

The Dutch look sufficiently droolworthy to leave my keyboard damaged from the moisture. All the others look juicy too. I LOVE THIS EXPANSION!!!!!! I LOVE THIS GAME!!!! I LOVE YOU FIRAXIS!!!!

I am very happy with the Dutch. Not only are they strong, they are also very flavorful and completely fit their history. A lot of the new civs seems very well designed in this way. The HRE and the Portuguese civs to name a few.

Personal favorites when it comes to strength: The Dutch, Portuguese, Mayas and the HRE.
But Babylonia, Byzantine and Ethiopian also seem quite strong.

Except that the Holy Roman Empire is basically medieval Germany. It's rather pointless to make an artificial divide between the HRE and modern Germany... that's not how it's felt by Germans. And Charlemagne as its leader is really the weakest choice ever. Anyway, considering that the french name of the HRE is "Saint Empire Romain Germanique" (aka German Holy Roman Empire), I'm curious to know how this civilization will be translated. From a French perspective, having Charlemagne as leader sounds then totally odd (Charlemagne was mainly based in today's France and mostly conqueered what is today's Germany). In spanish, the problem is the same considering the HRE is also called "Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico".

My favourite news civs up there are probably Ethiopia, the Mayas and the Khmers. The result is simply that those are very influent and interesting civilizations which had actually never been in the game earlier. Somehow, putting them finally in Civ4 restores some kind of justice. :)

I'm really happy Ethiopia wasn't neglected. So I voted for them.
Khmer were a close runner-up.

I voted Ethiopian. And I'd be lying if I didn't mention that Zara Yaqob looks pretty bloody awesome in that pic on the IGN interview didn't influence that choice.

I guess the poll wold be more interesting if it would be multi-choice... as picking those we're glad are in and can't wait to play with. As only few are glad of the addition of only one civilization. I guess this would make a lot more sense.

But anyway, there has already been two similar poll. I won't add a third one.

Byzantines! They deserve a place among other civs.

My favourite news civs up there are probably Ethiopia, the Mayas and the Khmers. The result is simply that those are very influent and interesting civilizations which had actually never been in the game earlier. Somehow, putting them finally in Civ4 restores some kind of justice. :)

I'm pretty sure Mayas were in Civ3. Agreed on Khmers and Ethiopians, though.

It's funny how Mayans have the second most votes, but are barely mentioned in the thread. :crazyeye:

Well I will mention Mayans.

I think ball courts are kind of a cool UB. :D

Ignore this post.

Poor Gilgamesh! Hardly any interest! Guess he is not that immortal after all (re: Epic of Gilgamesh).

The Native Americans, the Maya and the Khmer. Native Americans have got the most useful UU for me, and the best traits, and I don't have too much of a problem lumping different tribes together (although it would be better if the added more civs and we got two or three different ones). Wish Israel and the Hittites were there; the Hittites were one of my favorites from Civ 3. Disappointed Polynesia didn't make it. But anyways ... Holy Roman Empire sucks so bad; prolly won't get it for that reason, unless there is an inbuilt mechanism to prevent it being in the same game as the other Germany civ.

It's funny how Mayans have the second most votes, but are barely mentioned in the thread. :crazyeye:

I'm surprised about the Mayans. From their stats, they seem decent, but not a civ I'd find particularly jaw-dropping for most people. Maybe there are a few Apocalypto fans out there?

Also shocked that my vote-HRE- garnered so many votes. I thought after all the hate mail, HRE would go into the witness protection program. I think people realized the power of the rauthaus UB, and how large an empire it can amass (much like it's RW counterpart: c'mon, a civ that includes both Germans and French getting along together... you'd need a super courthouse for that). Of course, I'm pretty happy with 99% of the civ choices.

The Native Americans, the Maya and the Khmer. Native Americans have got the most useful UU for me, and the best traits, and I don't have too much of a problem lumping different tribes together (although it would be better if the added more civs and we got two or three different ones). Wish Israel and the Hittites were there; the Hittites were one of my favorites from Civ 3. Disappointed Polynesia didn't make it. But anyways ... Holy Roman Empire sucks so bad; prolly won't get it for that reason, unless there is an inbuilt mechanism to prevent it being in the same game as the other Germany civ.

I think you should start a thread to complain against inclusion of HRE. Let your voice be heard!

Hmm...I was looking forward to play a Cha/Phi or Phi/Imp leader, but these leaders are for old civs and I'll want to try a new one. And I don'zt want to start with a leader with a pre-warlords combo like Hammurabi or Wiliam.
I guess I will play my first game either as Justinian or Charlemagne.
Both have a very good UB and UU and start with Mysticism, so I can probably found Buddhism and build Shwedagon Paya in my first game.

The Native Americans, because I am part Cherokee, and they've never been represented before, but now they're included, even if it is a broad category. I've also always respected Sitting Bull, and it will be nice to finally play an American Indian civilization with their UU being completely terrible...

I've also always respected Sitting Bull, and it will be nice to finally play an American Indian civilization with their UU being completely terrible...

Terrible ?
They require no metal and can take down praetorians :eek: .

I voted for Ethiopia who i think will be a very popular choice for culural wins not to mention im curious how thier UU turns out but almost all of them sound interesting. Ill also play as the Dutch and Portuguese early on as i have alwas enjoyed playing a navel game. HRE should be dominatnt at expansions and the rest sound fun to i think i like them all now

Terrible ?
They require no metal and can take down praetorians :eek: .

oops... I meant to say without their UU being completely terrible :blush:

Because the Incas' and Aztecs' UUs are pretty bad...

I think Pericles's Greece, with the combo of Creative, Philosophical, and with half-price Odeons will probably be the #1 for the cultural victory.

Mayan all the way

I'm torn between Byzantium and Babylon, but Sumeria is also nice. So I just voted for Byzantium.

I love the sumerian UU.

I'm surprised about the Mayans. From their stats, they seem decent, but not a civ I'd find particularly jaw-dropping for most people. Maybe there are a few Apocalypto fans out there?

Also shocked that my vote-HRE- garnered so many votes. I thought after all the hate mail, HRE would go into the witness protection program. I think people realized the power of the rauthaus UB, and how large an empire it can amass (much like it's RW counterpart: c'mon, a civ that includes both Germans and French getting along together... you'd need a super courthouse for that). Of course, I'm pretty happy with 99% of the civ choices.

The Mayans appear to be ultimate builders: financial for the research, expansive for the healthy, UB for the happy, and UU for early resourceless! defense. Others might favor them for an early spear rush (since they start with Mining), but early big cities + financial = tech runaway.

If you look at the "Neither Holy, Nor Roman, Nor an Empire" thread, there are almost as many people that love HRE that loathe them, with many being Meh and therefore judging them on their UU/Bs rather than their historical accuracy. It's just that the Anti-HRE Vigilance Committee has been quite LOUD in their condemnation while everyone else has moved on.

I would never have selected the HRE to be included in the game but the abilities that have been given to this civ and its leader make it the civ I will play as first.

The only protective leader to [naturally] start with the hunting technology. A very powerful building for conquest (though it will only be whipped in the larger cites). A unique unit combined with the protective trait for a very powerful stack - protective crossbows and landsknecht. Trebuchets unlocked along with landsknechts and half price castles (and their extra trade route). Extra great generals - both from imperialistic and the aforementioned powerful stack. And the easily obtained protective archers combined with cheap settlers make getting to the point where the unique unit and building can be used that little bit easier.

If only Charlemagne could have been creative as well.

They made HRE Fun and OP to reduce angry mail to there mailbox.

My initial impression draws me to the Mayans. Ethiopia also seems to be a very good civ.

It's just that the Anti-HRE Vigilance Committee has been quite LOUD in their condemnation while everyone else has moved on.exatly....

I think it will give the Portuguese a leg up over the Dutch. Both are potential rivals for a vast overseas empire, with the Portuguese getting an early start. My belief is that once the Dutch get their UU, though, they will be able transport large armies to knock off the fledgling Portuguese colonies. Just a theory, mind you.

Sort of what happened in real life, huh?

The Dutch, as we once rulled the world...

And will do soon ... ;)

Byzantine+Justinian is my favorite combination in BtS. :)

If you look at the "Neither Holy, Nor Roman, Nor an Empire" thread, there are almost as many people that love HRE that loathe them, with many being Meh and therefore judging them on their UU/Bs rather than their historical accuracy. It's just that the Anti-HRE Vigilance Committee has been quite LOUD in their condemnation while everyone else has moved on.

Precisely. Also, the HRE in due time became ruled by the Habsburgs, who owned pieces of estate all around the globe. Furthermore, they had an eastern European dimension that Germany lacks. And I suspect that as fashioned by Firaxis, the HRE will be fun to play. So I voted for the HRE.

Tough call. I'm quite happy with Fireaxis' choices. I even think having the HRE in is rather funky.

However, I love the maps that have a 'old world' and an 'new world' to settle on later.

And man, will it rule to play the Portuguese on them. (Unless they changed the sea technologies in a major way.)

Well, my opinion is biased by my nationality. I'll choose Portugal of course. Not only because it'd be able to create a large thalassocracy, but also because of João II's traits, that are very useful for expanding early in the game.

I'm finding it funny that the hated Byzantines and HRE are turning out to be two of the strongest Civs in the expansion pack.

Ethiopians rock!

Byzantines Are Teh Best!!!!!!!!!!!1111

The Mayan.

Interesting that HRE is in the lead. Yes, I know, if you add up ALL the other votes, they would be behind, but a plurality is a plurality.

If people are rating the new civs by their unique unit, building, and leader traits then it's not at all surprising.

Dutch Levees... sweeeeeet...

Interesting that HRE is in the lead. Yes, I know, if you add up ALL the other votes, they would be behind, but a plurality is a plurality.I guess that's mainly a reaction to all the anti-HRE threads. Many people just vote HRE because they know it will annoy those who consider the HRE being not legitimate.

Anyway, I tend to consider that HRE is already represented by Germany and that Charlemagne is, I repeat indeed, a very awckward choice to lead it. Now, I've got the message of the majority : "We just don't care ! You're a nerd !". So... so be it. :p

HRE and the Dutch are tying!

No there tied.

Yay! i tipped they dutch into the lead!

I equaled them. ;]

The HRE is a fantastic gameplay choice. Charlemagne has mediocre traits, but the HRE's UU is very powerful, and it's UB is a clincher for fast expansion.

I would easily place the Dutch on equal grounds with the HRE. Willem has an awesome set of traits, but his UU is situational and his UB is Industrial Era.

Edit: Let's not forget that the HRE has my favorite starting technology pair, Mysticism and Mining. I think that tops the Dutch's Fishing and Agriculture pair.

I like the Dutch game-wise and history-wise. While the rest of imperialist Europe was racist and condescending to the rest of the world, the humble and kind Dutch merchant were making big bucks through honest trading.

I am still thinking, but dispite, my rating of Dutch as the best choice of any of the new civs... I have to go with Khmer!

I am honestly befuddled that the HRE is scoring so highly. I just don't understand how someone who understands it's history could vote for it over actual Civs that aren't already in the game. I generally take an optimistic view of the Civ community's knowledge of history but I guess some of the people who have argued against it's inclusion haven't been vocal enough on actually educating other posters on why it is a really bad choice.

The other possibilities that I see are that people who don't care about history are voting for gameplay reasons, specifically they are voting for it on grounds of it's ridiculously powerful UU and UB.

Oh well, at least I can heart in the fact that nearly eighty percent of the community would want a civ other than HRE. :lol:

One item of note is that way back even before Warlords came out, Firaxis had a survey site where you can vote for what civilizations you want to appear in the game. I conducted an exit poll which you can still see here, hundreds of votes were cast.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148671

Due to forum restrictions, I was not able to include all of the choices Firaxis had on the site. I had to cut out what I subjectively saw as the most bogus choices, and the Holy Roman Empire was one of the four I left out. I considered it to be laughable at the time. Who knew someone at Firaxis would view them as a serious choice? I wish I did include them back then just to compare to how they are doing now.

ZoolooMan:
Edit: Let's not forget that the HRE has my favorite starting technology pair, Mysticism and Mining. I think that tops the Dutch's Fishing and Agriculture pair.

HRE has mysticism and hunting. But since Charlemagne is the only protective leader whose civ starts just 1 technology away from archers I'm sure that won't seem like a much of a downgrade.

MonkSpider:
I am honestly befuddled that the HRE is scoring so highly. I just don't understand how someone who understands it's history could vote for it over actual Civs that aren't already in the game. I generally take an optimistic view of the Civ community's knowledge of history but I guess some of the people who have argued against it's inclusion haven't been vocal enough on actually educating other posters on why it is a really bad choice.

The other possibilities that I see are that people who don't care about history are voting for gameplay reasons, specifically they are voting for it on grounds of it's ridiculously powerful UU and UB.

Oh well, at least I can heart in the fact that nearly eighty percent of the community would want a civ other than HRE.

One item of note is that way back even before Warlords came out, Firaxis had a survey site where you can vote for what civilizations you want to appear in the game. I conducted an exit poll which you can still see here, hundreds of votes were cast.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148671

Due to forum restrictions, I was not able to include all of the choices Firaxis had on the site. I had to cut out what I subjectively saw as the most bogus choices, and the Holy Roman Empire was one of the four I left out. I considered it to be laughable at the time. Who knew someone at Firaxis would view them as a serious choice? I wish I did include them back then just to compare to how they are doing now.

Monkspider, I would never have chosen for the HRE to be in the game but I voted for it in this poll. Why? I made the assumption that the poll was asking which of the new civs - taking account of their unique abilities and leader traits only - you would most like to play as. The HRE wins hands down on that. A powerful non offensive early-mid game unique unit, a very powerful unique building, and a protective leader who starts with hunting (and probabaly other stuff I'm forgetting). Short of having the creative trait this is pretty much ideal for me.

I was extremely dissapointed when the HRE was announced but at the end of the day that it is only flavour. It's the in-game abilities of the civ that determines how good it is. Not historical accuracy. I find Bismarck to be a fascinating leader in real life but I've rarely played as him. On the other hand I know nothing about Kublai Khan but have played as much games as him than as most (though not all) other leaders combined.

On a side note. You left out the 4 most laughable civs. Excluding the HRE is fine. But exluding the Habsburgs (who were listed in that poll) while still including Ireland and Austria-Hungary does seem a bit off.

I like the Dutch game-wise and history-wise. While the rest of imperialist Europe was racist and condescending to the rest of the world, the humble and kind Dutch merchant were making big bucks through honest trading.

Sarcasm, right?
The Dutch were indeed the most "trade-minded" of all European imperialist powers, but they (like the rest of Europe) also had, which could be considered, racist tendencies.
It is debatable if getting black slaves from Africa was racist. They bought them from native chiefs, so there is an obvious trade-element in there. But like the rest of the world they treated them bad. But this could be a class thing instead of a race thing.
There was also Indonesia which rebelled once in a while. But that was mostly justified by religion, rather than race.
It is not that the Dutch were more racist, they just were like the rest of Europe, or can you name examples, which makes clear that other Europeans were more racist?

:confused: Why did so many people voted for HRE? After all the row about Mayans, Babylonians, Ethiopians and Khmers I thought they would score highly.

because fireaxis made them better and OP to reduce complaints and these poor souls are falling for it.

because fireaxis made them better and OP to reduce complaints and these poor souls are falling for it.

It's all a conspiracy to keep Poland out of Beyond the Sword isn't it? :sarcasm:

:confused: Why did so many people voted for HRE? After all the row about Mayans, Babylonians, Ethiopians and Khmers I thought they would score highly.

I think it's because the the leaders of all those civs have trait combos that were already present in Vanilla CIV or Warlords and people just want to try something new.

Hard to tell one's favorite from just theory, but i will go for the Dutch (loved 'em in Civ3 too)

Hurray Byzantines! Though I wanted Alexius Comenus instead but w/e.

I can't quite tell just what a ballista elephant is, but it sounds cool!

I voted for the Dutch, mostly because of who they are and that I enjoyed playing as Catherine in the Vanilla Civ 4. (Because of the traits, not because she is a saucy tart...that is another poll on this site! :lol: )

I'm also excited to try the Mayans, Ethiopians and Khmer....completely because of the game and not their history. I am sure they are impressive, but I am more interested in European history.

Portugal is the great addition due to it's history.
I will enjoy Maya, Ethiopia and Khmer due to its cultural difference (no Portugal, because Portugal is just another europpean civ), different cultures, different units!

I voted for Byzantines since their leader has my favorite civ traits. :)

Maya, I've always liked the Maya

After seeing the Temples near Cancun my heart's been sold to the Maya. I'm really happy there in.

Dutchhh!!!!!!

I've have Babylon withdrawal since Civ IV came out...
I played them all the time on Civ II...

I was so excited to know Babylon was in that I voted for them.

But my new Civ would have tobe HRE. So that's one more for HRE.

As much as i like to argue on the history threads, i'll go with gameplay and say Dutch/HRE (oh... the shame i nearly voted for the HRE)

The Native Americans! Not discussing the name:P

But mmm, is it only me seeing the synergy between an organized leader (Darius) and immortals? Financial at that :crazyeye: !

The Native Americans! Not discussing the name:P

But mmm, is it only me seeing the synergy between an organized leader (Darius) and immortals? Financial at that :crazyeye: !

No its not only you but the persians arent a new civ.

I voted for Maya. Holkan rush anyone?

i chose the Byzantines becuase they're cool. flavorfully.

Byzantines becuase they are awesome!!! I will enjoy conquering barbarians with them :)

Is Belarius a great general?

i chose the Byzantines becuase they're cool. flavorfully.

Their leader looks like a creep who just got a fix...:lol: :p
Is Belarius a great general?
Yeah...

I voted for Portuguese. It has the best UB, and Joao II has intermediate-class combination, Exp/Imp. Though Imperialistic isn't powerful compred to other traits, it has good synergy with Expansive allowing very fast early expanding. Carrack is also good UU, while not the best. Babylonian, Dutch and Khmer UUs don't appear to be very powerful, as don't Ethiopian, Mayan and Sumerian UBs either. Trait combos of Justinian I and Charlemagne are even worse than Joao II's.

I voted HRE because Christianity was united

Alright I'll bite the bullet *flameshield on*.

I voted HRE because I actually like them historically. Medieval history really interests me and to me, feudal France and the HRE are *the* best examples of true feudalism - both had figurehead royalties that made significant use of vassalage and the feudal system to build large empires. Even if the HRE was a diverse grouping of cities, they STILL answered to the Kaiser and the Kaiser was involved in military affairs with the pope. Sure, a lot of the HRE provinces didn't like the Kaiser but this is feudalism we are talking about - the time of heavy handed politics and lip service to authority while taking as much power as you can.

You could argue that ALL of the feudal states don't really count as nations or civilizations because of how feudalism worked - feudal Europe had more in common sociopolitically with ancient greece and its city-states then the modern countries that so many of these debates focus on. I could think of better Kaisers/Emperors then Charlemagne, but consider that Charlemagne built both the HRE and what would evolve into feudal France, I think he is a good choice for a leader that exemplifies the birth and structure of feudalism.

Yes, yes they need some sort of Eastern European civ - the Medieval Poles or Hungarians come to mind - but thats what mods are for and you can't deny that the HRE deserves a place in the game. The game already has several examples of successor civs (sumerians, babylonians, arabs, and ottomans are all built on the same region of people for example) so I don't see the problem with having the Celts/Romans/HRE/French/Germans in the game for the same reason.

And Lachlan, The HRE wasn't Holy, Roman, or an Empire (love that quote).

The unification of Christianity into a mainstream european religion was Emperor Constantine of the Romans. The HRE didn't exist until almost a millenia after the death of christ, while the Romans were still around (thus Constantinople). The HRE actually defied Papal authority, feeling that the Kaiser was the true Pope and that the Pope was a usurper. The HRE probably did more to DISRUPT european Christianity then to unify it.

Constantine converts to Christianity on his death bed and the European world as we know it changes, replacing the Jovian gods with JC.

I voted for Portuguese. It has the best UB, and Joao II has intermediate-class combination, Exp/Imp. Though Imperialistic isn't powerful compred to other traits, it has good synergy with Expansive allowing very fast early expanding. Carrack is also good UU, while not the best. Babylonian, Dutch and Khmer UUs don't appear to be very powerful, as don't Ethiopian, Mayan and Sumerian UBs either. Trait combos of Justinian I and Charlemagne are even worse than Joao II's.

Yes, but I think Charlemagne has the best unit...but anyway, it's not about how good they are, which is your favorite? :hmm: AHEM! DUTCHHH!!!! :king:

And Lachlan, The HRE wasn't Holy, Roman, or an Empire (love that quote).

The unification of Christianity into a mainstream european religion was Emperor Constantine of the Romans. The HRE didn't exist until almost a millenia after the death of christ, while the Romans were still around (thus Constantinople). The HRE actually defied Papal authority, feeling that the Kaiser was the true Pope and that the Pope was a usurper. The HRE probably did more to DISRUPT european Christianity then to unify it.

Constantine converts to Christianity on his death bed and the European world as we know it changes, replacing the Jovian gods with JC.

Oh, sorry, i thinked to Frank empire of Charlemagne :goodjob: At this epoch, two christian empires existed : at west Frank Empire and at east Byzantine Empire, they were never at war because not common borders... Isn't it ?

It wasn't until the traditional middle ages (1100 - 1350) that the HRE got into quarrels with the pope - they actually fought a few wars in an attempt to conquer the vatican. The HRE was created in 800 BC by Charlemagne (he conquered what is now modern germany and was crowned first emperor). The HRE "golden age" if you will was 1100-1400 where they controlled central europe, streching from eastern france to the western fringes of poland.

The Holy Roman Emperor gets his title because Charlemagne (and his lineage) was crowned Emperor of what was intended to be a Christian region (in other words, a "Papal" nation if you will, not just limited to the vatican). There was a split - I don't know why - but it formed the Pope/vatican and it stole the thunder from the title of Holy Roman Emperor. That's why the HRE attacked the Vatican, because they felt that the Kaiser ("emperor" in german) was authorized to act as the Pope, and that the vatican Pope was a fake.

The HRE technically lasted to the 1700's/1800's but as you have no doubt read on the anti-HRE threads on this board, the HRE had - problems - holding their states together into a cohesive unit and by this time, the principalities identified themselves more as Prussians, Austrians, Swiss, etc then as a member of the HRE (and this led to the unification and formation of modern germany)

EDIT - and the thing about catholic europe and orthodox byzantium - the byzantines were powerful and open confrontation was stupid, but since all the medieval Popes viewed orthodoxy as heresy (much the same way they later did protestantism) they didn't really care if the Crusaders sacked Byzantine lands on the way to the Holy Land. In fact, this European indifference to the Byzantines is why the Ottomans were able to destroy them because they didn't get any assistance.

Probably Portugal, because their traits have great synergy for the single player strategy of $%&^-graphy, which is using geography and city placement to $%&^ over your opponents (e.g. by trapping them in a small region and closing borders).

I'm not particularly crazy or have a favorite of any of them (at least, not in ridiculous proportion), although I picked the Mayans. Why?

Research Hunting, and you can build a 4 strength unit immediately, that is immune to the first strikes received by the 3 strength unit you can research afterwards? Score!

it came to a tie between holy roman empire or the dutch but then the portuguese showed up. Expansive AND Imperialistic:eek: :eek: :eek:
:king: They're my number one now:king:

I also voted for the Holy Roman Empire.
Because I like it!
That should be enough...

Looks like a close one between HRE and the Dutch, followed way behind by the Byzantines. I think these are all the ones I am looking forward to, plus the Native Americans. I suppose the Khmer is up there, but I am still bummed about Sury's leaderhead.

If a moderator is out there: anyway for either me or you to extend the poll dates? I made this poll before we knew the release date, and now it looks like it will be closed two weeks before the game even comes out (of course, someone could always make a new post-release poll). Thanks.

Dutch are winning! [party] :lol: I know you guys are out there somewhere! Anyway, before I saw Justinian's leaderhead I was pretty excited about the Byzs. But not as excited as I was for De Gaulle or the Dutch... :goodjob:

Khmer for finally getting a look in. Global maps always need a SE Asian civ! :)

^About Global Maps...
Since there are so many civs now, I'd wish they'd make a GIGANTIC size especially for this map (about 1500 kb, most of our comps could handle it). And have all the civs on it! Even though Byzantines and Ottomans...I know...but we could work it out! :goodjob: Post 700!!! [party] :lol:

Why is HRE in secound?

Why is HRE in secound?

Because people voted for it...:p DUTCH!!! [party] :lol:

Why is HRE in secound?

they want to anger HRE-haters like me.

^Or just Polish people in general...:lol:
:joke:

^probably. :lol:

I don't really understand why they're so pissed...I think it's pretty cool that Charlemagne has his own civ...They couldn't make a civ called the "Charlemagne Empire", could they? Why not the Holy Roman Empire? Even though I'd rather see another deserving civ before it...

...

Please, however much I disagree with you, Dutchking, and I'm sure others will line up on one of our sides, let's not turn this into an HRE thread. Please?

...

Please, however much I disagree with you, Dutchking, and I'm sure others will line up on one of our sides, let's not turn this into an HRE thread. Please?

Alright, notice I did say that I'd like to see another deserving civ before it...let's just leave it at that...:goodjob:

they want to anger HRE-haters like me. I think your right. :lol:

@Dutchking: All right, I didn't see the last part of your post. But still, I would have just added a medieval king for France or Germany (Phillip Augustus, Otto I, or Barbarossa), and renamed him for the Charlemagne scenario. I thought for sure that was what Firaxis was doing--they did it before in Civ3. Now, we got De Gaulle and the HRE...

Well, back on topic...

I'm warming up to the Maya. I'm not much of a rush-player, but the Holkan is easily suited for rushing attacks, although it is vulnerable to copper-containing empires. The way I see it, they can kill mounted units (horses resource), and you can rush before they get to Iron Working (so civilizations that will have access to the iron but not the copper resource are weak). Two out of the three you can beat, which is pretty good for a rush. Not to mention they get the Expansive and Financial traits, for cheaper workers, cheaper granaries, healthier cities, and better commerce. Their UB also fits in perfectly after an early rush to take somebody's capital--the growing phase. More of a reason to rush for Construction (as if you need one), and the combined bonuses of the Expansive health and the Ball Court will let your cities get big.