Expansion Civilizations

titanium said:

hmmm ... sounds interesting, although the presence of india, china and japan already is a representation of that part of the world.

Click to expand...

Wow 3 countries for a continent, Asia, that is home to more than half of the world's population and an ancient, highly influential culture that has lasted for thousands of years. There is a reason after all that 4 of the 7 religions in Civ 4 originated in Asia.

Saying 3 countries represent such a huge, both phyiscally, and also influentially and culturally, part of the world like Asia is a little like saying "The UK, Rome, and France are enough for Europe." If people can come here and seriously discuss countries like Canada, the Netherlands, the Byzantines, and Ireland being included then certainly there is room for more than 3 East Asian civilizations. As a non-Asian person myself, it borders on ignorance and arrogance to state otherwise.

My favorites are:
Vikings
Carthage
Ethiopia
Korea
Iroqouis

and I would love it to see an aboriginal civ

Civs i would like to see.

Celts
Indonesia
Native Americans...perhaps several...archers/tomahawks
Australian aboriginal...Koori...boomerang/nula nula spears
Phonecians...Navy...they landed in australia
Norse...some sort of alternate germanic...vikings perhaps
Polynesians...navy...happiness
Eskimoes...good tundra ice productivity
Zulu...spears
Ethiopians
Korea
Poland
Summerians
Tibet
Philopeno
Another Baltic/slavic civ
Hebrew
Vietnamese
Thai
Siam

And while on topic of expansions...here is an idea i think worthy of note...

how about being able to plant/farm agricultural rescoures...eg...i have wheat...am farming it...and so now i have accessed it...can plant it and improve lands with it...or horses...cows...anything agricultural. maybe a few early techs to accomodate it...this i think would dramatically effect early game ability to make use of specialists...and braoded ladder 135 turn games scope...making for better play all round.

while i am at it...further i would like more techs...more wonders...more buildings...more abilities...like perhaps the ability to train units in city with certain building and tech to promote...so promotions can be used without just combat...or barracks...

terraforming would be nice

and the choice of resource rich/average/poor maps might compensate for the very unballanced set up we presently have. 9 out of 10 games i play...i get no starting metals...and my neighbors have them...reguardless of map...unless mirror

fix the inability to assign citerzens to work a square without governor reassigning it next move.

fix the multi player problems...i.e sync, crash, freeze, peer, host, complete system freezes, alt-tab bugs, can use this option as it is bugged...and so forth.

perhaps an animism/shamanism tribal religion that is effective

more diverse military units...i.e ballista...trechbucket...some city siege deffensive options...like oil with walls...towers...and so forth...early gunpowder fortifications...like fitting cities with armed walls. better intel abilities. and earlier. spying is very ancient. city revolt becoming independant states...things like this...

there is so much that is great about civ4...and it really can be much greater. bigger...better...deeper.

world builder is great. an in game chat to lobby, buddy list option would be great feature...like c4f...

direct ladder report facility would be handy for a lot of players in mp...and ladder play would increase if game makers supported it a little more. bringing more marketability to the product. maybe a ladder play lobby with reporting feature installed in game.

civs i want
Babylon
Hitittes
Scandinavia
Carthage
Kmher
Mayans
Zulus
A Native North American civ (not fussy on who its just its kind of empty in my games because i don't play with the Americans because they're of European desent)

New Leaders I'd like to see
Ramses II for Egypt
Henry V or Edward The Black Prince for England

an extension of the game like a colonisation of the alien planet that the space ship gets sent to like in Civ 2: test of time

warroom said:

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!

Click to expand...

That's what I was saying

Anyone ever thought about adding fictional civilizations, like the Golgafrinchans?

Be kinda fun, I'd think - ability to turn forests directly into money, but each time it does, the cost of everything doubles. Starts out with the beauracracy civic and can't change it...

Oh, thanks for the "Basque" reference.

- Sligo

LevonH said:

Definitely Armenians, for the following reasons:
8. Though current population of Armenia is about 3,000,000 they had several great cultural people (Aram Khachaturyan (http://www.armenians.com/famous/khachaturian.html), etc.)

Click to expand...

3,000,000 people? I live in the 3rd smallest state in the US, and we have more people than that.
I still think that they would be an interesting addition, though.

I think it would be fun to have Canada as a civ.

Leader: Sir Wilfred Laurier (Expansionist & Financial)
or
Leader: Pierre Trudeau (Philisophical & Organized)
Special Unit: RCMP (in place of calvary) and they give +1 happy for each one stationed in a city

Or, the developers could take something from Canadian history and introduce a new national wonder (or world wonder?): Transcontinental Railway which doubles movement points on railway tiles (or halves construction time of railways).

The Q-Meister said:

... certainly there is room for more than 3 East Asian civilizations. As a non-Asian person myself, it borders on ignorance and arrogance to state otherwise.

Click to expand...

YAY! Thanks for the boost!

As a matter of fact, we have so much in common with the Aztecs and other native American Indians because of the fact that we have inhabited our lands long before the "Age of Discovery" began. The one thing that set us apart from those "native" civs is the fact that we still exist to this day. I guess our country's topography (7,107 islands) played a huge role as they could not easily wipe us out of existence I guess that should at least score some points when it comes to resiliency.

I'd be elated if the "Filipinos" are included. Indeed, our country's rich history of culture, struggle, victory and survival is truly a story of a civilization worthy of being included in the game. It would be such an honor for our humble, hard-working and brilliant people - whose higher recognition in the international community has been long overdue.

People we need common civilizations we can all relate to...

Ottomans (Turkey)
Scandinavians (or Vikings)
Scottish (or Celts)
Korea (FOR SURE)
Babylon (NEED! THIS ONE)
Maya (although they existed in 2000 BC, why not have them in the game?)
Iroquois, Seminoles, or Anasazi (we need a NA native civ!)
Burma

And PLEASE no Canada.
If you're gonna add Canada, you might as well add Mexico!!!

Hey... Just don't forget about Portugal!!! They were one of the most important colonial empires in those days!!!

KingCruz said:

People we need common civilizations we can all relate to...

...
Babylon (NEED! THIS ONE)
Maya (although they existed in 2000 BC, why not have them in the game?)
Iroquois, Seminoles, or Anasazi (we need a NA native civ!)
Burma

And PLEASE no Canada.
If you're gonna add Canada, you might as well add Mexico!!!

Click to expand...

This post really bothers me.

I mean, how can anyone suggest that "we need common civilizations we can all relate to"?

I can't relate to Babylon, Iroquois or Ana-whatever. So how's that for "common civilizations"? This is just plain arrogant.

We need a combination of civs that have been there in previous incarnations, and ones that we think will add additional flavour.

In Civ II, for example, we had such civilisations as the Celts, the Babylonians, the Zulus, the Vikings and the Carthaginians.

Portugese, Mayan, Iroquois, Korean, Dutch, Hittite, Sumerian, Turkish, Ottoman and Byzantine civs were added in Civ III.

Although, the extensive moddability of Civ IV allows even the most inexperienced clot (eg. me) to add civs of their own. I give you: Palmyra (see below).

And if you think there is a "common civlisation" that you think "we can all relate to" then there's nothing stopping you from adding it yourself.

I don't know about arrogance. Poor grasp of the language, probably.

Arrogance is the assumption that you are better than your peers.

And btw, King Cruz, we already HAVE Mexico - The Aztecs!

Maybe they should add a scenario, where your nation would loose a city every time it goes into anarchy and it would be one of the civs, that actually formed out of yours. Like, say you start out with 4 civs. Their all very basic. Time progresses, soon you'l want to have an anarchy for having a state religion. You loose one of your cities and it becomes one of your split civs, which might in return engulf yours.

Like you start out with the Celts, One of your cities departs, you get the Scotish, or maybe the Anglo Saxons. Or you start out as Goths, and you split into the franks and so on! And if one of your splinter civs conquers you, you have the choice of playing on as the civ that conqured you.

SO America would be one of the split civs of England and so would be Canada. And Different Slav civs form from The original one.

__________________________________________________

About the comon civs, I think that could be a good idea as well. But for instance, you have thee base civs, you play as them until at say every 100 turns, it asks you weather you would like to change the name of your civ for an option of civs, that formed from the original.


__________________________________________________

They should leave the Vikings out. They could add Scandinavians, or maybe a Sweedish civ, because it actually was an empire and is older then 200 years. You could let it have a female ruler as well, because the Swedes actually had a clever female ruler named Christina in the 17 century, who made many reforms.


__________________________________________________

My last post was commented generally thus: "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?"

I'm not saying it shouldn't be there because it wasn't there 4000 years BC. I'm saying it shouldn't be there because there were no "American" people there before 200 years, when The British there thought, that the king was a burden. They could change it and add a Native American civilization. And add George Washington as an English ruler.

__________________________________________________

Babylon (NEED! THIS ONE)

Click to expand...

No you don't. Aint Persia enough for you! It's the same place!
__________________________________________________

TErribly sorry for the abaout 1000 spelling mistakes.

My vote, and i am new here, is for the ottomans and the polish.

The ottomans should be obvious, they were the biggest islamic nation in the world for much of its history, there dynasty lasted hundreds of years, they sacked numerous enemies and dominated mediteranean trade and were nearly unstoppable until they self destructed for the most part.

Poland, apart from being being partly polish, i beleive belong there as well. The polish/lithuanian empire existed for 300 or so years during constant eurpean turmoil, fought numerous successful wars against, the russians, the prussians(germany) the ottomans and the remaining khaganate states as well as the swedes(who were a world power as well)they had nicolous copernicus(who in previous games was awarded an entire wonder). They also were resposible for stopping the ottoman invasion of europe and fighting the ottomans back almost entirely on there own(ottoman empire had manged to reach the gates of venice and had they taken it would have had open access to many european nations, but the polish empire attacked there forces there, defeteated them and pushed them back). Umm that is enough i think for now. I like the vikings as well, but they've been defended to no ends already.

Love civ 4 and can't wait to figure out how to customize and xml things for scenarios.

And btw, King Cruz, we already HAVE Mexico - The Aztecs!

Click to expand...

We already have a Canada too... It's the British/French...

KingCruz said:

We already have a Canada too... It's the British/French...

Click to expand...

Then we have America, too: British and rest of the world.

The point of the game is not to get every civ or race into the game, it's to give a diverse enough group that everyone can find someone they enjoy being; or at least find someone they enjoy destroying.

Concerning the comment that we need a "common" Civ we can all relate to; give me a break! I don't need to "relate" to a civ in order to play them. I usually choose a civ based on special units, abilities, starting location, etc; not my feelings of how well I relate to them. The emotional high doesn't come from relating to them, it comes from winning the game.

What common civ are we all going to relate to? The Borg?

My vote is still for the Hebrews, and in that sense I guess I do have an emotional investment.

I'm saying it shouldn't be there because there were no "American" people there before 200 years

Click to expand...

There were no "Aztecs" before the 13th century, but that's no reason to remove them. When the Americans were around is not a big deal, because the timeline is already jumbled as it is. The English weren't around in 4000 BC, Napoleon never talked to Hatshepsut, and the Incans weren't contemporaries with the Romans.

America is in the game because it's a superpower that has contributed a great deal to world's culture. Sure, it hasn't been around for the entirety of human civilization, but if we only included civs that have, we'd have a pretty limited game on our hands.

No you don't. Aint Persia enough for you! It's the same place!

Click to expand...

Babylon was mostly in modern Iraq, Persia is Iran. They're two very different civilizations.

My sugestion:
Civilization - Macedonian , Leader - Alexander The Great
Great People - Stephen King

Well, I read the ENTIRE TOPIC and no one mentioned traits!

3 combinations of traits are not in the game (off the top of my head, Phi/Ind is one), and based on the ones that were left out, it was probably the result of playtesting finding that the combinations were imbalanced. I mean, do you think they had trouble finding 3 more leaders for the existing civs? Of course not.

I don't really care what civs are in an expansion; what's in a name? You're making the civ be whatever you make it. What I *am* interested in is traits. For x new traits, that gives as many as (x²+13x)/2 new leaders. I'm greatly looking forward to what new traits there might be. Let me brainstorm off the cuff here...

Productive: The counterpoint to Financial; if a single worked space produces at least 2 hammers, it gives the city +1 hammer; beyond that, for every 2 additional spaces with at least 2 hammers that is being worked by the city, the city gets another +1 hammer. To prevent too much military abuse, put the cheaper building(s) way at the end of the tech tree; say, factories?

Naval: I personally never delve much into navy except as a means of transporting land units (and escorting transports). This might not work well in terms of balance, such as being too weak in pangea and too strong in archipelago or terra, but it's worth a thought. Trait would be, say, +1 to naval movement (and thus, far more likely to circumnavigate the globe first for an additional +1, compared to all the non-naval civs in the game). Naval leaders would perhaps include the English, Spanish, and Germans (Nazi U-boats). I'm not a history buff but I'm sure you can think of more examples. Cheap buildings could be Drydock and Lighthouse, but notice this would restrict the option of Nav/Agg or Nav/Exp civs. This wouldn't be a great loss though; Nav/Exp would encourage players to build huge cities on the coast and abandon the interior, and Nav/Agg would simply obliterate anything on the water.

Another option is to have 3 positive traits and one negative trait, I.E. Financial, Expansive, and Industrious, but
Anti-Spiritual: Anarchy lasts twice as long, Temples have half production speed.
or Anti-Philisophical:-100% GP points (no GPs except National Epic or some new +5% GP building, or -50% of that's too extreme), half speed of University.
or Anti-Creative: -2 culture per city (minimum 0), the fact that this makes no difference without a source of culture might warrant a -3 instead, half speed of Theatre and Colisseum.
or Anti-Agressive: -2/3 XPs on new units (minimum 0), half speed of Barracks and Drydock

You get the idea.