What new Civs ? (no nationalism ?)

OK, there are lots of ongoing discussions about who should be in or out of the new civs (if any) : I hope this poll can really attract the developpers' attention.

I was open, from ancient civs in crowded areas (Assyria) to gap-filling (Kongo) to modern countries (Australia) that could have specific features (guerilla UU for Cuba ?). But of course I was limited to 20 so sorry if your favorite (and important) civ is missing.

Personally I am in favor of more traditional ones but you can have very different feelings. You might even consider since you recreate the world that historical civs have no interest and that you would like to develop your own civs, depending on the land,...

Some remarks as well from my most humble person :

- Civs have an interest when they represent something historically important, because of their weight (culture, military,...) in shaping the world, their length or the fact they can represent an area or an era (Celts for instance) or because of something unique and special they have.
- Civs are also useful for scenarios (hence Hittites and Sumer in C3C even if Civ3 was far from being the expcted modders' paradise) even if it is actually difficult to play them together .
- Civs cannot always be played together on a world map (Ottomans and Byzantines especially but Portugal and Spain, Sumer and Babylon can be similar too).
- Civs can be modded quite easily now and should be in Civ4 so that if a national wants his/her country represented he/she can mod it, even if it is not among the "main" ones.
- Civs should be able to be gathered in more cultural zones (and moddable ones). Zulus are not really Middle-East.

I wrote that because I hope we can get reasoned votes and not mere passionate jingoist ones....

... and one vote to the Anasazi.

Three votes:

1. Hebrews: Few religions culturally influenced the West as much as Christianity and Judaism, both originating in geographical Palestine, homeland to the Jews (AKA Hebrews).
2. Cherokees: How many Native American tribes do you know that were literate, even taking the trouble to create a unique alphabet and to print a newspaper? AFAIK, the Cherokees were the only ones to do all of these.
3. Malays: I don't know many historical facts about them, but they got my vote because they were excellent seafarers.

Weren't the huns actually Mongolians, or have I completely lost it?

My votes went to Abyssinia, Khmer, Malay, Polynesia, Hebrews and sioux. I would have voted for Poland too, but there are too many European civs IMHO...

@Myzenium: the only thing of those that makes Cherokees different from many other native americans is that newspaper - and I hardly think that it is the basis for them to be in Civ. I am not saying they shouldn't be, though, I am just saying it is hardly a reason!

Originally posted by Myzenium
Cherokees: How many Native American tribes do you know that were literate, even taking the trouble to create a unique alphabet and to print a newspaper? AFAIK, the Cherokees were the only ones to do all of these

Click to expand...

Literate and newspapers: about all of them. They're on the internet, too.

Only the alphabet was unique, but that was because another alphabet was designed for ALL north Amerind languages so there was really no need for one per tribe as well.

The Cherokee are Iroquoian. They split off from the Iroquois and went south. And since they also didn't develop a truly different culture they would not be my first choice for another north Amerind civ. There is enough variety to choose from.

Poor Phoenicia gets ignored again. Unless you count Carthage, anyway.

Honestly, though. Cuba? Cuba?

I voted for Abyssinia, Songhai, Assyria, the Khmer and Poland. I'd have added Phoenicia, despite the obvious conflict with their later incarnation in Carthage. I'd theoretically also have said the Indus if they weren't likely to end up being counted as India anyway.

Implementing things is often trickier than thinking of them, though. Finding enough city names, for a start..

None of the civilzations you listed can be considered a major world power.

Actually, the Cherokee did develop a unique culture. Their literature, their folktales, their art, their healing practices, are unique from any other Southeastern nation, much more from the tribes in the West. As for splitting off from another nation, *all* the Amerind nations split off from another older nation.
Another point: the last Confederate general to surrender in the American Civil War was a Cherokee -- General Stand Watie. (Yes, believe it or not, he held out, granted with insignificant forces, after Appamattox.)

Khmer, Mali/Songhai, Abyssinia/Axum/Ethiopia, The Hebrews, Tibet.

I also think Carthage should be removed in favor of Phoenicia.

I definitely feel that they need to fill out the African, Pacific and North American Culture Groups-which is why I opted for Congolese, Ethiopian, Malay and Polynesian et al. I definitely feel that some East and West African Civs would also be good-like Kenyan, Madagascan and Nigerian! I most definitely DON'T feel that we need any new European or Middle Eastern nations (with the exception of Hebrew), 'cause those culture groups are well and truly FULL!!
That said, however, I do think that we need a host of 'minor civ' titles, for each culture group-for both the purposes of single city civs ('minor' races) and so that a nation undergoing civil can have an appropriate civ to change to after it breaks away!
For instance, instead of the 'goody hut' system, your Babylonian scout/settler goes out into the world and encounters the single city 'nation' of the Hittites and/or the Assyrians. He can either try to conquer them or make peace with them. In time he might even assimilate them into his own culture. Being friendly to these minor civs might grant you some kind of benefit-like tech bonuses, increased happiness and/or culture or the like! As a minor civ, they can grow, do research, make military units and such, but they do so at a MUCH slower rate than the major powers. In the main screen you can set the appearance rate of minor races-from none, to a few, to many to a lot! The computer will then randomly decide which nations are minor and which are major (picking as evenly as possible from each culture group!)
The other use of minor civs is that, if part of your empire breaks away, then it will most likely take the name of a minor civ which has not yet been used. For instance, Your major Russian civ might undergo civil war, with the breakaway nation taking the name of Serbia, Poland or Turkmenistan!
Anyway, just a few thoughts!

Aussie_Lurker.

I said to have the Hebrews because they are basically, the first humans (based on my religion) and are the main Civ of the world.

I don't care what other people say, the Hebrews NEED to be in Civ4!

Originally posted by Halcyon
Poor Phoenicia gets ignored again. Unless you count Carthage, anyway.

Honestly, though. Cuba? Cuba?

I voted for Abyssinia, Songhai, Assyria, the Khmer and Poland. I'd have added Phoenicia, despite the obvious conflict with their later incarnation in Carthage. I'd theoretically also have said the Indus if they weren't likely to end up being counted as India anyway.

Implementing things is often trickier than thinking of them, though. Finding enough city names, for a start..

Click to expand...

I would have gone for Assyria and Phoenicia also, if there wasn't so many Middle-Eastern civs already - basically the same reason for ignoring Poland. Indus would have been a good choice - but I fear you are correct: people would say it was India. A similar reason is why Germany shouldn't be renamed Prussia: people would just end up complaining about the missing Germans...

Originally posted by Ribannah
Only the alphabet was unique, but that was because another alphabet was designed for ALL north Amerind languages so there was really no need for one per tribe as well.

Click to expand...

The Mayas and Aztecs developed an alphabet also! And there have also been theories about Incas doing the same thing. They had snares with knots that are usually thought to be used for counting, but they may have been used to writing also. Anyway, Cherokees are simply not the only Native Americans to develop an alphabet.

You are confusing Alphabet with Writing.
Most north Amerind tribes had Writing long before they had their (phonetic) Alphabet, with the Iroquois having the most advanced script of them all. Instead of an Alphabet they used pictographs.

Don't let the order of techs in Civ3 fool you, heh!

I voted for the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites because they have indeed stood the test of time and probably should be in Civ4, although I am dubious about adding *another* Euro/American/Middle East Civ.

Originally posted by Ribannah
You are confusing Alphabet with Writing.
Most north Amerind tribes had Writing long before they had their (phonetic) Alphabet, with the Iroquois having the most advanced script of them all. Instead of an Alphabet they used pictographs.

Don't let the order of techs in Civ3 fool you, heh!

Click to expand...

Ah, so that's the name of the game then? You know what, let us then ditch the moronic Chinese and Japanese people, because they haven't yet discovered even the simple tech of aphabet!

I think it is mighty unimportant that they had alphabet. It may be considered the most "advanced" of writing systems, but hey, there are civs out there doing just fine without alphabet. But okay, remark withdrawn: they can be the first to discover alphabet for all that I care!

It would be nice to have some more indians in the game, though..

EDIT: Corrected Indians to indians. Goddamn! Why must we suffer because Columbus was so stupid that he thought he was already in India!

Originally posted by Shyrramar
Ah, so that's the name of the game then? You know what, let us then ditch the moronic Chinese and Japanese people, because they haven't yet discovered even the simple tech of aphabet!

Click to expand...

Huh? You must have misunderstood something.

I was making a witty, albeit out-of-place, remark of taking in Cherokees because they have discovered alphabet, which is an unique feat amongst native Americans and ditching Chinese because they haven't. Perhaps a would have made the point clearer. What I am referring here is the reason why Cherokees were wanted in the first place. But, anyway, if you can't get the joke with this explanation, perhaps it is better to forget it and live happily ever after

No offence ment by anything, by the way. I guess I should go asleep - this is the second time I was misunderstood this evening...

Originally posted by Headline
None of the civilzations you listed can be considered a major world power.

Click to expand...

What? Not even the Assyrians? Just because they're not around today doesn't mean they never were.

You could certainly have an Australasian Culture group based on a few of those listed civs. I would say Australia wouldn't be appropriate but I suppose it is little different from America in the way it was first colonised and America has been in 3 civ games already. Who could be an Australian leader though? Edward Barton? Bob Hawke? Captain Phillip? How about a UU, Styr aug packing infantry perhaps. Difficult questions to answer.