New Civs [Suggestion/Request]

Polynesia

Reasons:
Unique Play Style
Unrepresented area

Zulu

Reasons:
Iconic to civ series
Fills up south Africa


Pirates - see here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=503730

All the Native civs from Colonization

Reasons:

Fill up north america
Nice cultural diversity
Would make colonization of the americas more fun

Manchuria

Reasons:
Will help make northeast asia more competitive. will provide a good rival to china, korea, and mongolia, and will help counter russian expansion

What do you guys think of these ideas?

I think most of these have been discussed before, and there aren't enough slots for new civs in the game.

Also tuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmeeeeeeeesssss...

Not before Thailand is removed first.

Imo Tibet is far more pointless, a least Thailand has an actual Civilization to claim (as opposed to a bunch of backward theocratic chiefdoms fighting each other) of and manages to include more than 1-city, inevitably vassalized.
Unfilled area is nota ever good enough stand alone reason for including a civ.

with all these civ suggestions, i often wonder if a lot of these forumers even play DoC at all... We have Congo, Ethiopia and Mali already, Leoreth has done his very best to try and make these Civilizations interesting to play, and even he admits he's not to keen on playing them.
How could any of these civs possibly be interesting to play? the game has a dozen stopeuropeansdontlosecitiescontrolthisarea uhvs already, does anyone really want another? why doesnt anybody seem to make a serious suggestions about updating actual gameplay, rather than petitioning more and more needless civs? I admit i suggested isra'el and armenia but at least i put thought into how they would actually affect gameplay and how they could be unique gameplay-wise.

This is not your "complain about civs you dislike" thread.

I think Polynesia has already been discussed, but I don't know what Leoreth's verdict was on that one. Just no for a pirate civ. I can see them as mercenaries with a few unique promotions, but nothing more than that. If there was any Native American civ, it would *maybe* be the Iroquois. The rest didn't have a big enough impact on history and wouldn't be fun to play as or against. And lastly, I don't think Manchuria will be a playable civ(I could see it as a minor civ) until the Russians actually expand that far east.

nobodies made that thread yet?

edit# manchuria is fine represented by barbarians, cultural impact was about nil. how many people speak Manchu today?

I like Polynesia, because it's completely different from all other civs. (Just like the Crimeans in RFCE++) Within the same mod, you get a totally new way of playing the game.

BTW, Polynesia did came up before. See this thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=478431


All others shouldn't be a fully civ.
Zulu - There impact will be very little. They should spawn quite late to be historical. (around 1710 AD). And they will be conquered not much time after that.
For me, their biggest reason to be included it to give resistance to the colonists. Impi invasions just do that well enough.

Pirates - Just no. It isn't even a civ. Barbarians Privateers just do the job. (Maybe even better than a fully civ would)

Native Americans - IF they are included, it should only be one, absolutely not all. But I think the camp suggestion of a while ago is much better to represent the Natives.
Also, I think it will do the opposite of making colonization more fun. As North America will be filled with Native American cities, you can't even colonize at all! You can only conquer those cities.
I agree with mrrandomplayer that most native tribes will not be fun to play as or against.

Manchuria - It was controlled by foreign empires most of the time. (Mongolia, China, Korea) Being a unique civ isn't appropraite. And it will block Korea too much IMO.
BTW, I think North East Asia shouldn't be the place in which much competition is. It's fine as it is now.
Also here I think it's no fun to play as or against.

We have Congo, Ethiopia and Mali already

Click to expand...

I beg to differ on Congo. I find them quite fun.

I support the addition of Polynesia, though they might be difficult to get to work (as also witnessed in the other thread on the subject).

i don't like those civs actually, they won't get balance to the game nor a funnier play imo but as additional:
i would like to see a hittite classic civilization, it's one of the earliest states and conquered syria from egypt right? and concluded first ceasefire agreement (and world first pagan temple is founded in turkey)
now as a barbarian they are razing byzantine when founded (sometimes) or do nothing; and they can respawn as pontus imo, it will give a new balance to the ancient era
or at least they should be a minor civilization with two city trabzon-ankara, and try to capture jerusalem not greece (I don't wanna see an byzantine capital as adrianapolis)

I think Manchuria might be good as a minor civ replacing the Celts. Polynesia could be fun as it has a radically different play style though it might force Leoreth to implement Sea tiles as an intermediary between Coast and Ocean.

I still think that the Barbary Pirates could replaces the Seljuks for 1700 AD. They would just churn out Privateers until someone got ticked off enough to destroy them.

i think all of these would be fun to play, but i wouldnt want them in the game as ai. they would if qnything, just hamper the other ai. and slow down turns of course.

hittites couldbe made more celt like though

Swarbs said:

I think most of these have been discussed before, and there aren't enough slots for new civs in the game.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a limit on the number of civs allowed because the source code is moddable.

Pavel Chichikov said:

I admit i suggested isra'el...how they would actually affect gameplay and how they could be unique gameplay-wise.

Click to expand...

You think 2-tile civ that is:
a.) Based on the Bible, which is mostly made up and only existed for 89 years(ancient Israel)
b.) An apartheid state that consistently violates the human rights of the Palestinians and has only existed for 65 years (modern Israel)
would add more to gameplay than Polynesia, which would take up the whole pacific ocean, and be around from approx. 300 AD-1850 AD

merijn_v1 said:

Native Americans - IF they are included, it should only be one, absolutely not all. But I think the camp suggestion of a while ago is much better to represent the Natives.
Also, I think it will do the opposite of making colonization more fun. As North America will be filled with Native American cities, you can't even colonize at all! You can only conquer those cities.

Click to expand...

I think colonization would be more fun if it involved fighting native americans. Just putting settlers in the americas is way to easy. Pirates and Native Americans would make it more fun and historically accurate.

More Suggestions
Sumerians - Gilgamesh - Ur
Hittites - Mursilis - Hattusas
Assyrians - Ashurbanipal - Assur
Celts - Brennus - Dublin
Timurids - Tamerlane - Samarkand
Yemen - Al-Hadi-Yahya - Sana'a
Oman - Omani Leader from SoI (I forgot his name) - Muscat
Mapuche -???-???
Venice - Henry Dandolo - Venice
Shoshone - Pocatello - Bannock

Map just ain't big or detailed enough for that many, dude. So what is done instead is that one playable civ in this mod often has to represent multiple civs and cultures of a time period in an abstract manner. Arabia for example has to represent a huge number of states that existed throughout the middle ages, both large and small, because there are limits as to what this game can do. You need a mod like, say, Sword of Islam if you want to see all the little nooks and crannies of a region.

I agree however, with adding a North American First Nation. America (in my opinion) just doesn't feel very fun with the ease there is in rushing to Denver and the other fancy cities, with scarcely any conflict with the Europeans. There was a lot of struggle for centuries for the US to complete its conquest, and it took a lot of blood, and the many nations of North America did not go down without a fight. The whites themselves even admitted a deal of admiration for the cultures they met there, there is a reason the Boston Tea Party wore the costumes they did. One theory as to how Roanoke "disappeared," and there is evidence, is that they quite simply all ran off to live in comfort with the native people more accustomed to the land there. If not for the smallpox, colonization would have been , arguably, next to impossible against the millions of people living in the Americas. The population crash as a result left a ton of road systems behind that made it easier for the Europeans to make their way through the land.

If we are to add at least one North American Nation, two particularly good choices would be either the Lakota, having managed to defeat the US militarily, or the Haundenosaunee, whose democratic society was a significant influence upon the US constitution, and the various member tribes of the confederacy were important players throughout the 1600-1700s, allying with the British or the French or what have you.

Polynesia, while admirable and important, would be difficult to do, they'd consist mostly of single-tile islands, and having so many distinct cultures and states that did not work in unison under blanket terms like "Polynesia" (or "Native America" in the base game) is a little cringe-worthy, though we already have examples of that. But certainly, it'd make for an interesting gameplay.

Most of the civs listed there are just incompatible to DoC. They are great in SoI or some other RFC modmod, but never in DoC. The one exception to that would be Venice.. I've already lobbied for that, though, and I would like an Italy overhaul (which I'm modding at the moment).

But really, Henry Dandolo?

ENRICO DANDOLO, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Bobby Martnen said:

Polynesia

Click to expand...

- I agree that Polynesia looks like a wasteland in DoC now because it always almost completely empty and worthless to settle, but adding Polynesia civ, moreover playable, is just too much.
- Polynesia can be represented enough by adding independents / barbarian Canoe or Naval units with name "Maori galley" or "Tonga trireme" or something like that.
- Add independent Nuku'alofa city that spawn in 1777
- Open up some islands in the Pacific for settler and make it not worthless. Another problem why Pacific is often left empty is because their islands are covered with jungles, which is unsettle-able before Biology that came pretty late in the game.

Bobby Martnen said:

Zulu

Click to expand...

- Wasting turn time.
- Not large enough, not influential enough and do not last long enough.
- Enough by renaming some Impis to Zulu Impis. It is enough to represent the native resistance to colonization.

Bobby Martnen said:

Pirates

Click to expand...

- I don't need to comment on this, imo. It just doesn't make sense for me

Bobby Martnen said:

Native

Click to expand...

- Not unified, which political unities should be represented?
- What if Native American grow uncontrollably and makes European colonization harder and allows no European city by 1775?
- The best for NA is definitely unplayable.

Bobby Martnen said:

Manchuria

Click to expand...

- Leoreth already hinted that Jurchen-like civilization will be added in v1.12
- North Asia is already fine as it is, no need to make it crowded.

Bobby Martnen said:

What do you guys think of these ideas?

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That's my thought

merijn_v1 said:

I like Polynesia, because it's completely different from all other civs.

Click to expand...

civ_king said:

I think Manchuria might be good as a minor civ replacing the Celts. Polynesia could be fun as it has a radically different play style though it might force Leoreth to implement Sea tiles as an intermediary between Coast and Ocean.

Click to expand...

I agree here. Polynesia is interesting because it might bring some unique gameplay, the largest problem is the cities they would leave behind.

Krulltak said:

If we are to add at least one North American Nation, two particularly good choices would be either the Lakota, having managed to defeat the US militarily, or the Haundenosaunee, whose democratic society was a significant influence upon the US constitution, and the various member tribes of the confederacy were important players throughout the 1600-1700s, allying with the British or the French or what have you.

Click to expand...

The Iroquois have been discussed at length and while I agree that they're interesting, I don't think it would work.

Polynesia would be interesting, but I think they would be better represented as Independents. Making their islands "settle-able" and worth conquering would be the best we could do for them. They are not cut out for full fledged Civ status.

Zulus and Pirates however, do not even deserve a city to act as a hub for them IMO. They are fine as random Privateers/Impis, roaming and pillaging your colonial holds. Likewise for Natives, only that IMO from time to time the Americans and European Civs should be able to hire some of them to act as cannon fodder though a "Random Event" Display. Just like the one you get for Congresses. They did that in real life, after all.

Manchuria should be a minor Civ, to halt the Chinese/Koreans from taking over Asia almost immediately. This is important for the 1700AD scenario, as the Mongols are not longer around and China starts united, with no cities held by foreign powers. Korea also gets to grow unhindered, so yeah, Manchuria should be added, at least as a buffer.

The other several guys you've suggested would cut it, I'm sorry. There's not enough space to make them all fit. Just trying to fit the Sumerians, Hittites and Assyrians would make Babylon the most disputed city in all of DoC; while making it virtually impossible to win a UHV as them. Venice should show up, yes, but we have the "Italian" Civ to make up for it. After all, every single Italian City state had their spotlights. (Enrico Dandolo. Calling him Henry will make some Italians really angry. And with good reason.) Yemen and Oman could be at best minor civs too. They did have their own empires, albeit not for long after all.

Finally, Mapuches are fine being represented as Barbarians trying to fight the Incas (and Spaniards) back.