Well? Who would it be? Polynesians, Vikings, Austrians, Mali... There were so many other influential civs. Which one would you pick?

I'd say vikings. Probably the most influential out of the ones that didnt make it in. Profoundly altered the political landscapes of Russia, Britain, the Northern European coastline, and of course Scandinavia. They were militaristic enough that it's easy to come up with unique units.

Vikings.
Or, maybe the Americans...

Or, maybe the Americans...
The Americans were in the expansion pack.

The Americans were in the expansion pack.
So that was the expansion :hmm: :cry:
I thought it was just a different box :rolleyes:

I have to agree with the rest of you...the vikings, then there would be some1 from my country aswell :D

The problem with adding Vikings is that Europe is already crowded, and the expansion pack split Scandinavia into two, so a decison between Danes, Swedes and Norwegians will have to take place to see who represents the Vikings. An American civ isn't a good idea either, as the expansion added two native american civs (Iroquois and Lakota) and the Americans. A mesopotamian civ could be added (strange that mesopotamia has no civ there), but it would limit the conquests of Persia and the Ottomans. A sub-saharan civ could be added, if the Bantu's starting territory is made smaller (create a Congo territory or a Kenyan Savannah territory). A polynesian civ would need a Pacific territory.

I can't just pick one, Poles would be nice, Babylonians, Sumerians or Assyrians, Arabs, a southeast Asian civilization, Vikings, I guess they could divide the area into Denmark, Sweden+Norway, and Finland, for the Poles they would have to have Poland, and maybe add a baltic territory. Of those, I think that Vikings, Arabs and Baylonians would be the must haves.

I think that Lakota shouldn't be included. What the did for history?
The Vikings, Austrians, Portuguese, Summerians,Arabs they did more for history that Lakota.
Maybe
The Vikings-why?: Because they modifeid very of Scandinavia, Britain and North Europe
They could have the power of raid or destrouction. UU-Bereshk or Something like that, Longboat
The Portuguese-why?: they started the Age of Exploration and in 15 and 16 century they were s great power and the invented the caravel
Power of Navigation. UU- Portuguese Caravel, Bandeirante
The Summerians- They were the first civilization
Power of Innovation(it should be taken from the US)uu- Endiku Warrior
and much others

The Lakota are included because they appear to encompass all of the plains indians including the Souix. I think that the Hurons would be just as good, but what I don't think people realise that there is to my knowledge no historical background to the Enkidu Warrior, so why it is the Sumerian UU for Civ? I have no idea, but Brian Reynolds will not steal a "made up" unit. I think one of the leader names for the Sumerians would be; Sargon of Agade, who was the first empire buider, he ruled from Akkad(where Babylon was, or was to be) and counquered much of the Fertil crescent. I find it odd that the turks are in the game and the Arabs are not. But I think that all of the civilizations named deserve to be in an expansion, RoN does not seem that hard to play test, and the civ traits for most of the civs mentioned should be stright forward. Vikings would get good lightships, and maybe their unique unit would be have a faster transport form, The Poles would have to have some kind of UU cavalry line, Hussars ect. Arabs could have good light infantry and cavalry(Maybe shared stuff like the persians have with India, so the Egyptians and Arabs would have "Shared" UUs). Vikings I think you would give an assimilation bonus, or some sort of expansion bonus, along with some sort of naval or military bonus, Arabs would get Technology and Temple bonus,' aswell as culture, Poland could have more productive mines and/or farms, I think that Austria-Hungary would be a good Civ, as would something like Ancient Ghana, Sangia or benin, another African civ along with the Arabs would allow more territories in the middle-east and africa, I don't know what I would give the austrians, a productive or culture bonus, I am not sure. Purtogal is a great idea, not as but almost as influential as the Spanish, they could have better heavy Ships, all their ships could fire farther(maybe) and see farther. They would have a wealth benifit, or something to that affect, and I would give them better Classical-Gunpowderinfantry of some type. You could have their scouts be able to go into transport mode without a dock having to be build, plenty of possibilities. UU and traits for Sumeria, or a South East Asain or Pacific Islander people could be hard, but it would be cool to see an aborginial or polynesian civ in a non-mod game for once. Any Ideas for traits for Khymer, Sumeria, Thialand, the Viets or Burmese?

Vikings deffinatly but Europe is already completely full with others, i would choose the Swedes to represent the Vikings so that it does not block the German, British and Russian expansion.

Canadians, plain and simple, they were left out of RoN and Civ

Vikings to fill Scandinavia because it's ridicilous that Persia controls half of Scandinavia and Britain other half.
Maybe some civ to fill Mesopotamia/Arabia like Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, Arabia or Israel.
Some Australian or SE-Asian civ would be good addition too.

Malacca (replaces Nubia, represents the Malay kingdoms and empires)
Power of Commerce
UU: Pendekar
Pendekar DiRaja
Perwira
Perwira Diraja
Twardy Tank
Nuri Chopper (just for fun, very weak and vulnerable copters)

Israel...

Israel...

Why? What did they ever do for us?

Why? What did they ever do?

FTFY. :goodjob:

Antarcticans

Antarcticans

Epic Win.

What about the Arabs? If the Middle East is enlarged a little, it could work on the campaign map- they also contributed Islam and it's massive legacy to the world.

What about the Arabs? If the Middle East is enlarged a little, it could work on the campaign map- they also contributed Islam and it's massive legacy to the world.

The Ottomangs work just fine, I would think, although I must say, I still don't understand why you can have large blanket names like "Chinese" and "Indians" (or Arabs) at the same time as having groups that represent individual kingdoms or dynasties like "Inca", "Aztec" or "Ottoman", but I guess that's up to the developer to decide.

"Ottomangs?" If you mean Ottomans, it's ruined by the fact the Turks are already in the game. The reason for the mix of large blanket names and dynastic names is likely that RON plays on what the popular view sees as 'civilisations'.

"Ottomangs?" If you mean Ottomans, it's ruined by the fact the Turks are already in the game. The reason for the mix of large blanket names and dynastic names is likely that RON plays on what the popular view sees as 'civilisations'.

Oh are they called Turks in Rise of Nations? I was referring to the fact that you don't really need "Arabs" as having Ottoman, or Turks (even better) covers his points just fine. I called them Ottomangs because it's a playful little name I use for them when I'm in #nes, if you have a problem with it, tough.

Oh are they called Turks in Rise of Nations? I was referring to the fact that you don't really need "Arabs" as having Ottoman, or Turks (even better) covers his points just fine. I called them Ottomangs because it's a playful little name I use for them when I'm in #nes, if you have a problem with it, tough.

Not quite- the objective isn't a simulation of real-world history (the starting posistion is too ludicrously far from that to work as such), but to put the civilisations into RoN that impacted to the greatest extent on world history without compromising the Grand Campaign map.

Not quite- the objective isn't a simulation of real-world history (the starting posistion is too ludicrously far from that to work as such), but to put the civilisations into RoN that impacted to the greatest extent on world history without compromising the Grand Campaign map.

See, this point doesn't really work when you're being completely scattershot on what the definition of a civilization is. For example, what is a Spanish civilization? Does that include the entire history of the Iberian peninsula? Does that include the Moors? What about the Portuguese and Aragonese? At what point does the "Spanish Civilization" begin? Does that include the Visigoths? I could do this with a bunch of their other "civilizations", but then I just come off as being nit-picky. So really if you're picking civilizations, you should really only be doing it from a stand-point of game balance, and I think one of the worst things in the Conquer the World campaign is when parts of the world are too crowded.

See, this point doesn't really work when you're being completely scattershot on what the definition of a civilization is. For example, what is a Spanish civilization? Does that include the entire history of the Iberian peninsula? Does that include the Moors? What about the Portuguese and Aragonese? At what point does the "Spanish Civilization" begin? Does that include the Visigoths? I could do this with a bunch of their other "civilizations", but then I just come off as being nit-picky. So really if you're picking civilizations, you should really only be doing it from a stand-point of game balance, and I think one of the worst things in the Conquer the World campaign is when parts of the world are too crowded.

There's an easy way of defining a civilisation- what popular culture sees a single civilisation. Popular culture sees a Spanish "civilisation', but probably doesn't know about the Aragonese, for example. Portugal is clearly a civilisation, though. Similarily, popular culture likely sees an image of the 'Islamic world'- we already have the Turks, but we can move closer to that image.

The game balance problems can be solved by enlarging the Middle East- creating the provinces of Sinai, Palestine, North Mesopotamia, and South Mesopotamia. In addition, can create the provinces of Yemen and Oman (Yemen making a supply centre for Nubia and the Arabs to fight over, a supply centre already existing for Turkey and Persia to fight over, and Palestine making a supply centre for Egypt, Turkey, and Arabia to contest). This is justified- the Middle East was a far more important region then Europe for most of history, and deserves more provinces then it has to reflect this.

Persia would be my choice.