If Firaxis/2K ask this question:

What two new civilizations do you choose to join to the ones in the games? Why?

Sweden (I realy miss them, and no other european country will as good)

&

The Aboriginals.

Only 2 :sad:
Phoenecians and Hittites
I'll do without the Assyrians so long as Sumeria and Babylon stay in the game

edit: I'd be happy if the game just had ancient/classical Middle-Eastern and Mediteranean civs, my favourite period/region

Poland and Austria

Atlantis
and
Scientist That Lives On Antarctica

Why?

(message too short)

As has been seen in the latest versions of the game, a rule is added two new civilizations in each new version. And I think that will remain in those criteria. Now the justification for it has never been told.

The Aboriginals.
Do you mean the paleolithic Australians who never even developed agriculture, the fundamental aspect of the whole concept of civilisation itself, or some other aboriginals?

Israel and Brazil!
1st - ISRAEL: It's about time to add them to the game.
2nd - BRAZIL: The 3rd biggest future-economy is Brazil. And can be a goog adding to the game!

2nd - BRAZIL: The 3rd biggest future-economy is Brazil. And can be a goog adding to the game!I'm guessing you adhere to the whole BRIC(/BRIMC/BRICA/BRIMSCKAET/BRI-Whatever-C-Whatever) theory? A questionable idea, certainly, but not one without merit... Still, I can't help but feel that the confident assertion of Brazil achieving 3rd place- behind India and China, I'd assume- isn't influenced by a certain degree of Lusophone solidarity...

I would like to see a progam where you design your very own perfect civilization.

I'm guessing you adhere to the whole BRIC(/BRIMC/BRICA/BRIMSCKAET/BRI-Whatever-C-Whatever) theory? A questionable idea, certainly, but not one without merit... Still, I can't help but feel that the confident assertion of Brazil achieving 3rd place- behind India and China, I'd assume- isn't influenced by a certain degree of Lusophone solidarity...

Partly it is about Lusophone Solidarity :D, but in reality it is more because of markets (marketing) where civ can be play, like in future countries achieving the levels of development, like China, India (with are already grans civ over History), Mexico, Brazil and South Africa.
Over this last 3. Brazil have more culture, historical achievements! So, why not?

And you? Which do you choose?

Poland and Gran Colombia.

Bolivar as leader of Gran Colombia, right? Why them?

-
Off Topic: Summer in Ireland. What do you recommend? (Want to go there this summer!)

Bolivar as leader of Gran Colombia, right? Why them?

-
Off Topic: Summer in Ireland. What do you recommend? (Want to go there this summer!)

Poland = Obvious

Gran Colombia = Contolled all of Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Guinea, Suriname, Ecuador, Most of French Guinea, Most of Northern Brazil, Most of Peru, Most of Costa Rica and some of the Caribean Islands.

i think it should be called Venezuela though. Venezuela was the part that was the most "vital" to the country and basically the "center" of everything in Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia's name is also misleading due to "Colombia" and the game is supposingly supposed to teach you about the civilizations. (i can imagine some American kid walking into EB games and thinking "Oh Cool, Colombia is in the game" when it was a joint effort lead by Venezuela.

Besides there's no denying Simon Bolivar deserves to be in the game.

Vandal and Nubians

Vandals= It would be cool to control a barbarian Civ
Nubians= They CONQUERED Eygpt!

Olmecs: Origin of all mesoamerican Civs. Too bad we know so little about them. Modern Brazil, Uruguay, Australia, Canada, Pakistan and Indonesia would be nice, too. If Poland is added, Ireland, Hungary and Ukraine should be added, too.

Olmecs: Origin of all mesoamerican Civs. Too bad we know so little about them. Modern Brazil, Uruguay, Australia, Canada, Pakistan and Indonesia would be nice, too. If Poland is added, Ireland, Hungary and Ukraine should be added, too.

I agree with Olmecs, but i have a problem with the rest of your post.

Uruguay over Argentina, Chile and Venezuela? heck even Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay deserve to be in before.

Australia and Canada? there's something called England.

Pakistan i don't understand. There are much more deserving civs. Indonesia could be a good addition.

And what's with the Poland part?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Europe_map_1648.PNG

Ukraine has been part(not even a vassal) of Poland and Russia for most of it's history. (Polands for most of it's history)
Hungary would be ok as Austro-Hungary.
no clue where you got Ireland from.

Kongo-I'd like to see a few more civs from Africa, and I feel Kongo would be one of the best to add.

Another Asian civ, Siam or Vietnam preferably.

Australia and Canada? there's something called England.

Do you mean because they we colonised by England? Under your logic why then is America in there and why is it called America and not the United States of America.

I considered the Aboriginals too but its a good point about them not developing agriculture and that was the primary basis of being able to settle in cities. What about the Maori did they have agriculture and cities? They were damn good with boats!

If Israel is in it then shouldn't Italy and hell maybe even Kosovo and other new states.

Do you mean because they we colonised by England? Under your logic why then is America in there and why is it called America and not the United States of America.

I considered the Aboriginals too but its a good point about them not developing agriculture and that was the primary basis of being able to settle in cities. What about the Maori did they have agriculture and cities? They were damn good with boats!

If Israel is in it then shouldn't Italy and hell maybe even Kosovo and other new states.

I'm just saying there uneeded, and unlike the USA they haven't impacted World History as much as other civs in the game.

The Maori were Polynesians. And the Polynesians did settle cities and developed Agricultures. Infact, back in those times, each polynesian island was like a Utopia!

By Israel i think he means the Jewish Diaspora and the ancient kingdoms of Israel. Italy are much more deserving. Kosovo is just a bunch of illegal albanian immigrants who want another state outside of Albania.

Well bring in religious states and ethnic cleansing then. If a religion does not have a homeland then cities with only that type of religion, or the holy city of that religion try to leave their host nation and found their own state. And enable the military to remove population of a particular religion or nationality. Of course this would affect your relations with other countries and your citizens. If you have certain civics then people will feel differently, theology would have increased :mad: if you don't get rid of foreign religions, free religion would have a lot of increase :mad: if you do, as would pacifism. (Come to think of it pacifist states should have increased :mad: for military units in cities.) If your people like another civ then they have increased :mad: if you remove immigrants, if they really dislike them then they have increased :mad: if you don't.

Grab your horses, Scilly_guy! Chill out! Peace, pizza and love!!! (It was my first reaction to your many red's faces)!

The Topic is which new civ's do you want to add to the game!!!

When I mean Israel, I was speaking about the time of King David or King Solomon. It was a golden Age for Israel.

Well bring in religious states and ethnic cleansing then.

Well it already happens when you enter into the game for a conquering all. So :lol:

If a religion does not have a homeland then cities with only that type of religion, or the holy city of that religion try to leave their host nation and found their own state. And enable the military to remove population of a particular religion or nationality. Of course this would affect your relations with other countries and your citizens. If you have certain civics then people will feel differently, theology would have increased :mad: if you don't get rid of foreign religions, free religion would have a lot of increase :mad: if you do, as would pacifism.

True. That is a cause/effect about cultural differences.

(Come to think of it pacifist states should have increased :mad: for military units in cities.) If your people like another civ then they have :mad: increased if you remove immigrants, if they really dislike them then they have increased :mad: if you don't.

That is one point of view. But Democracy and Freedom Religious tend to harmony and not to xenophobia, if there are Human Rights of course!!!

What? I am saying that a democratic country with free religion would be angry if you start ethnic cleansing, do you not think this is the case? :)

Hmm ok yeah the Isrealites from way back, fair enough.

What? I am saying that a democratic country with free religion would be angry if you start ethnic cleansing, do you not think this is the case? :)


All countries can be called as democracies, it depends on who is ahead at the moment.

If a democracy is found with bases of human rights, then yes what you are saying is correct. But if instead, although there are religious freedom, it can lead to conflicts that can start to an ethnic cleaning :( . (E.g. Germany on WWII)
Furthermore, it can also lead to a situation of assimilation of cultures. In this case there isn't annihilation but cultural fusion between ethnic's.
So...

Ok I was not actually bothered about the democracy part, it was you that brought that up. My main idea was that if you try to remove a particular religion when you are operating under free religion (as a civic) then your people will be really pissed off, it doesn't matter what sort of government you have. It was purely an example of how game mechanics could work and supposed to be based on real life not directly describing real life. You could take into account the other civics too, I am not disputing this, it just gets more and more complicated, but a civ that is operating under universal suffrage and emancipation clear values life equal and more than one under slavery.

Back to the topic. So for you, who? Which par of civ's you could join to the game, and why?

Do you mean because they we colonised by England? Under your logic why then is America in there and why is it called America and not the United States of America.

I considered the Aboriginals too but its a good point about them not developing agriculture and that was the primary basis of being able to settle in cities. What about the Maori did they have agriculture and cities? They were damn good with boats!

If Israel is in it then shouldn't Italy and hell maybe even Kosovo and other new states.

I think a bunch of states in the Baltic

View Post
Do you mean because they we colonised by England? Under your logic why then is America in there and why is it called America and not the United States of America.

Doesn't Matter. America has the American flag, and 3 american leaders. Simon Bolivar would surely be a leader otherwise.

I think a bunch of states in the Baltic

The Baltic? When did we move to the eastern block from the Balkans? I've no complaints, by all means add the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians.

As to "The American Flag" I take it you mean the Stars And Stripes, ie "The Flag Of The United States", and Simon Bolivar is a South American Leader, so are you commenting that there should be a south American Civ?

The Baltic? When did we move to the eastern block from the Balkans? I've no complaints, by all means add the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians.

As to "The American Flag" I take it you mean the Stars And Stripes, ie "The Flag Of The United States", and Simon Bolivar is a South American Leader, so are you commenting that there should be a south American Civ?

i'm saying that if it was an "american" civ representing all of the americas, then simon bolivar would be a leader BEFORE Lincoln, Washington or Roosevelt. The flag wouldn't have been the usa flag and the cities wouldn't be usa's cities either.

And no. Brazil or Venezuela would fill the need for a south American civ nicely. (Simon Bolivar would be venezuelan).

also, Lithuanians are Balts, Latvians are Germanic-Balts and Estonians are finnic. Not to mention that Estonia was Swedish for most of it's history, and Lithuania-Latvia was Polish for most of it's history.

Why didn't you reply on my idea on costumized civ's? :sad:

Hebrews-Israel, Almohads-Umayyads-Moors, Austrians, Vietnamese, Huns, Scotts, and Irish.

You could argue that the Scotts and Irish are the Celts but the Irish monks saved Western Civilization from remaining in the Dark Ages and should be given some credit for that in the Civ series. It would just be fun to play as highlanders swordsmen. Same for the Huns, it would just be fun to be them just like the Mongols. Vietnam has withstood the Mongols I think, Japan was in a constant insurgency I think, France, U.S., and China. Austria was too important of a player in European history to be ignored. The Moors took over most of the Iberian peninsula and established one of the most civilized civiliztions in the world at its height. They continued on the science from the classical period and translated the Greco-Roman writings of the past. They would eventually allow Western Civilization to enter the Renaissance. The Hebrews and Israel have impacted history so tremendously that they can't be ignored and actually the Hebrews had a pretty impressive ancient kingdom at its height. They founded Judaism, which is one of the main religions in the game.

If I can only pick two then... Hebrews-Israel & Almohads-Umayyds-Moors. Whatever name you want to call these two civs. I would prefer Hebrews and Moors but whatever.

...and Lithuania-Latvia was Polish for most of it's history.
Well, technically it was a joint Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. :p

You could argue that the Scotts and Irish are the Celts...
Well, yeah, that's because they are Celts. The whole problem with the Celtic civ is that it largely fails to acknowledge any post-Roman Celts, focusing largely on Romano-Gallic and, to a lesser extent, Romano-British Celts, with the Gaels, the most successful an branch of the Celtic family, being ignored entirely.
...but the Irish monks saved Western Civilization from remaining in the Dark Ages...
Well, they were instrumental in Christianising those areas of Britain that had previously been pagan, such as northern Scotland, or had fallen under pagan control, such as England, but outside of the British Isles their influence was limited. The Continent was really were post-Roman European civilisation developed.
In short, the Scots and Irish deserve representation, I whole-heartedly agree, but it'd make more sense to see it through modifications to the existing Celtic civ than through the creation of a whole new civ.

-double post-

Well, yeah, that's because they are Celts. The whole problem with the Celtic civ is that it largely fails to acknowledge any post-Roman Celts, focusing largely on Romano-Gallic and, to a lesser extent, Romano-British Celts, with the Gaels, the most successful an branch of the Celtic family, being ignored entirely.

:D:D:D:D FINALLY! SOMEONE WITH REASON!!!
The scotts were Celts, a different kind of Celt, but a Celt none the less, and i agree, they very well do ignore post-Roman Celts, like Queen Maeve of Ireland ( Did anyone ever see Romans on Ireland? Retoriacal question ) and there were so many Celts in Gaul after the Romans Collapsed!

I would like to see a progam where you design your very own perfect civilization.

I would agree. It would make people happy as they can make the civilizations they want plus it will good for the unmodders.

I would agree. It would make people happy as they can make the civilizations they want plus it will good for the unmodders.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................... .....no... not a half bad idea but, no.
Civilzation is about taking over a great historical power, not making new ones out of thin air.