Expansion Civilizations

people seem to mix up "civilizations" with nomadic peoples

its a bit hard to but a group of people - say aboriginal Australians when they didn't actually have any towns/citys - unless they make it that you don't need to build cities ?

Native New Zealanders had towns ? special unit would be there warriors would be twice the size of any other civ

otherwise a slavik group would be good - serbia/croatia

ShimbexProvides said:

How about releasing the official expansion pack with the classic civs from previous editions (Zulu, Babylon, Netherlands, Portugal, etc.), and then for the "market-based" civs (Canada, Australia, etc.) have a place on the website where they can be downloaded for a small fee? That way the hardcore gamers get their old favorites, but the company still addresses (and profits from) market forces.

Click to expand...

One of the best suggestions so far!

GoldEagle said:

I disagree with your statement about the Israelites/Hebrews. They should have been added in Warlords; I think the Canadians would be good for a second expansion pack.

Click to expand...

If you read what I said it was posted by some other dweeb and I was trying to argue with him. Thats befor I knew ho to quote what other people said

wongasta said:

only important civs should be in...

i dont want see crap like tibet, taiwan, isreal, or canada, they're not civs, they're just... there.

Ottoman
Mugal
Korea
Vietnam
Zulu
Songhay or Ghana
Zulu
Dutch
Maya or Olmec
sumerians, or mesptomians
aryans

Click to expand...

This is the racist stupid dweep that said that,not me, I am not stupid enought to say something like that, I live in Canada. His mom just phoned me and she wanted her dick back.

I think there should be a gay civ - we'd call them either Spartans or USC, and Abraham Lincoln would be the leader. Then we'd finally get to play a civ that was Creative/Organized.

lol, yes indeed. Thebes -the greek one- would also work ....it could have the "Sacred Band" for a uu. )
Better yet , the island of Lesbos (Amazon UU replaces - "spearman").
U get a Priestess instead of a priest and can choose from a variety of colors and style of clothing for your civ.
"...a civ that was Creative/Organized" lol.

troytheface said:

U get a Priestess instead of a priest and can choose from a variety of colors and style of clothing for your civ.
"...a civ that was Creative/Organized" lol.

Click to expand...

More likely scruffy jeans and comfortable shoes

I must say, adding Canada would be really strange, since it is so young.

US is allready strange to have as an civ when it has only been around for 200 years, but since it had such an impact in the last 100 years, that kinda compensates.

When I go to pick a Civ, it only shows the eyes and mouth on the main screen. This isn't supposed to happen is it?

ShimbexProvides said:

How about releasing the official expansion pack with the classic civs from previous editions (Zulu, Babylon, Netherlands, Portugal, etc.)

Click to expand...

I miss the Dutch myself. The seafaring trait was hard to make work, and I guess they had to cut it out, so that was it for them and Portugal.

elderotter said:

about the celtic names - first of all Dublin was foun ded by the Dames.

Click to expand...

Surely you mean 'Danes'. Anyway, to clarify, those particular 'Danes' were Norwegian Vikings, not Dansih Vikings. Though it is true that the terms 'Dane', 'Northman' and 'Viking' were used interchangeably (though 'Viking' was only used in Britain).

I must say, adding Canada would be really strange, since it is so young

Click to expand...

I agree, I would never want to see Canada in any Civ game. The only time I would accept Canada in any Civ game is if there were a senario that allowed for them. World Wars 1 and 2, Korean War, war of 1812(Technically pre-Canada but still part of our/MY country's history)

As for other nations and leaders.

Definitely:
Celts(Includes both Scotish and Irish)
Norse(Vikings)
Babylonia(You just can't do without)
Ottomans(Would certainly Make nice addition)
Zulu
Vietnam

Possibily:
Sioux
Huronion
Iroquois
Mayan

Now I will admit that there are more that need to be added to BOTH of these lists. This is simply my condensed version.

The possibly list is simply because I believe that those nations should have some home in Civ. Each of those nations played an important role in forming North America. Especially the Huron and the Iroquois durring the hundred years war until the Huron nearly died off completely due to plagues and pox.

As for leaders I was sorry when I saw selection for some nations. They left out some extremely important leaders for many nations.

Russia: Stalin
England: Richard the 3rd(Richard the Lionheart), Winston Churchill
France: Joan of Arc(She Led armies and deserves to be here as much as many others)
United States: Eisenhower, Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, maybe even Kennedy
Rome: Constantine, Augustus

And again there are many more still. But Those are again the ones that I know should have been there, and were left out.

The are some ways that more civs can be introduced, that is to provide senarios where those civs took part. Example, North America Pre-European and just a little after thier arrival say until 1750. That gives an opportunity to have many native american tribes with out having actual civs.

I happen to be someone who likes playing senarios rather than other people, dunno why I'm just that way. And so as far as senarios go:

*Americas Pre-European(Explained a little above)
*100 Years war(It war probably first TRUE world war in that there was fighting on EVERY continent)
- The specific location is not as important as the stroy behind it
(Being from Canada I am really only aware of 100 years war with relation to french Canada)
*World War 1 & 2
- This gives great flexibility, can be fought in Europe, (Already African Campaign), Japan/Pacific, South East Asia, Russia(Near and around Stalingrad)
- Roman Expansion (It's been done but why not go with a good thing)

I think that is everything that I thought up in terms of additions. It is far from having ALL nations that deserve to be in the game but these are all of them the I want to see in the game. (Wouldn't mind seeing more though)

France: Joan of Arc(She Led armies and deserves to be here as much as many others)

Click to expand...

I completely disagree...leading armies does not make you a leader. Being a leader and leading armies makes you a leader...or just being a leader makes you a leader.

She can be a great general...but not a leader.

warham40k said:

*100 Years war(It war probably first TRUE world war in that there was fighting on EVERY continent)

Click to expand...

Uh? I thought the 100 years war was a name for the various wars between france and england over the 12 and 13 hundreds? What do you mean by it?

i vote for the swiss.

The possibly list is simply because I believe that those nations should have some home in Civ. Each of those nations played an important role in forming North America. Especially the Huron and the Iroquois durring the hundred years war until the Huron nearly died off completely due to plagues and pox.




The are some ways that more civs can be introduced, that is to provide senarios where those civs took part. Example, North America Pre-European and just a little after thier arrival say until 1750. That gives an opportunity to have many native american tribes with out having actual civs.


*100 Years war(It war probably first TRUE world war in that there was fighting on EVERY continent)
- The specific location is not as important as the stroy behind it
(Being from Canada I am really only aware of 100 years war with relation to french Canada)
-
uhhh mr jay leno I realy want to be on your show, you Know where you like,ask people all those smart questions
we really need to add an IQ test for the forum sign up

I think he meant the war of 1812

warham40k said:

*100 Years war(It war probably first TRUE world war in that there was fighting on EVERY continent)
- The specific location is not as important as the stroy behind it
(Being from Canada I am really only aware of 100 years war with relation to french Canada)

Click to expand...

In that it happened a century before Cartier's first voyage? I think you meant the Seven Years' War.

Switzerland have done about as much to deserve inclusion as the Yorkshire cricket team.

Uh? I thought the 100 years war was a name for the various wars between france and england over the 12 and 13 hundreds? What do you mean by it?

Click to expand...

Yeah sorry. I mixed it up, I meant the seven years war(Sorry, much bigger difference), or the French and Indian war(refers to the portion of the war fought in North America). Sorry about the confusion guys. I got really mixed up when I was writting that earlier.

Thanks CrazyMrLeo for pointing out my blunder. (I really do hate it when I fudge up information, especially when it has to do with history)

The war of 1812 would certainly be another way to incorperate Canada into the game a bit, but there were many more significant wars in history.

Xineoph, let me ask you, was Gandhi a ruler/leader of india? I know he was a spiritual leader, but I'm not too clear on whether he actually led india.

If he didn't then why not have Joan of Arc under the same thought. She was a great military leader. Or if you aren't happy with her then add Charles VII as he was the King of France at the time of Joan of Arc.


Another thing that could be done(This really should be added to my ideas earlier) is that they could make multiple expansion packs (I'm not talking just 1 or 2 like have been suggested earlier in the forum.) back more a matter of expansions by continent. An expansion pack that has only new nations, leaders, and campaigns from North America, Asia, Europe, or Africa.

Just another thought to what I said earlier. And again I appologize for the mix up that I caused. I really do hate that I mixed up that simple little name of the war.

warham40k said:

Xineoph, let me ask you, was Gandhi a ruler/leader of india? I know he was a spiritual leader, but I'm not too clear on whether he actually led india.

Click to expand...

If he didn't then why not have Joan of Arc under the same thought. She was a great military leader. Or if you aren't happy with her then add Charles VII as he was the King of France at the time of Joan of Arc.[/quote]
Well, partly it's based on what people've heard of- most people don't really know much about Indian history, so Ghandi is really the only Inidian ruler they've ever heard of. I think you were right about him being a leader- Wikipeid ahas no mention of him holding office- so he does seem out of place. I already thought that, though, because a 20th century leader of a peaceful resistance campaign seems a little different than, say, Ghenghis Khan or Alexander the Great.