Korea and Ancient Wonders DLC Video!

sorry. i guess that is true. but then we also get problems of extreme similarities with Babylon, and that they occupy the some area on world maps (a map of mesopotamia on large or huge would be the only way to show both of them without very close borders). But, if you would really want a Sumerian civilization, a Ziggurat would be a cool replacement for the Monument (same time period) and The UA could be food related (invented irrigation)
 
sorry. i guess that is true. but then we also get problems of extreme similarities with Babylon, and that they occupy the some area on world maps (a map of mesopotamia on large or huge would be the only way to show both of them without very close borders). But, if you would really want a Sumerian civilization, a Ziggurat would be a cool replacement for the Monument (same time period) and The UA could be food related (invented irrigation)

I agree with that.
Sumerians and Babylonians had a similar culture in the same area.
 
Correction -- Aztecs were a conglomerate of city states that re-claimed Maya Temples as their own but never could grasp their Codex written scientific knowledge and other social structures such as HUGELY sustainable agriculture that spread as far north as with the Pueblo isolation experiment or south for the earliest traces of an Inca tribe.

Deducted from historical truth that spans centuries in Yucatan.

Considering you started your post with the word "correction" it might have been helpful to correct me rather than say an essentially unrelated point. The Mayans were never unified as a single political entity, agree or disagree?

As for Sumeria, I like them. I think they had an important, lasting culture. I think their influence stretched on for centuries after their demise. I think they are uniquely fascinating and can be rightly pointed to arguably as the first civilization.

That being said, I think a good case can be made for them being redundant in this game. They don't really fit into any useful niche. Geographically and culturally, they're similar to Babylon. In fact, I'd argue Babylon's scientific ability steals quite a lot from Sumeria. Their UU is in the middle of a logjam of units. Their best chance of being included was right now. After this point, they've lost the scenario that should accompany them and I don't see a way to have them. Since I'd prefer to include Civs with as much diversity as possible (in play style primarily, but also geographically and never before seen Civs), I'm OK with dropping Sumeria. They're an excellent candidate for a modded Civ. Since I don't expect anyone to track down a Sumerian speaker, sound files won't be expected as much.
 
That nerdy kid and Louis have it pretty much right. I would very much like to see Sumerians in the game, more so probably than Babylon. However I don't think there's room for both right now, especially considering the Middle East region already has a wealth of civs: Arabia, Ottomans, Persians, Babylon and Egypt (kinda).

It's true that Civ IV had both, and handled it well enough, but it also had "Holy Rome" and Germany. On the latter point I am pretty much certain the HRE will never be in Civ V since Germany has (rightfully, in my view) appropriated it's UU, the Landsknecht.
 
Yeah, the Holy Roman Empire is almost certainly not to be included.

I think plenty of fun Civs I'd like to see can fall in the category of nice to have, but take secondary priority. Sumeria falls in this category. Another Civ I'd like to see, Byzantium, might also be on the list. I'd argue (more controversially, since it's a currently existing country and I'll provoke some ire) that Portugal does as well (commercial, european, seafaring, exploring civ doesn't distinguish itself neatly from Spain and England).

Don't get me wrong. I don't think geography is the be all end all. I do think, however, that they should take the opportunity to add Civs that have never been added before as well as Civs that will play differently from currently existing civs.
 
But then, it's not Sumeria's "fault" that they dwelled at a true cradle of mankind. Why shouldn't they be in CiV, only because of their neighborhood to Babylon?
Maybe they had similar culture (to be honest, I simply don't know for sure). On the other hand: who cares - in the game? They can be as different as the designers decide!

As that nerdy kid proposed: I really would love to see a ziggurat in CiV (even more as there is no monument replacement right now) and the food bonus (but not necessarily by a building; we have this already) sounds good for me, too.
 
Oh no, in the same area, better get the Iroquois out then!
 
Oh no, in the same area, better get the Iroquois out then!

It's not about that, so much as diversity in culture and playstyle, that I care about. I'd sooner see a Zulu, Majapahit or a Mayan civ than a Sumerian or a Hittite.
 
But then, it's not Sumeria's "fault" that they dwelled at a true cradle of mankind. Why shouldn't they be in CiV, only because of their neighborhood to Babylon?

No one is holding it against Sumeria and Sumeria isn't upset by it. Discussion of fault is misplaced. The question is what makes the best product.

Maybe they had similar culture (to be honest, I simply don't know for sure). On the other hand: who cares - in the game? They can be as different as the designers decide!

As that nerdy kid proposed: I really would love to see a ziggurat in CiV (even more as there is no monument replacement right now) and the food bonus (but not necessarily by a building; we have this already) sounds good for me, too.

Ziggurat seems much better suited as a temple replacement. If anything, the best option for a monument replacement would go to Ethiopia with a Stele. I could see a food bonus (maybe irrigated tiles produce one extra food by rivers starting at the beginning of the game). The UU is a bit tricky, though.

It's workable. I think when it comes to maximum diversity, Firaxis may, if they think there is a better option, prioritize that other option. It isn't saying "screw Sumeria," it's saying "wouldn't it be fun if we included this civ."
 
It's not about that, so much as diversity in culture and playstyle, that I care about. I'd sooner see a Zulu, Majapahit or a Mayan civ than a Sumerian or a Hittite.

More diversity? Its a good thing in the game and as it stands there is currently quite a bit. That "what if?" factor is one of the best parts of the game and the series, but in this case I have no idea what people are thinking.

The idea that Sumeria and the like could be anything but highly recommended is just ridiculous. They are the archetype civilization for the game. Having the likes of the Iroquois in the game is good for diversity, but the idea of adding more American groups is beyond the realms of silly. That point is a bit off topic here though as the Majapahit and the Maya are definitely not within that category. Maybe the Zulu could be in that category however, they however are an entirely new beast however to just adding another native American civ and would actually give some diversity.
 
I would rather Majapahit over Sumeria. But I'd rather Sumeria over Zulu. I don't think Zulu are a strong candidate. They offer geographic diversity, but the way they are portrayed in game is not a strong argument for them as a Civilization with lasting accomplishments. Majapahit is a good example of something I'd like (or, more simply, calling them Indonesia). They've never been included before, they had great accomplishments, and they might be fun.

I agree Sumeria is a prototypical civilization, but so is Babylon. We have other prototypical Civilizations - I think too many to include them all.
 
The Mayans were never unified as a single political entity, agree or disagree?

Disagree... they didn't need to be unified when taken into the context of a highly complex "Empire" driven control of a specific region within central America -- isolated enough from others to be considered as unique as any European countries (Spain Inquisition included) that conquered them about 3500+ (That's Egypt Pharaonic dynasties time referencing, right there!) years after a clear and effective social (but pacifist) presence in the area.

Civilization status isn't necessarily a political criteria - only.
 
So you agree. I never said they needed to be unified, in fact, I'm arguing that they don't. The response I was making was to someone who discounted Sumeria because they weren't unified. I said the same is true for the Mayans. My point was that political unification is not a criteria for a civilization. Stop saying you disagree just because you perceived an agenda in my post that wasn't there.
 
True, i sometimes interpret wording (or phrasing) differently than anyone's intent of precision, sort of. It's just that between Aztec, Inca and Maya "historical significance" recollected from conquest... the third has solid facts that pre-dates the other two. Thus, making it a more likely candidate for a proper Civilization status in general if we are to admit Mediterranean (for example) situations & epoch to define some set of principles or criterias.
We've been through this kind of argumentation before, you and i!

Led Zeppelin would sing -Communication Breakdown.
So it's quite alright, buddy. :D
 
Ziggurat seems much better suited as a temple replacement. If anything, the best option for a monument replacement would go to Ethiopia with a Stele. I could see a food bonus (maybe irrigated tiles produce one extra food by rivers starting at the beginning of the game). The UU is a bit tricky, though.

It's workable. I think when it comes to maximum diversity, Firaxis may, if they think there is a better option, prioritize that other option. It isn't saying "screw Sumeria," it's saying "wouldn't it be fun if we included this civ."

I don't know, given the released crop of DLC civilizations they appear to be working under the assumption that players really love archipelago maps and can't get enough of the exciting naval game...

Regards with UAs etc. they'll just make up whatever they think will best fit peoples' preconceptions of the civilization in question, or just make something up whole cloth. Trying to replicate historical behaviours or achievements doesn't seem a very high priority, or else they would've seen the silliness of making Babylon a super-wide empire of 4-pop zero-growth scientists farms covering an entire continent...

"Historically" Babylon should be the tallest, tallest, tallest civilization of all; every game should play like a OCC-game. Give them the ability to build an unlimited number of National Wonders in their capital or whatever. Sumer can have the current Babby-boni. They are separated by 1500-2000 years depending on your definitions. They didn't have all that much in common apart from both living in Mesopotamia, and the similarities stemming from cultural continuity are hardly more damning than those from Greece and Rome to Spain, France, England and the rest of the European civilizations...
 
Babylon was known for scientific achievement (especially the Chaldeans). Therefore, they felt a scientific UA made sense. The implementation itself is something to quibble with, but that doesn't mean Firaxis' approach isn't how I described it.

They aren't going to change Babylon's ability and give it to a different Civ.

Continuity of culture and geography are the connections. Yeah, there are differences. I think they are fascinating differences. I also think there are greater differences between Babylon and Ethiopia than Babylon and Sumeria. Therefore, I think it's logical to give priority to other Civs in this context.
 
Babylon was known for scientific achievement (especially the Chaldeans). Therefore, they felt a scientific UA made sense. The implementation itself is something to quibble with, but that doesn't mean Firaxis' approach isn't how I described it.

They aren't going to change Babylon's ability and give it to a different Civ.

Continuity of culture and geography are the connections. Yeah, there are differences. I think they are fascinating differences. I also think there are greater differences between Babylon and Ethiopia than Babylon and Sumeria. Therefore, I think it's logical to give priority to other Civs in this context.

Babylon was famous for science, mathematics and astronomy, but they are not famous for their widespread empire. Babylon was always above all the city of Babylon with environs and vassals, which would translate to a very tall Civilization strategy. Their UA, on the other hand, directly favours a very wide strategy to maximize GS production, which goes directly against how Babylon "should" play. Something closer to the UA Korea is looking to get would have been far better, encouraging turtling with Walls of Babylon rather than ICS (IGSS?).

Obviously they aren't going to change UAs around because I say so, but they're not going to anything just because we suggest it here, so what difference does it make?

I'd say Sumer and Babylon are more different than England and France, but...

Anyway, if I were to design a Sumerian civilisation I think it could be interesting to give them a fairly substantial boost right out of the gate, like free Social Policies, with little or nothing for the rest of the game... Could make for an interesting contrast and would be hell to balance, but it could give them a unique flavour as the earliest civilised civilisation having to play catch up with all the barbarian "newcomers"...
 
This is exactly how I feel about all this. I'll spend less than 10 bucks on two DLCs. Now, just these two alone I'll probably spend half the weekend with, and if I actually like the civ, there's no telling how many hours I'll get out of it. Very little money well spent it seems to me.

Now then, the NFL Texans play a preseason game this weekend, and I'll spend more than ten bucks on beer and food just to watch the game in my apartment, and then it's over with. And I'll probably be pissed off about it to boot.

Based on that, I'd say that Civ V is more of a bargain than the NFL. Most especially if you're a Texans fan. :lol:

Or a Browns Fan...
 
Folks,

I have read through many of the posts in this thread and would like to ask a question or two---

If it is so important to have xyz civilizaition, isn't it possible to copy the files for a 'similar' Civ and just rename it? You can rename cities in game so am I missing something or is it really too difficult to do? Im not really interested in modding but I followed that great tutorial on creating another civ - Bouda and the Celts and if I really had it in my mind that I wanted to create one, that I could.

But really, I wanted to make an obeservation about all the back and forth about what civilizations are more 'worthy' to be added.

When you include the AMERICANS (I am one by the way) next to the ancient civs of egypt, rome, greece and etc. you are already living in a fantasy world.

Civilizations are no more than a particular set of programmed traits, UA's UB's UU's etc. dressed up with some historical context (at least in the sense that it is contextual for the actual time period a Civ came onto the world stage) and a nice voice file for the leader to add a little immersive element.

They are little more than 'place-holders' for players to interract with. It is an interesting element meant to draw the player in, but we aren't playing these Civs, we are constructing our OWN Civs based on skill level, kind of victory we are playing for, and maximizing the use of our uniques.
 
Top Bottom