What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

[adhiraj.bose]

It seems with space filling civs like Australia and Canada Britain's late game will be mostly finished .

 

[TJDowling]

It seems with space filling civs like Australia and Canada Britain's late game will be mostly finished .

As it should be.

 

[JHLee]

You can still hold on to India and Egypt if you are stable enough.
And you could also conquer the colonial civs back, those lands would still be your historical area.

 

[bluepotato]

It seems with space filling civs like Australia and Canada Britain's late game will be mostly finished .

Just like my greek australia's late game.

Spoiler :

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

As it should be.

Lose Britannia, Britannia lose the waves!

 

[TJDowling]

Just like my greek australia's late game.

Spoiler :

Where is your core? England or Australia?

 

[bluepotato]

Where is your core? England or Australia?

In Greece, I never settled it. This way I always had to get at least 14 stability to at least stay on unstable, it's a pain in the classical era since the most domestic stability points I could get was 8 (10 with a religion) but it isn't so bad after that.

 

[1SDANi]

In Greece, I never settled it. This way I always had to get at least 14 stability to at least stay on unstable, it's a pain in the classical era since the most domestic stability points I could get was 8 (10 with a religion) but it isn't so bad after that.

That's some hardcore Rhye's and Fall...

 

[adhiraj.bose]

I had the same idea with the Dutch once, never settle the core, just the historical area around South Africa. Turn them into a Boer civ . How about that as a civ ? Could have the Bantus as a civ too.

 

[bluepotato]

I had the same idea with the Dutch once, never settle the core, just the historical area around South Africa. Turn them into a Boer civ . How about that as a civ ? Could have the Bantus as a civ too.

That works quite well, too. So far my Boers are on solid with a +28 economic growth value. My only non-historical city is Zanzibar, I took it after the portugese collapsed. Poor Sultan of Oman stood no chance.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[TJDowling]

In Greece, I never settled it. This way I always had to get at least 14 stability to at least stay on unstable, it's a pain in the classical era since the most domestic stability points I could get was 8 (10 with a religion) but it isn't so bad after that.

Wait, so you settled England or Australia first? Or another place entirely? Does Greece come with galley's or did you change your starting point.... ??? Also somehow everyone hates you but you're still stable.

 

[1SDANi]

Wait, so you settled England or Australia first? Or another place entirely? Does Greece come with galley's or did you change your starting point.... ??? Also somehow everyone hates you but you're still stable.

Greece starts with a settler and militia in a galley

 

[bluepotato]

Wait, so you settled England or Australia first? Or another place entirely? Does Greece come with galley's or did you change your starting point.... ??? Also somehow everyone hates you but you're still stable.

First I settled on the Suez Canal desert hill, then I sailed my second settler to Australia, and let the indies take the suez canal city.. England had to die since they were becoming a little bit too strong, also they were enforcing civics with the UN. And everyone hated me because I nuked a Super-Canada until they collapsed so that I could at least get a time victory. Multilateralism let me get a ton of stability from defensive pacts in the late game, also I think I got quite a bit of economic growth after switching out of isolationism.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

I had the same idea with the Dutch once, never settle the core, just the historical area around South Africa. Turn them into a Boer civ . How about that as a civ ? Could have the Bantus as a civ too.

A Boer civ could be interesting, though we'd need to see the Dutch settle cities in the area more often for that to make sense within the game. I wonder if they could be conditional on colonies being established in the Cape area and then changing hands.

I think more civs in central and southern Africa would be good, but "Bantu" is a super broad term. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples
I think we'd need a bit more narrow of a scope, even if one civ in game is used to represent different polities over time. Definitely civs within that category that could be added though!

 

[TJDowling]

...even if one civ in game is used to represent different polities over time. Definitely civs within that category that could be added though!

In my experience this has been a controversial suggestion.

 

[adhiraj.bose]

Speaking of 'space filling empires' what about someone filling in Siberia if Russia fails ? (and it does sometimes) .

 

[Enyavar]

Speaking of 'space filling empires' what about someone filling in Siberia if Russia fails ? (and it does sometimes) .

I could see several players grab Siberian real estate: If Russia fails to settle anything by certain date...
- Turks/Mongolia could respawn and grab the fertile southern Siberia instead of bothering China and Persia.
- China, Korea and Japan would be interested in the Manjuria/Amur area.
--> Basically, increase the disputed area and the settle-values for these civs and the respective areas for the time after 1750.
- A few Barbarian/Indie cities could spawn in the undesirable parts if no one else colonizes anything.

I don't see individual indigenous people of that area as a rising player civ. I knew of the Chukchees, but I just learned that the Nenets, Evens, Evenks and Khanty are all more populous (today). Anyway, what would their UHV be - besides survival?

If/when the indigenous people of North America are introduced, a unified "Polar Indigenous People" might be advisable as a non-player civ. They could get the unique ability to found cities (only!!) on ice/tundra, and get +1 Food on Tundra tiles. Major religions wouldn't auto-spread to their cities, so human players would only possibly benefit from them by conquering their unique locations.

 

[cmakk1012]

I could see several players grab Siberian real estate: If Russia fails to settle anything by certain date...
- Turks/Mongolia could respawn and grab the fertile southern Siberia instead of bothering China and Persia.
- China, Korea and Japan would be interested in the Manjuria/Amur area.
--> Basically, increase the disputed area and the settle-values for these civs and the respective areas for the time after 1750.
- A few Barbarian/Indie cities could spawn in the undesirable parts if no one else colonizes anything.

Siberia is empty and easily-colonizable enough that it should have multiple civs available to colonize it, similarly to New Zealand. Another region of the map that could have more colonizer options ought to be Australia; France and the Netherlands both could have colonized it if they had had the interest historically.

 

[Logoncal]

I would love to see some minor civs that works like those in Realism Invictus. But some other silly ones like a Pirate civ where they start with no cities but they're at war with everyone. Their job is to simply plunder, conquer, raze and get gold.

Unique power is either bonus to amphibious assault or one where they get bonuses to coast.

 

[jorissimo]

Just like my greek australia's late game.

Spoiler :

Congratulations, this is officially the most bizarre post I have ever seen on civfanatics. That gave an idea: let's have a thread with totally insane challenges that we could call UUVs (Unique Unhistorical Victories). The word "unique" being the understatement of the century.