What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Xineoph]

With any luck the Israelis & Ethiopians will be one of them. They are one of the overdue civs that deserve to be in there with their history.

Also, if we want an Oceanian empire, use the Tu'i Tongan empire.

 

[flyingchicken]

Now, when you say Asian, what is it you specifically want? Cause with China, Korea, Japan, India, the Mongols, the Ottoman, the Persians, and Russia, I'd say we've got a good deal of the continent covered already. So what is it that you specifically want? The Indochina area, perhaps?

The Indochina region, yes, that's the part. It's quite different from India and China, and it has to be represented in some way.

Problems is that the game developers would find the area too small and think that it could be represented by just one country from that region. Since the area was never politically united in any way, they might just not represent it at all in fear of things I don't know what.

Even worse they, might just think it's already represented by India or something!

 

[Waffles]

What I would prefer:
1.Babylon
2.Netherlands
3.Portugal
4.Sioux
5.Iroquios (spelling?)
6.Israel
7.Maya
8.Byzantium
9.New civ
10.New civ

 

[09camaro]

to flying chicken:

The Indochina region, yes, that's the part. It's quite different from India and China, and it has to be represented in some way.

Problems is that the game developers would find the area too small and think that it could be represented by just one country from that region. Since the area was never politically united in any way, they might just not represent it at all in fear of things I don't know what.

Even worse they, might just think it's already represented by India or something!

Indochina itself was an independant nation that consisted of present day vietnam, cambodia, and laos. during the last age of imperialism however, the reigon was dominated by France--with french as their offical language. Indochina could be represented as Indochina.

the other 2 reigons that dominate the area are Burma and Thailand/Siam. they may not include Burma because of the fact that it was joined india until 1948. (along with pakistan and bangladesh) but the latter may also be included.

there is another reigon of europs that has not been covered (as far as i know). Central Asia, the -stan nations. it may be possible that this may be included.

Tibet as well. though a peaceful reigon and controlled by china, they did establish a fairly powerful empire in the early 1000's prior to mongol invasions.

however, my list still stands...with the removal of holy rome, and either babylon or assyria (sp?) being removed (maybe just mesopotamia )

 

[GoldenEagle777]

Israel I hope I hope I hope....

 

[Saim]

I would really like the Manchus. Really. They where very important in Chinese history. And if you say they should be added to China in anyway, I'll retaliate with "Well the Mongols had a dynasty in China, and Kublai Khan was based in China!".

1. Babylonian Empire
2. Dutch Empire
3. Portugese Empire
4. Native American Empire
5. Hittite Empire
6. Sumerian Empire
7. Mayan Empire
8. Siamese Empire
9. Hawaiian Empire
10. Maori Empire (or incorporated with Hawaii into 'Polynesia' with Byzantine Empire or Austro-Hungarian Empire)

I also want Macedonian Empire (a split civ from Greece with Alexander as a leader) or the Soviet Empire (a split civ from Russia with Stalin as a leader), but I know it aint gonna happen. They are different enough.

Soviet Empire
UU: That MiG thingamig I've heard people talking about.
UB: A replacement factory
Leader: Stalin (potential secondary/tetriary leaders: Lenin and Trotsky)

Macedonian Empire
UU: Hypaspist
UB: ...hm... dunno... I haven't thought of that yet
Leader: Alexander (potential secondary/tetriary leaders: Amyn-tas and Phillip)

Unfortunately Firaxis thinks that they are part of Russia and Greece.... sad, very sad...

 

[LDeska]

I don't understand why people keep bringing up Poland. They never had an impact in European or world culture. What happened to them is not something they did, so it's not an impact they had on the region, but an impact the region had on them. Like WWII. They fail your second term in all accounts.

OK, you clearly haven't read our petition. We have never posted that Poland should be in because something was done to us, only because what Poland did. Quote from our petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277 :

History-related arguments:
1. Polish State traces its roots back over 1,000 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1054681.stm
2. Together with Lithuania Poland formed a Commonwealth that was a superior power in Central and Eastern Europe for several centuries. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9043239/Jagiellon-Dynasty
3. Polish State was first to ratify a written Constitution in Europe - 3rd May 1791, just after USA (1787) and just before France (3.IX.1791).
4. Poland was the first state in the communistic bloc with free trade union "Solidarność" (Solidarity 24.X.1980) and the first state to hold elections that were not completely controlled by the communists - 4.VI.1989, after that other states followed and communism in Central and Eastern Europe collapsed. Today Poland is part of NATO (since 12.III.1999) and EU (since 1.V.2004).

It's just a part (there are two more points about WW2 and "great people"), if you want to discuss it, please read it - it's just 4 pages and then post here your opinion.

BTW - our petition is ready. It was signed by 2500 internet users (thanks to all of you who signed it!), by two most significant Polish civ clubs and today I'm going to get final signature - from Polish Civilization distributor. Then I'll post it to Firaxis.

I don't know much about the Dutch, but I do know that they were more seafaring than Poland and had more impact in the Americas.

Of course Poland didn't do a lot of seafaring, but why it should be a factor in our discussion about new civs? We had fleet only on Baltic Sea, Poland was not interested in other continents, our main focus was Eastern Europe.

 

[flyingchicken]

I would really like the Manchus. Really. They where very important in Chinese history. And if you say they should be added to China in anyway, I'll retaliate with "Well the Mongols had a dynasty in China, and Kublai Khan was based in China!".

You are missing one very big chunk of fact -- the Manchus never expanded to the the ends of continent like the Mongolians.

We can treat the Qing dynasty as Chinese, but the Yuan dynasty was clearly not as Chinese as the Qing, having gone all the way up to the -stan countries and stopping at Constantinople.

All for geographical reasons.

 

[Hyoga]

OK, you clearly haven't read our petition. We have never posted that Poland should be in because something was done to us, only because what Poland did. Quote from our petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277 :

It's just a part (there are two more points about WW2 and "great people"), if you want to discuss it, please read it - it's just 4 pages and then post here your opinion.

I read the petition and I still disagree. Every single one of your points is about intraborder culture and politics. Your mentioning of the great people it had and all the great political things it did for itself is the equivalent of arguing that Italy should be a separate Civ in the game because it culturally dominated the Renaissance with great people and diplomacy.

It would be the equivalent of saying that Canada should be included because they were the first modern civilization to abolish slavery, or because they played a vital role in WWI, or because they served as the battleground for a major military conflict twice in its history, or because their expansion marks a huge effect on a large part of a continent, and so on.

But no one really cares about all that, because Canada's impact on its region has been overall very passive, like its global impact, and because the country is very young. Canada is a nation that has kept to itself. So people overlook it despite what it's been through/accomplished.

Poland didn't really have much of an impact on anyone but themselves, and that's the problem. Including them is the equivalent of including an older Canada, or a larger Switzerland. No one seems to want the latter two.

Of course Poland didn't do a lot of seafaring, but why it should be a factor in our discussion about new civs? We had fleet only on Baltic Sea, Poland was not interested in other continents, our main focus was Eastern Europe.

It's a factor because of impact. Impact is what needs to be measured when new Civs are considered. The fact that the Netherlands had an effect not only in Europe, but in the Americas, shows that it affected more than its region. It had global impact. Which increases its merit as a civ in Civ games.

As I mentioned before, Poland just kept to themselves. Didn't really have much impact. They were affected, but didn't affect. We can't put a civ in just because it had culture or because it participated in a military conflict. Too many civs pass those guidelines.

 

[Pangur Bán]

OK, you clearly haven't read our petition. We have never posted that Poland should be in because something was done to us, only because what Poland did. Quote from our petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277 :


It's just a part (there are two more points about WW2 and "great people"), if you want to discuss it, please read it - it's just 4 pages and then post here your opinion.

BTW - our petition is ready. It was signed by 2500 internet users (thanks to all of you who signed it!), by two most significant Polish civ clubs and today I'm going to get final signature - from Polish Civilization distributor. Then I'll post it to Firaxis.



Of course Poland didn't do a lot of seafaring, but why it should be a factor in our discussion about new civs? We had fleet only on Baltic Sea, Poland was not interested in other continents, our main focus was Eastern Europe.

You Polish guys sure are proud. Almost every large internet community you go to that uses English, you've got a bunch of Poles there arguing how great Poland is and how its the most important country in the history of the world. Nothing wrong with that; but it'd be a shame if Poland went and took a cooler civ's place just because Poles are more nationalistic. That being said, for all it costs them, they should distribute Civ 4 in Poland with the Polish civ in it, for their own finances and to appease Polish nationalists.

IMHO, if another eastern European civ is included in the game, then it should be the Lithuanians. Last pagan state in Europe, took over half of what then was thought of as Russia, their dynasty took over most of the rest of eastern Europe (including Poland) outside Muscovy and the Horde. Just be cool! But I don't want any more European civs in the game. Too boring. I'd dread a random map surrounded by the Dutch, Portuguese, Irish, Poles, Andorrans, San Marinese, etc. But that's just me.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

If you're worried, send this to Firaxis...

 

[Saim]

You are missing one very big chunk of fact -- the Manchus never expanded to the the ends of continent like the Mongolians.

We can treat the Qing dynasty as Chinese, but the Yuan dynasty was clearly not as Chinese as the Qing, having gone all the way up to the -stan countries and stopping at Constantinople.

All for geographical reasons.

But they did take over and expand China, a very large region.

I agree the Yuan Dynasty was less Chinese than the Qing, but that doesn't make them Chinese. Japanese people are more Chinese than British, but that doesn't mean they're Chinese.

 

[Iden]

Now I know his rule was short, his methods were cruel, and he was a lousy military commander. However, his political cunning and expert use of propaganda in conjunction with his rallying a country out of depression and initial sucess should merit him a position in a game based on the history of civilization.

Particularly because the Civ series can be utilized to enact alternate histories. Like that parallel universe were he achieved total victory and world domination.

The universe were Japan didn't attack and Europe got its ass handed to it by the juggernaut that was the German war machine.

Yes I believe Hitler should be a leader in the game.

face the controversy and give him his just position. I mean hell they already have stalin

 

[rabidveggie]

and Mao Zedong

 

[dragomaster]

Hitler was an idiot. He was however a brilliant speaker, werry charismatic. He deserve to be in this game when mao and espeshaly when stalin is inclouded, Stalin murderd more people than hitler and thats a fact.

 

[Iden]

you could argue that he didn't have a very long reign but he greatly influenced world events. I mean come on I could speak of what Hitler did far longer than what Fredrick did.

however, it would be worth it on a purely comical level to see a civ head for him with that little mustache.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

you could argue that he didn't have a very long reign but he greatly influenced world events. I mean come on I could speak of what Hitler did far longer than what Fredrick did.

however, it would be worth it on a purely comical level to see a civ head for him with that little mustache.

Hitler was a terrible leader. His arrogance, mercurity, and sheer strategic stupidity lost the war for Germany. He constantly undermined his generals, dismissing sound advice, almost never authorizing withdrawals and often ordering his commanders to engage in quasi-suicidal offenses and break-outs. He single-handedly ruined the invasion of Russia by not concentrating on a single thrust once initial resistance was broken, and instead forced his generals to advance on a broader front, allowing the Soviets to contract their lines and rustle together ramshackle defenses that astoundingly proved sufficient. The capture of Moscow could've easily been orchestrated and would've seriously damaged Russian morale as well as allowing Germany to completely encircle Leningrad, cutting its lone supply line of over the lake(forget its name.) The loss of these two vital cities would've likely been fatal to the Soviet war effort and would've exposed Stalin's own incompetence.
His fanatical adherence to ideology at all costs also severely damaged the German war effort. Had the Germans been led by a more reasonable man, the Ukrainians would've been armed and organized and used against the Russians. They were perfectly willing to fight against Soviet Russia, yet the Germans somehow managed to treat the Ukrainians even more brutally than the Russians did. They also ignored the attempts at collaboration made by other ethnic groups(even Russians! but also Tartars and Cosssacks.) Aside from being a nearly unparallelled crime, the "Final Solution" was also a logistical crime...against the German military.
Lastly, he refused to put Germany's economy on war footing until after the Germans had stalled in Russia.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, too. And that's without considering his various crimes....

 

[The Flame]

Hitler would have been a great leader, had he not had so much prejudice. His military tactics were very succesfull, he was very influential and was ambitous.

The problem is that he seemed to hate so many people. He hated jews, gypsies, anyone that wasn't "perfect".

 

[NYHunter]

2)Did they have an impact upon the world around them?

Which is subject to debate and this is where we always run into problems. The history buffs have extensive knowledge on "civs" that half of the people here never heard of (or even if they do know them, they don't know much about). So they will pull out the 371 year history of some random "civ" and use it to support why it should be in civ but then they will strike down suggestions for "civs" that most people actually know and care about. For example,the later suggestion of the Manchus.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

"The neverending AH story".