Expansion Civilizations

we have this discussion a million times before, troytheface- the Byzantine empire is not a "knowckoff" of the Roman empire, and under no circumstances can it ever be considered to be- during the last decades of the empire itself the title had becoem so meaningless that the Byzantine monarch actually sold off the right to use "Roman emperor" to the King of France, though he never chose to use it.

and if you call "holding out" for nearlly 1000 years- with HUGE military achievments made in that time :nothing" then, once again, oike so many times in the past, i will just have to direct you to actually read a history book, and stop trying to offer your skiewed opinions with a firm lack of evidence to back them up.

Besides that the Byzantines were probably all that kept all of Europe from being Muslim nowadays.

Ulyaoth said:

I want te game to last a bit into the future maybe, so we can have technology similar to the start of Alpha Centauri, building ocean cities and such.

Click to expand...

I agree. We want the game to last longer because it's a good game. However, it mirrors our world so closely, it would be fun to move beyond the history books. Cut the movies down and give us more game play.

While I lack a long list, maybe with it being shorter the odds are greater for me to be 100% satisfied...

Babylonian - if for no other reason than I played them so much in Civ3
Vikings - For when you want an aquatic invasion, gotta go with the horned helms!
Zulus - Another one for nostalgia, and an impressive military civ that should have been in over a second Mongol leader.

and now, the slightly controversial ones...
Canada - Yeah, they haven't gone and invaded anyone, or been a major force militarily. But yet, why NOT have another "peaceful" civ in the game? I would think that one doesn't get to be so big, geographically and economically, without having some bearing on the world at large. That, and Gandhi players need a backup choice if someone else is already playing their guy in a game.
Polynesian - <shrugs> What can I say, I read 'Kon Tiki' at an impressionable age... perhaps one of the greatest exploring 'civs' there is, fanning out across the Pacific ocean.

Laurence72
Round 4: Eat brains.

Xen said:

the Byzantine empire is not a "knowckoff" of the Roman empire

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, The Byzantines were certainly an empire in their own right. After all, Justinian did conquer most of the Mediterranean area.

I agree with all the previous Civs mentioned for inclusion but would also like to add in a Southeast Asian Civ; the continent that is home to more than half of us (Asia) should warrant a couple more civilizations. Thailand and Vietnam should be considered. Particularly Vietnam has had a significant impact in modern history and has quite a large population size.

This may surprise a few in here, but Vietnam is actually 13th in the world in population with over 83 million; this makes it larger than Germany and every other European country (not including Russia) And no, I'm not a Vietnamese nationalist pumping my own country, would just like to see a SE Asian Civ represented. Thailand would be fine in my book as well.

The Q-Meister said:

I agree with all the previous Civs mentioned for inclusion but would also like to add in a Southeast Asian Civ; the continent that is home to more than half of us (Asia) should warrant a couple more civilizations. Thailand and Vietnam should be considered. Particularly Vietnam has had a significant impact in modern history and has quite a large population size.

This may surprise a few in here, but Vietnam is actually 13th in the world in population with over 83 million; this makes it larger than Germany and every other European country (not including Russia) And no, I'm not a Vietnamese nationalist pumping my own country, would just like to see a SE Asian Civ represented. Thailand would be fine in my book as well.

Click to expand...

Let's settle for Siam, then. I would greatly approve that civilization!!!

Dennis_Moore said:

I agree with you 100%, The Byzantines were certainly an empire in their own right. After all, Justinian did conquer most of the Mediterranean area.

Click to expand...

Not mention his legal reforms, which lay the foundation for over a millenium of European legal tradition. Anyone who thinks the Byzantine were just a cheap knockoff of the Romans owe it to themselves to read some history.
Justinian > Theodora

I still think there are more deserving civilizations that need to be added first, though.

Laurence72 said:

Vikings - For when you want an aquatic invasion, gotta go with the horned helms!

Click to expand...

No horned helmets, thank you. That was a celtic tradition. Vikings _never_ wore hornet helmets because they are a liability in combat (a blow can more easily glance of a smooth helmet).

Carewolf said:

No horned helmets, thank you. That was a celtic tradition. Vikings _never_ wore hornet helmets because they are a liability in combat (a blow can more easily glance of a smooth helmet).

Click to expand...

True, but the modern day Scandinavians often wear horned plastic helmets at sports events, though

The Q-Meister said:

I agree with all the previous Civs mentioned for inclusion but would also like to add in a Southeast Asian Civ.

Click to expand...

I agree that a SE Asian Civ should be included, but in my opinion the Khmer is the best choice, especially since the the Angkor Wat is already a world wonder present in the game.

warroom said:

The Hebrews would be an awesome Civ for so many reasons!

1. They were warriors. Not afraid to stomp other civs and obliterate them... and, you feel good doing it!

2. They were religious.

3. There are endless great leaders.

4. They were builders:

5. They have the strange ability to assimilate into other cultures

6. They were gifted at trading resourses.

Click to expand...

This same things can be for just about every civilization.
1) Every civ had to be great warriors in order to survive
2) Religion played a big part in every civilization, even today
3) Again as in 1), great leaders needed to lead the civ against its enemies
4) Every civilizaiton has architectural wonders, big or small
5) Look at the US or Canada, how many civs have assimilated into their culture
6) Can be said about just about every major civilization

I would also like to see more "civil war" type events such as cities breaking away and forming independant civs. Also I think El Cid would make an awesome Spanish leader

A Civ Expansion needs to be balanced. So I would say...

(Definitely Include These)
Babylonians (Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar)
Ottoman Turks (Suleiman or Osman)
Mayans (Smoke Jaguar or Pacal)
Koreans (Wang Kon)
Another African Civ ... Ethiopia, Bantu, etc.


(Maybe Include Some of These)
Assyrians (Assurbanipal or Sennacherib)
Vikings (Ragnar Lodbrok or Knut)
Celts (Vercingetorix or Boudicca)
Tibet
Siam
Khmer
Carthage/Phoenicia
Portugal or Netherlands

I'd really like to see Israel make it into the game, though I don't know how likely that is with the political ramifications.

To me, Civ4 has really just felt the loss of the Babylonians. That seems to me to be the only truly glaring hole in hte Civ List. So as long as Babylon comes in, I'll be satisfied.

after reading all the posts, i gotta say that any new civ's in the game should include a combination of old favourites (how could i forget the zulus??) and some new ones. i definitely think that se asia and africa should be represented, as well as at least one each a a north and south american native civ (or maybe even some 'composite' civ to represent the diverse n and s american first nations).

and for all my fellow canucks out there (there so many more than i thought there were on these boards), definitely Canada. a nice, peaceful civ, excellent use of natural resources, very accommodating; our home and native land would make an excellent addition to the game.

Am I the only one that thinks the America civ is kinda misplaced in the game?
Hopefully, most people know that the United States was founded somewhat later than 4000 BC =)

Must haves


Sumer: A long lasting, truly ancient civ, invented the wheel

Babylon or Assyria: we can't include three civs from the same region, but one of these definitely should be included in addition to Sumer. This is the area (in addition to Indus, Egypt, and China) where civilization was born.

Carthage/Phoenecians: again an ancient and truly important civ. could be considered an african civ because of Carthage

Turks or Ottomans: a must have, long history with impact, big empire


These all have a long history and were one of the most influential/powerful civilizations of their times.

Others that deserve consideration:

Moors as an african civilization with IMO more impact than for example the Zulu

Ethiopia for similar reasons

Khmer: longish history and Angor wat

Vietnamese, Thai, Koreans
Maybe one of these for geographic balance, though I don't think think they necessarily had enough impact to be included

Celts and Vikings/Scandinavians because they are just so fun to play.

Mycenaean or Minoan civs could also be considered at least in preference to those mentioned below.


Now for those that IMO don't "deserve" to be included

Canada: A recent country and not even one of the most influential ones in modern times. I think civ already puts too much emphasis on modern times
and european based civilizations (Sumer isn't included but Spain is).
Besides it's a separate country and not a separate civilization from USA or Britain.

Australia for similar reasons.

Israel/Hebrew: As a people they have had a huge impact on other civilizations starting with rome. Judaism as a religion already represents this impact in the game and is included when for example sikhism with more adherents is not. But they have never had a lasting empire and have ruled only over a very small area for limited periods of time. The truly remarkable aspect in the people is that they have survived as a small and often persecuted diaspora for a very long time, it is not their success in empire building.

Dutch: too short history, too little impact, too modern and too european

I would sooner drop Spanish and French and maybe even the English than add any other relatively recent european civilizations. The history of civilization is about 6000-8000 years and western Rome fell only 1500 yrs ago.

Byzantine: They called themselves romans, not byzantines. Rome is already included.

Polynesians and other civilizations with little or no impact shouldn't even be considered. Parthians are more fun.

Be careful with the Byzantines. If you do not think they should be
included you may have people suggest you read a history book. (Of course they are assuming that you have not or are incapable of making such a desicion if you had- lol, ... know-it-alls...they tend to get uptight and really worked up if anyone does not agree with their self professed "expertise".
I would make a counter suggestion to such types...learn to spell- it
makes the arguement for academic rigor more convincing....

troytheface said:

Be careful with the Byzantines. If you do not think they should be
included you may have people suggest you read a history book. (Of course they are assuming that you have not or are incapable of making such a desicion if you had- lol, ... know-it-alls...they tend to get uptight and really worked up if anyone does not agree with their self professed "expertise".
I would make a counter suggestion to such types...learn to spell- it
makes the arguement for academic rigor more convincing....

Click to expand...

I find this ironic, as its your the one whom is trying to dicate to me that the Byzantines are just some Roman knock-off, when all i said is that i wanted the Byzantines, whom I might remind you, we ahve already had numerous deabtes over, and in which I have always come out on top because the evidence is conclusive that the Byzantines were a unique, and important factor during thier era.

Yet, despite this, you wish to try to deface the value of what I say with soem mockery of my typing abilities, and trying to discredit me without an actual argument on the merits of your claim, trying to apint me and some "knowledge tyrant" in light o fme voicing my opinion that the Byzantines shoudl be included, and my counter to your assertion that the Byzantined were not infact a unique and important entity.

rather, it seems that your "know it all" assertion is better fit for you- not me.

Never mentioned a name. Never told anyone what they should or should not believe. Stated an opinion.
Let me reread ....darn, i did not dictate anything to anyone that i can see...hmm- i do however see "read a history book"
That is kinda dictating and a bit of a dis ...unfortunately i did not write it.

considering your posts were in response to mine, one sees that they were directed to me; posts, liek spoken language, have to be taken in the context they were brought fourth in, and in such a case, one sees your efforts to discredit me- rather then building up to soem sort of troll fest, we can ver easilyl handle this in a proper debate on the merits of Byzantien civilization, and how they were a unique cultural entity from the former Roman empire, a unique political entity from the former Roman empire, and, of course a very important enetity curiing thier existence in history, even in thier reduced state offering the real buffer europe had from the Arabs and turks.