dagriggstar
King
Personally I'd prefer a "South Africa" civ to a dedicated "Zulu" civ...Although then I'm not sure we end up with Shaka as the leader which I feel is why a lot of people want them included in the first place....
Which darkhorses do you want?
- Thread starter bcaiko
- Start date
I don't think Israel will ever be included, for political reasons. They want to sell the game in the Middle-East. How many existing countries (in real life) have other wanting to destroy them? Though maybe they'd have fun destroying Israel in the game.
I agree that the cultural significance of ancient Israel to this day is worthy of a civilization. They had a large military presence, a Great Temple (that many neighboring countries contributed to), and a religion that survives to this day. It also spawned today's two biggest religions. Certainly a greater influence than many other countries in the game (e.g. the native-indian tribes, Poland, and others).
So I think it will stay as a popular mod.
Modern Israel has been around almost 70 years. Its achieved a lot, but doesn't scream "Civ" to me.
Hopefully this won't be a catalyst for an Israel/ Jew love-hate argument. We have Wikipedia for that!
BTW, I agree with the above poster about having more truly unique Civs that make you play the game differently e.g. Venice. Babylon/ Korea are strong, but you don't play the game very differently (apart from Bee-lining writing).
I agree that the cultural significance of ancient Israel to this day is worthy of a civilization. They had a large military presence, a Great Temple (that many neighboring countries contributed to), and a religion that survives to this day. It also spawned today's two biggest religions. Certainly a greater influence than many other countries in the game (e.g. the native-indian tribes, Poland, and others).
So I think it will stay as a popular mod.
Modern Israel has been around almost 70 years. Its achieved a lot, but doesn't scream "Civ" to me.
Hopefully this won't be a catalyst for an Israel/ Jew love-hate argument. We have Wikipedia for that!
BTW, I agree with the above poster about having more truly unique Civs that make you play the game differently e.g. Venice. Babylon/ Korea are strong, but you don't play the game very differently (apart from Bee-lining writing).
Korea is seriously OP'd in CivV, on tech level I mean, just like Babylon, both concepts/nations, though not lacking in the field, certainly weren't masters of it.
Tying up tech research to luxuries and thus handing nations like Portugal technological advantage isn't very thought out either, you get luxuries you get rich, not enlightened.
Israel's culturally/spiritually significant and should be included in the game, but perhaps called: Hebrews, or Judea, as to not cause game being banned in Arabic countries.
As for them being much smaller in area than Zulu or Mongols, of course!, just pre-make them much more perfectionistic than the more expansive tribes (Firaxis). Besides should be deeply spiritual and commercial, but it doesn't mean pacifistic.
Another possible additions:
Canaan - guess who took out that civilization?
Armenia - ancient Armenian empire of Tigranes the great, ever heard? no? check it out.
I would really appreciate them adding WENDS (Polabian Slavs)
The now lost, Wends, were a group of Western Slavic tribes living in between the Oder(Odra) and Labe(Laba)-and even West of it- rivers, in what is now Eastern Germany (former nation of East Germany).
Their culture was the most advanced among Slavic tribes of their time, hundreds upon hundreds of their towns and gords have been documented and written down by name, so city names wouldn't be a problem. Excellent quality Wendish pottery was found as far away as Scandinavia.
Much more advanced than some of the presently existing in game tribes (by the silly exotic-so called-civilization lovers out there) like Zulu, Huns or Shoshone already included in CIV (shame on you Firaxis!) the Wends more than deserve their place in this game.
Conquered by the Franks/Germans/Saxons and erased from existence in early medieval period, the Wends suffered great atrocities performed against them as a result of their stubborn refusal to convert to (Catholic) Christianity.
They were (like other Slav tribes) strongly SPIRITUAL and Agricultural people, at the same time being very warlike people and they constantly fought and raided not only their Saxon neighbours to the West(NW) but even the famed Vikings of Denmark themselves.
The Slavs developed the (heavy) MOULD-BOARD PLOW which a llowed for exceptionally fast population growth and they shared their knowledge with the western folk.
This development (Heavy Plow) allowed them to conquer almost half of Europe.
Slavs were different from Nomadic aggressors from Asia, who upon invasion would leave no stone unturned, burning and killing everything and everyone. Slavs, once they invaded an area they'd spare women and children and allow them into their societies as equals. They permanently settled the newly conquered land and their excellent agricultural (crop rotation-heavy plow) techniques allowed them to quickly turn newly acquired land into prosperous and self-sufficient country.
My proposal is like this:
TRIBE NAME: WENDS
LEADER: NIKLOT or DRAGOVIT
SPIRITUAL (Slavic Polytheism), MILITARISTIC(AGGRESSIVE), AGRICULTURAL
CAPITAL: ARKONA, other main cities: DOBIN, RADOGOST, KORENITZA, HOBOLIN...(there are hundreds of other, written down by German/Frankish/Saxon chroniclers Wendish-actual Walled Cities-or fortress names-which actually existed!)
UNIQUE UNIT: VOY - (foot unit-faith based bonus upon winning a battle) Slavic warriors were known to carry multiple weapons, and the VOY (warrior in old Slavic) would carry some or all of: Spear, Shield, Battle Axe, Bow and Arrow, some nobles or rich warriors also carried swords. This unit would be capable of Ranged and Melee combat (combined) even if less effective than an archer or a swordsman at each.
SHORT AXE WARRIOR- these warriors were expert in FOREST AMBUSH warfare, feared by Nomads and the armored warriors of the west (generally quite weak due to lack of armor this unit would receive attack/defence bonus when attacking/defending while in a FOREST tile/hex)
Poland?
No historical influence?
Ever heard of Copernicus? Chopin? Marie Curie? Half or full Polish, you know, what about Kosciuszko? Pulaski?
Not really surprised, all of you westerners, blissfully unaware of anything going on in the east, barbarians, eh?
EVER WATCHED THAT SO-CALLED HISTORICAL SERIES: BATTLES THAT CHANGED HISTORY, eh? no?
Let me enlighten you: one of the episodes of this series is about the battle of BANNOCKBURN ad 1440, between Scotland and England.
And this battle is declared: BATTLE THAT CHANGED HISTORY!
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
CHECK OUT BATTLE OF GRUNWALD, same era (medieval) ad 1410.
AT LEAST 10 TIMES AS MANY WARRIORS/SOLDIERS INVOLVED AND HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THOSE of Bannockburn.
Yet your culture will not even tell you of GRUNWALD 1410, and so many other significant events from that part of the world, and you know why?
Because you're all too ignorant to even want to listen or inquire about such things, bet you, you couldn't even tell where Poland's located on a globe or a map.
Moderator Action: Please cease calling other posters names. It is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
While their independence is only that old, their colonial histories go back to the 1600s, and their indigenous histories even further. Many major colonial countries have had major impacts on the world as we know it, and are definetely more worthy of being called civilizations than random tribes like the Zulus.
When people take this position against colonial civs, chances are it's because they think it's wrong to see a civ like America or Canada popping up in 3500 BC. But guess what? Every civ in the game appears in an era where they don't fit at all. For example, Babylon in the twentieth century. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, especially if they're a civ that gets people excited, has fun gameplay mechanics, and has made historical contributions (regardless of the era those contributions were made in).
pedropavani
Warlord
Lithuania as mentioned would be a good civ to get in some baltic representation.
I don't see why not adding Israel at this point.
Sumeria coming back would be very good.
People take these "what civs to add" issues far too seriously.
I'm against exchanging Zulus for South Africa.
I don't see why not adding Israel at this point.
Sumeria coming back would be very good.
People take these "what civs to add" issues far too seriously.
I'm against exchanging Zulus for South Africa.
Hakan-i Cihan
Emperor
Including Lithuania could probably mean that Poland will not be included. Not that I would prefer one over the other, just wanted to notice it.
The thing with Timurids and Mughals is that they stretch a similar area of land as respectively Persia and India. They also have similar cultures with the mentioned civs. Therefor I think the developers wouldn't include them. But I would definitely like the inclusion of these civs.
pedropavani
Warlord
Civ's Persia is kinda only retained to pre-Islamification. I think that the Civ4 entry outright ended with the conversion. Civ's India is a mess, and taking it as a reason to not add a civ is like saying "Well, Celts do overlap with Britain and France, so we can keep those out"
Furthermore, we have Greece, Byzantium and Ottomans, so a bit of overlap doesn't get in the way.
I don't mind Shaka that much, but Zululand was never very large or significant. Africa could be much better represented by other kingdoms such as Kongo, Mali, Kilwa, Nubia or Zimbabwe.
As for Shaka himself? He could become a great general, or the military adviser for all civs. Similarly, I wouldn't mind if Gandhi just became the culture adviser or a mascot rather than an actual leader, since other Indian leaders could better represent India's complete history and personality.
_______
In terms of actual Black Sheep civs, here's who I'd want:
- Canada
- The Mississippians
- The Maori
A lot of the other civs I want would be new, just not necessarily black sheep.
Bolivia and Colombia are too small and, I'm sorry to say that, insignificant in comparision to other global empires in the game (while also being not enough distinctive to justify adding them on the sole basis of gameplay fun).
However!
I'd be perfectly fine with Latino American civilisation (other than Brazil or Mexico, as they are both significant and unique enough) if it was
Gran Colombia.
United Colombia + Venezuela + Ecuador + Panama ruled by legendary Simon Bolivar.
Now that'd be something I'd like, as it would be embodiment of entire Latin America's fight for independence, and Bolivar is very famous and distinctive personality too.
Yeah, and I'd love adding Lan Xang.
What, you didn't hear about it? It was medieval Laotian state, was very cool. How could you now know about it? It's basic knowledge of South-East Asia.
What do I mean, let's be serious, this game is the place for
a) Great civilisations, empires, or strong culturally influential nations
b) Very few exceptions from this rule if particular nation was exotic or very unique (Polynesia, Iroquis)
Not for whatever minor tribes somebody has sympathies towards, and which are completely obscure to the global public (Wends are completely obscure for me, and I am Polish with interest in obscure civilisations
)My words may be a bit brutal but let's be honest, devastating majority of global Civ community doesn't want to see, out of all possible empires, Polabian Slavic tribe in the game.
Of course everybody can have his own fantasies - I'd genuinely like to see Lan Xang (Laotian medieval kingdom) in civ game... But I am aware how small chances of such obscure nations are to appear in a game (and Lan Xang was treated by its neighbors with far greater respect than Polabian Slavs by theirs
)
ldvhl
ніщо
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,182
Yeah, and I'd love adding Lan Xang.
What, you didn't hear about it? It was medieval Laotian state, was very cool. How could you now know about it? It's basic knowledge of South-East Asia.
What do I mean, let's be serious, this game is the place for
a) Great civilisations, empires, or strong culturally influential nations
b) Very few exceptions from this rule if particular nation was exotic or very unique (Polynesia, Iroquis)
Not for whatever minor tribes somebody has sympathies towards, and which are completely obscure to the global public (Wends are completely obscure for me, and I am Polish with interest in obscure civilisations
My words may be a bit brutal but let's be honest, devastating majority of global Civ community doesn't want to see, out of all possible empires, Polabian Slavic tribe in the game.
Of course everybody can have his own fantasies - I'd genuinely like to see Lan Xang (Laotian medieval kingdom) in civ game... But I am aware how small chances of such obscure nations are to appear in a game (and Lan Xang was treated by its neighbors with far greater respect than Polabian Slavs by theirs
Kraj, it would probably be great if you would stop taking a dump on other people's ideas and hype here. We went through this same garbage for V and it was toxic for the community. Let people be hype for what they want to be hype for, and advocate for what you want to advocate for.
Kerfuffle
King of the Whale Sharks
*Has horrible flashbacks to arguments over whether or not Venice would be in BNW*
A little back on topic, but I genuinely think Lan Xang (or rather with how Firaxis does things - Laos) is a potential candidate for the Darkhorse / Sourth East Asian civ (though I think Vietnam will be the more likely candidate). Though I rather not discuss what is 'worthy' to be in the game but rather what will be in the game based on previous decisions and precedents.
Gnarfflinger
Wiseguy in Training
I`d like to think Canada has a unique enough culture to warrant a civilization of it's own. Perhaps have peace keeping as a special trait.
Could this be handled by separating the Kievan Rus from Russia?
What about Wallachia under Vlad the Impaler?
ldvhl
ніщо
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,182
The Kievan Rus wasn't Baltic though.
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
Has anyone ever really proven that Israel is being kept out because of Middle East sales? If that is the case then I worry that naming it something else won't help the matter. I really hope its some kind of oversight rather than politics.
Similar threads
