Expansion Civilizations

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to see the following:
- Canada (my home and native land)
- Zulus (bring back Shaka!)
- Babylon (civ just aint the same without Hammy)
- Iroqouis (jonesin for my mounted warriors)
- Scandanavia (BEZERKER!!!)
- Byzantine (her leaderhead in civ3 was sweet)
- and Xerxes as a second Persian leader (too much fun in civ3)
 
Big Bottom said:
I'm new, so I'm glad you made this thread since it was just the thing I was about to search for.

I would love to see American Indians in but they don't really fit in with the other civs in that they didnt conquer anything and they dont build towns. Other than that Vikings would be nice.

The mohawks were psychos who basically butchered all the people around them so they could simultaneously corner the trade market with the french dutch and english. They exterminated several tribes. Now they get casinos.

yay
 
He-Who-Hunts said:
I'm sure the Spanish were good fighters, but the simple fact remains... armies made up of "individual warriors" much like the Spanish tribes, could never beat a tightly nit cohesive body of men much like the roman legion.

This is one of the things that gave the Legions an edge, they're formations were superior to any army prior.

Hannibal was able to manipulate the battlefield time and time again to his troops favor...
On one occasion he lured legion's into a swamp where they lost there tempo, once in chaos he sent in his Spanish infantry where they easily disposed of the formation exposed legions.

Are you telling me that if the Spanish were to meet the romans on equal footing they would win? because they wouldn't, the Romans rock hard battle lines would push them into disarray.

I think Stone Wall Jackson said it best:
"its discipline that wins the day"

and It was Hannibal who beat the Romans...
ANd it was the Romans who beat Hannibal- if you try to hero worship historical personalities, your just going to screw yourself over in being unable to see why the personalities were able to acheive what they did.

No one doubts that Hannibal was a skilled tactician- but your deluding yourself if you think he went intot he second punic war with anything less then the best army in the med sea at the time, comrpised of seasoned and hardend veteran warriors who knew thier buisnuiss, and going agianst mostlly green and inexperienced Roman troops- Hannibal was skilled yet, but it was the Romans from the git go whom were at the disadvatage.
 
I think that the expansion civilization should be:

Iroqouis
Babylons
Korea
Turks
Vikings

I would also love to see the Portuguese (my home country) in civilization because we play a major role in the "Discovery" (it is call that in my country)Age. We were the first european country to go to India, Japan. We had a big empire, but despite that in almost every game in that age except AOE 3 always forget that Portugal was a great country in that time.

For new leaders:

Philip II of Spain
Emperor Octavius Augustus of Rome
Pericles of Greece
Xeres of Persia
Ramses of Egypt
 
All right. Here's my list of nations I really miss from the game, who have never been there or been created just for some campaign (Polish were avaliable in European games in Conquests, but you know that).

1. The Polish - They are a crucial part of history and they fit in with the cultural overhelming style of play. You can very easily remake the situation in the second half of the 18th century and just have the whole Polish Civ swap to your side :D Besides, for some time they were an interesting empire. They should have a special benefit from the Feudalism Civic, because 40 % of them were noble in the 17 century.

2. Livonia- Or Baltic Empire Why should a Tiny, Insignificant, Merchant based ńation be added to this game? Because Livonia is an important (If useless) part of Europe. There have been over 4 wars over the teritory of Livonia, which is more then America. Which I think has 3. Also Livonia was One of the two centers of trade in the medieval ages. And most of the game plays out in the Medieval Ages. Also, if Livonia is too small, Why not create a Civ called the "Hanseatic empire" After all, a seafaring and Merchand civ is quite normal.

3. Czech I think one of Europes great centers of Culture, should always be present. Czech artists were famous even in AMERICA in the 19th century. And Mozart had many opening nights in Prague. Or You could just have...

4. Austria-Hungary Which could also be called Habsburgian empire As it was ruled by only one dynasty. Also, many wars centered around Austria Hungary and the death of its Heir broke loose the Great War! It was also the cultural center of Europe in the 19th century and the end of the 18th century. until the end of the "Belle Epoche" it was one of the finest places to be. And most royal families are in some connexion with their's. Also many a great leader was born here! :D You might now who :satan:

5. Scandinavia - Just because uniting all the same cultures into one big civ is a good idea. They should do the same with the cultures that are in Saudi Arabia and Around there. I mean, the culture is the same, only the national idendity is different. But perhaps without a VIKING as the head. It's supposed to be Civilization not Tribe.

NO GOOD EMPIRES, THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED OR TAKEN OUT:

1. America - Sure, its funny at first, and Americand have foremd their culture by now and are tha main demographic, but hey, thats not reason enough. America in 4000 BC and as a Native American civ is just plain stupid. The way I see it, they could America into a game, but not a scenario, where all the civs are allready developed and it's a colony. Or if you play as England, it could lose some of its cities and they could out of all the options form America OR Canada which is nr 2.

2. Canada - Why add it. It has no point. It's not even a fully independent nation jet, as I have understood or at least has the queen of England as it's official head of state. We don't have people petitioning for an Australia! Instead they petition for a...

3. Byzantinium- now that I think about it, it's almost as good as they added an Hanseatic Leaugue. At least in Civ 3 it had one big Pluss for it. It was the onl nation with a toleable looking leader. Who did not look out anything like Theodora, who probobaly is more like Frida Kahlo anyway.

Leaders That have to Be there! They are Significant:

1. Adolf Hitler - If they ever Dared to add him, it would be a SCANDAL, although, strangely, WW II games haven't caused any. Adolf Hitler was definetly a great Leader. He qonquered ALL of Europe, xept his allies and Engulund. Besides, his story, exept the massmurder and raceism and all that is an inspirational one. It tells us, that a failed Artist Can indeed become the Ruler of a Forgeign nation, who is suffering and wants to blame something.

2. Any Soviet leader for Russia. Preferrably Lenin, and not Stalin. Why not Stalin. Well, Stalin was not really a good leader. He did conqure well, a lot of land, but was relativcely un inteligent. Instead, let's have LENIN. He was a great speaker, was moraly sounder then Mao, who is in all games. And in civ 3 as the only leader for China. And was the least massmurdery then the rest of the great russian leaders. I think:D


I hope no one is offended by my suggestions. They are just suggestions:D
Let's make the game more Europe based. Let's add European cultures.
 
Well I don't know about no babylons or whatever but for the Xpac they should have:

Civilization - Autobots
Leader - Unicron (Organized, Industrious)
Unique Unit - Optimus Prime (replaces Modern Armor)
 
ivanof said:
NO GOOD EMPIRES, THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED OR TAKEN OUT:

.....

3. Byzantinium- now that I think about it, it's almost as good as they added an Hanseatic Leaugue. At least in Civ 3 it had one big Pluss for it. It was the onl nation with a toleable looking leader. Who did not look out anything like Theodora, who probobaly is more like Frida Kahlo anyway.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154077
 
ivanof said:
NO GOOD EMPIRES, THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED OR TAKEN OUT:

1. America - Sure, its funny at first, and Americand have foremd their culture by now and are tha main demographic, but hey, thats not reason enough. America in 4000 BC and as a Native American civ is just plain stupid.
Wait, let me get this straight...you're saying that America should not be in the game because it hasn't been around since 4000 BC? You DO realize that following that logic to its obvious conclusion would only leave something like 3 civs in the game, right?
 
ANd it was the Romans who beat Hannibal

Wrong.

It was Carthage who beat Hannibal, of course it can be traced that Hannibal was in fact defeated in the field but why did he lose? and not just individual battles but the war? It wasn't because of his unchallenged skill, no, it was because of the stupidity of ignorant aristocrats.

Nearly his entire army was bought, and he was deprived of his war funds, he won so many battles with such ease that the Carthaginian government deemed his upkeep to high. So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Hannibal beat Hannibal.

In either case his military integrity cannot be challenged as he is the only man whose army never lost a battle on Roman soil during her rise. that alone is a monumental achievement that ranks among the top in the history of warfare. it is comparable today to an army invading America and not losing a battle, If of course America last a 1000 years.

Also, on personal note, please leave this "hero worship historical personalities" out of the debate... Yes I admire Hannibal, but I also think that his hatred for Rome was to strong and was ultimately what led to his personal demise. If he had suppressed that hate he may have bid himself more time, but of course, anyone who knows anything about Hannibal Barca knows that that could have never happened.

but your deluding yourself if you think he went intot he second punic war with anything less then the best army

Perhaps you don't quite understand why yet, you should read my last post more closely, but the army that Hannibal had was obsolete by Roman standards... it was second rate, and not because of what they were equipped with, or how well armored they were, or even how experienced they were but how they made war.

And not only that but during the war the Romans had a numerical advantage comparable to union advantage over stonewall Jackson in the first valley campaign.

But even with mercenary soldiers who could flee at any moment when their courage left them, even with an army that did not come close to the romans in organization, even with a numerical dissadvantage that dwindled even more after every battle, and even with an unsupportive nation behind him He still never lost.

It there really was a military figure from antiquity deserving of the title "great" it was not Alexander... It was hannible.
 
Hebrews
Babylon
Ethopia
Khmer
Vikings
Bantu (or maybe Zulu)
Turkey (Ottomans)
Native American Tribe (cherokee, or lakota perhaps?)
Mayans
Sumeria
Korea
Carthage
Celts
Dutch

Who else would love to see an aboriginie civ? They could have dudes with boomerangs instead of archers
 
jeepster said:
Why don't we add the "Filipino" people?

I know that the Philippines is now riddled with corruption and has become an unpopular and insignificant country. But if you check world history, we were once a proud and progressive nation long before the Spaniards colonized our country. We were known as brave warriors who repeatedly resisted foreign occupation.

Our leader could be Lapu-Lapu. FYI, he was the one who killed Ferdinand Magellan - in defiance of colonial rule.

Our special unit could be called "Katipunero". They were the ones who revolted against the oppressive Spanish colonial rule with mere machetes or "bolo" in local language. Special qualities would be Industrious and Creative.

Our country was a famous and important trading spot by China, India, all the way across the Pacific to the US. We played a significant role during WWII, by holding the Japanese invasion forces at bay until the bitter end - The Death March. We were the launch pad for the return of General Douglas McArthur in his bid to regain control in Southeast Asia. In most recent events, we gave birth to the concept of "People Power" - a bloodless revolution against a corrupt government.

Our nation is an archipelago, consisting of 7,107 islands. It is the only Roman Catholic country in Southeast Asia. Every foreign power that wished for global domination always sought control of our country because of its strategic location.

We are almost the same number of population with Germany (80+ million), with almost the same literacy rate. I'm sure that millions more will enjoy this game if the "Filipinos" are included.

So instead of adding great civs that we've all been accustomed to, why don't we go further southeast and add a real "global" touch into the game.

hmmm ... sounds interesting, although the presence of india, china and japan already is a representation of that part of the world. i guess it's just that the makers of the game also looks into the cultural contributions of the civs and i guess the "Filipinos" have not made such an impact in this regard.
 
Here is my two pence wirth...

Dutch,
Scotland/Celts,
Vikings,
Australia,
Canada,
Pakistan,
Argentina,
Brazil,
Iran,
Saudia Arabia,

Also I would like to see an expansion in the unique units area; maybe Ciz's could have two units hence expanding the scope as early game units become useless quicker than later game units (advantage at the moment for the Germans and the yanks) while some civs have terrible units (France for example) also something needs to be done about horses as so many units get high advantages against them (a little rough on the Russians), I would also like to see more missiles both shorter range nukes and more conventional ones... and maybe nuclear subs that can carry them too... and why can't we have pirate ships back? they where useful! How about Subs being able to attack other ships with a 1 in 10 chance of being found out?

JA

www.jonny-arundell.blogspot.com
 
He-Who-Hunts said:
Wrong.

It was Carthage who beat Hannibal, of course it can be traced that Hannibal was in fact defeated in the field but why did he lose? and not just individual battles but the war? It wasn't because of his unchallenged skill, no, it was because of the stupidity of ignorant aristocrats.

I do belive that it is you whom are wrong in this matter- the developments of the war and the actual tactics used on the battlefeild have nothing to do with eachother- and for years, the set up around a battle has been used as a scape goat for the poorp performence of an army on the battlefield- however, more often then not, they two have little, if nothing to do with one another- and this is ten times true in the case of Carthage and Hannibals defense of Africa agianst the Roman invasion.

Hannibal could have never won in Italy- even if Carthage had supported him, and the Romans never considered him the megalithic threat that he is depicted after they were able to contain him in southern Italy- to have won, hannibal would have needed artillery engines, artillery that at the time, was only Produced on Sicilly- and the Romans at the time fo the second punic war had the major naval advantage, as well as never lettign the garrison of Sicilly drop below 3 legions the entire war.

That the Romans roundly destroyed what re-inforcements carthage had attempted to deploy only deteriorted Hannibals situation more- the war itself was unwinnable for the carthaginians from the very beginning unless they had regained naval domiance, despite the brilliance of Hannibal.

Though for purposes of this argument, that dosent matter- what dose is that hannibal was defeated by a Roman army at Zama with what was the greatest and most powerful army that carthage had ever had on the feild its entire existence; but that the Roman army under Scipio hardend by fighting in the same guantlet that had trained hannibal -Spain- was able to beat him on the feild of battle.


Nearly his entire army was bought, and he was deprived of his war funds, he won so many battles with such ease that the Carthaginian government deemed his upkeep to high. So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Hannibal beat Hannibal.
actually, this is false- Hannibal never lost a major battle, but suffered horrible attrition rates, because the Romans won the skirmishes. To have stayed in italy on the terms he was in, support from carthage or not would have led to a slow death.

In either case his military integrity cannot be challenged as he is the only man whose army never lost a battle on Roman soil during her rise. that alone is a monumental achievement that ranks among the top in the history of warfare. it is comparable today to an army invading America and not losing a battle, If of course America last a 1000 years.
well, if you want to get desperate about it, just compare him to his Contemprorary (and the man who defeated him) Scipio Africanus- Scipio himself never lost a battle, and seems to have been a geninlly likabl man- for while hannibal burned with hatred, Scipio was busy freeing Spain from Carthaginian control, and winning key allies. Remember, for all your love of hannibal, carthage was reviled by everyone around it.

Perhaps you don't quite understand why yet, you should read my last post more closely, but the army that Hannibal had was obsolete by Roman standards... it was second rate, and not because of what they were equipped with, or how well armored they were, or even how experienced they were but how they made war.

This is absurd in the finest element of it- "how they made war" was no different then how the Romans made war, by using a combination of speciality soldires fit for specifics roles during the campaign- if the "way of war" was obsolete, then every other "way of war" before or since has been as well.

And not only that but during the war the Romans had a numerical advantage comparable to union advantage over stonewall Jackson in the first valley campaign.
Though Unlike old Stonewall, hannibal started out with an army that had been tempered in Spain- somthing you dont seem to understand was hugelly important, as the Spanish- the same people who left the Romans with such an impact that they adopted many of the Spanish styles of warfare- were soem fo the toughest, hardes topponents in all the med sea basin, and wageing a successful war in Spain was going to leave you with a damned quality army

But even with mercenary soldiers who could flee at any moment when their courage left them, even with an army that did not come close to the romans in organization, even with a numerical dissadvantage that dwindled even more after every battle, and even with an unsupportive nation behind him He still never lost.
and where might these mercenaries go then? No thank you, your "fleeing mercenary" idea dosent work well when you hundreds of miles from home in hostile territory- if you were a mercenary before, your part of an army now, in such a case as that.

It there really was a military figure from antiquity deserving of the title "great" it was not Alexander... It was hannible.

if he hadnt lost the most important battle of his life, perhaps that would be true.
 
I'm not the least bit a scholar of history, but I'm surprised I haven't seen the following civ's mentioned:

Hopi
Crete
Thrace
Enuit

Sure, historically, these were all pretty insignificant civilizations, even though two of them continue to survive currently.

I think a special ability of the Enuit would be able to improve ice/tundra squares, and Hopi would be able to improve desert squares.

There's another civilization that continues to exist in somewhat obscurity (so much that I don't even remember their name!) - they live in the mountains between Spain and France, but their identity is neither. (Bath? Bash? something like that - one of you experts can surely help there!)

The question as to why I mention them is all of these civ's were cut down early by natural disasters and/or other civilizations. It would be interesting to explore the possibilities of these cultures in the gaming scenario.

- Sligo
 
sligo said:
There's another civilization that continues to exist in somewhat obscurity (so much that I don't even remember their name!) - they live in the mountains between Spain and France, but their identity is neither. (Bath? Bash? something like that - one of you experts can surely help there!)

- Sligo

Basque is what you're looking for.
 
Canada Should be in the game, cause well im a proud Canuck, and ive always wanted to conquer nations using hordes of Mountiees:D , also the leader unit for Canada would be a big Alchololic Scottsman now how cool is that.

Also for the idea of multiple maps, it would be a pretty big step to add in another world, and youd have to have a pretty godly machine to run another world, so how about in the future nations can begin to colonize the moon? And build space stations?

Anyways the Civs id like to see in the game are:

Canada
Celts (i was very dissapointed they werent in Civ IV)
Israel/Hebrews
Poland
Iroquois
Apachi
Vikings
Korea
the Dutch
Australia (cause if Canada is in there.....)
Carthage
Ethopia

However we'll see what the Developers end up doing.
 
I’m a proud Canadian too, but I don’t think Canada should be in the game.

Canada is not really a “civilization” but more of a potpourri of immigrants and cultures (which makes us the wonderful and unique country we are). The land was settled by French and British explorers, and later on other European settlers. Today Canada’s population includes people from almost every country of the world. Keep in mind that Canada is an ex-British colony, and is still quite young, turning 139 this year.
The population is made up mostly (something like 98% of the population I think) of people who can trace their roots off of the continent. The only true North American civilizations are the Native Americans, who aren’t in Civ4, and should be added.

In my opinion, the same goes for America. They use to be a British colony as well, but they declared independence and fought a war for it, winning. America is not a “civilization”, but a modern nation forged out of British settlers who decided that they wanted to be independent. But American is such a superpower now that it’s hard to deny that they should be in the game.
 
Artanis said:
you're saying that America should not be in the game because it hasn't been around since 4000 BC? You DO realize that following that logic to its obvious conclusion would only leave something like 3 civs in the game, right?

One joy of Civ 4 is pitting modern civs against ancient civs. America V. Rome... this doesn't need to be a big history lesson. It's fun to be Rome in the modern eara. Romans with tanks, I like it! Or, Romans with Nukes. Or, Babylonians with nukes... oh my, call the security council! :nuke:
 
Macezek said:
America is not a “civilization”, but a modern nation forged out of British settlers who decided that they wanted to be independent. But American is such a superpower now that it’s hard to deny that they should be in the game.

It is not our superpower status that should keep America in the game; it's our mighty culture. Who gave you Elvis? J. Cash? Light bulbs? Disneyland? Vegas? The Rose Parade? Bill Gates? Star Wars?

All that, thanks to America, and all we get noted for is our super power status? Oh well, we'll take it. . . :D
 
warroom said:
Who gave you Elvis? J. Cash? Light bulbs? Disneyland? Vegas? The Rose Parade? :D

I get your point but not sure I agree with all of your examples. Johnny Cash is indeed famous.... but in America, I'm not sure how much of an international appeal he has or had. For example, being a Northeasterner myself, I've barely heard his music and I can't imagine Europe or Asia being more exposed to a an American country/folk singer than I am.

Ditto even more with the Rose Parade. I doubt too many Americans are even aware of it, much less people outside it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom