Skimmed through a lot of it, I like the idea of going out on a limb and getting some new blood in there, but not all those civs will make it as we know. What it comes down to is uniqueness and what some bring to the game that others do not, without overlapping attributes and repeating things just for the sake of content that eats up hard drive.....
....Modern Day New World Civs. I'll be honest, I was never a fan of this. But because the game doesn't focus on any particular time in history, you can't avoid leaving out everyone's favorite super power in America. But when you start including, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, when does it end? Australia? South Africa? New Zealand? Any and all Imperial/Euro influenced nations have an argument at that point. If we are going to use the argument that Central/South America do not have a modern day Civ, then you have to say the same for Australia, and that would need a separate civ as well. That's two civs and ten bucks, just to represent those regions of the planet in the modern perspective? Maybe for Civilization 12 in 2050, too early and too recent otherwise.....
....Religious Civs, Papal States, Holy Roman Empire, Israelite, all hard to do without a substantial religion component in the game. But your Israel/Spy UU suggestion was really good. But no religion in the game really diminishes the argument for Crusade associated civs.
Ancient civs. I feel we can use a few more ancient civs (Sumerian is the first thing that comes in mind). As far as a militaristic ancient civ like Assyrians, I think that can be addressed by a militaristic CS and a more comprehensive CS mechanic. You don't want to include everyone, like Abyssinian, Hittite, Minoan, Phoenicians, etc.
It's tough for history nuts to have to cut material and sacrifice something here to gain something there if at all. But you have to look at game first, and what makes sense for a better game. To be honest, I can't get enough of new civs and bonus content, but it is not cheap and you have to be economical. We'd be better off with this and that, but how much better will the game be?
Wow, this was just the kind of analysis I was hoping for. Whoever you are, fellow civilopedian, thanks for the time and effort you put into this response.
As far as new world civs, I can see why you aren't a fan of adding recent civilizations in the game. How are you supposed to start at 4000BC playing as a nation that gained its independence five thousand, eight-hundred years after that date? That said, I'm actually okay with it, if for nothing else just to give the game more flavor than it has. And as for Brazil and Argentina, they've got lots of quickly rising influence on the world stage, and have independent cultures that would add something unique to
Civ that I feel I would enjoy seeing. To be honest, I also wouldn't be against an Australian - if it were done right and if other civs were offered before it. Maybe using Aborigine culture, to root them further in the past. New Zealand has pretty much been covered by the Polynesians now that they've been given the Maori Warrior as a unit.
I agree with your point on the religious civs, especially as it regards to the Papal States. Adding religion to the game would make them much,
much more fun to play. Just think of the abilities you could have.... The history nerd in me is rubbing his hands together like an evil genius about to uncover his secret death ray pointed at the moon just at the thought of it.
Ancient civs - we most definitely need more ancient civs from a wider range of areas. If they're all Mediterranean/Middle Eastern, then the game will lose a chance at once again broadening itself (and its aesthetic). ...and that no es bueno.
I'm from Sweden and I definitely don't agree with Norse (norrbaggar)... But seriously I would rather like them to be implemented as barbarians and have barbarians from different cultures, kinda like city states.
I like that barbarian city-state idea. In fact, I'd be happy if at some point the civ series took it further, allowing barbarians to turn into specific civs after occupying a city (Huns, Vikings, Cossacks, Crow - something like that). And it looks like Firaxis just answered you as to the Viking civ by releasing the Danes next week. I raise my mead-horn in anticipation of playing that DLC (even if Polynesia's Paradise Found scenario disappointed me...).
Many Civ's you listed (Portugal, Byzantines, Dutch, etc.) were also in Civ 3....
Erm... that was a test. And you passed! So congrats... on the passing...
(Civ III is probably the Civ I played least of, due more to distractions via school than a dislike for it. With that in mind, I tend to forget bits and pieces of it now and again. Thanks for letting me know!)
This guy is an awful designer who only knows about civ4 ! While it is an admirable effort to put it together, I'm sorry but I can't pass on the 'Dutch & Portugal appeared for the first time in Civ4' kind of statement. Beside that, he never departs once from what was done in the previous game & is rather unimaginative.
My apologies, person who refers to me as if I'm not in the room when I'm STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO YOU WHILE YOU CAUSE A SCENE, FORCING ME TO BITE MY LIP AND REMEMBER THAT DAD SAID REAL MEN DON'T CRY. Seriously, 'this guy' is awkward. You can call me Greg. Or Hawkeye. I respond conversationally to both.
I can see why you thought some of it seemed uninspired (recycled buildings/units from Civ IV, et cetera). I did this for two reasons - either I felt that the historical significance of those units/buildings was important enough for them to merit being included once again (usually with similar bonuses as they had in the first Civ incarnations), or I had real trouble finding a decent replacement for them due to vague historical records, and tried to make do with them in order to get the article finished by my publishing deadline.
Now I'm going to selectively quote a generally more positive comment to re-boost my self-esteem.
Can't read the whole thing right now, but +1 rep for putting Carthage at #1.
I can't say I completely 100% agree with everything (despite having Songhai already, I think Mali deserves to be in there, and I think the Moors should have a spot as well over some of your inclusions), but that's a generally well-thought-out list. The reasoning on including the Inuits though seems kinda off to me though. A few of the uniques do seem recycled, like the Kush Footman being a Hoplite but with 2 extra moves(!).
Some real gems in there though. Zulu in particular seems awesome, as does Cahokia. Tibet could be terrifying on Earth maps with its mountain-crossing resourceless swordsmen. And Druidism seems really awesome too, but potentially overpowered, especially with the free GP from Liberty. Pop one GE from the policy, one from hitting Classical, one from GPP, and one from hitting Medieval, and enjoy basically having 16 free base hammers in your capital (assuming you have 4 grasslands to stick the manufactuires on).
"Go on, wipe out that peaceful city-state full of monks, orphanages, and unicorn giggles. For science."
Yeah, now that you put it that way, the Kush footman seems a bit overpowered... Let's put that under the 'part of the article that needs balancing by people who understand mathematics' bin. Same goes for Druidism. Glad you enjoyed the quote
Thanks to everyone for giving me a mountain of feedback. I've been seriously impressed by this and other Civ forums in the last few weeks - there are a lot of really good ideas being discussed. Let's hope Firaxis checks up on them now and again
.
I'll respond to all your other comments in when I get some time - please feel free to keep them coming!
I'll post my comments in full... sometime when I actually have time. (Right now I'm beset with graduate research papers and exams.)
And Druidism seems really awesome too, but potentially overpowered, especially with the free GP from Liberty. Pop one GE from the policy, one from hitting Classical, one from GPP, and one from hitting Medieval, and enjoy basically having 16 free base hammers in your capital (assuming you have 4 grasslands to stick the manufactuires on).
