Recent content by Xandinho

Guys, this is certainly an April Fool's joke. OMG, I really hope it is.

Right. In fact, she is frequently mentioned around here, but she is not the only one who has been mentioned. Nevertheless, I don't believe Argentina is being advocated for solely due to her popularity, akin to the situation with Gran Colombia and Simon Bolivar. I wouldn't mind having Argentina...

A little late to join the discussion, but I'll add my thoughts nonetheless: those who advocate for Argentina do so for the same reasons as supporters of any other civilization here – it's a matter of personal preference. And no one's personal preference holds more or less value than another's...

1. Italy: being a nation of great historical influence and the only one of the great European nations that has never been in the game completely, its inclusion is completely overdue. We can have a Renaissance Italy led by someone from Venice or Florence and the fact that they are organized by...

I wouldn't mind having a game where civs play with monsters from their own lore, something similar to Age of Mythology, but that should be a separate game that doesn't belong to the main Civ franchise. The main series of Civs games must remain in historical reality, nothing fantasy or science...

I think the third rotating Mesoamerican civ should extend to the Caribbean and include the Taino and Haiti. Or perhaps the Caribbean should have its own rotating fixed slot? :think: Either way, I'm totally on board with more representation for Mesoamerica. It's a very interesting and unique...

Honestly, take out the atomic era. One of the reasons the late game is boring is because almost half of the eras in the game take place in a historical period of just over 100 years (modern era, atomic era, information era and future era - all of which are like ~150 years in our real world)...

I think about something related to multiculturalism and religious diversity. And Gandhi would have pacifist bonuses. Mughals would be builders, economical and perhaps with some agrarian touches. While Maurya would mainly revolve around religion. But if India got the same treatment as China...

If we can have some modern civs, I don't see the problem in also having modern India since it's pretty important nowadays. Furthermore, I don't think Gandhi would be simply excluded from the game.

I don't know if I said it earlier, but I'd like to see rankings back. Things like "top 10 biggest cities in the world" or "top 10 richest civilizations in the world".

If we manage to get 60 civs or more, then India should be divided into three civs: modern India, Mughals and Maurya. However, if we obtain less than 60 civs, we should give India the same treatment as China, in which it obtained leaders from several different dynasties and historical periods.

It's almost the same roster as Civ 5. If that were the case, Civ7 would be a remodeled Civ5.

What a comparison - as much as Evita can be controversial, sounds absurd to compare with these genocidials. What's your point? I have never seriously advocated the inclusion of any tyrant. And if I've already made Castro or anyone else, it's just to play with the idea of how it would be designed...

I am aware of the complaints. I keep putting her in my designs because I like to play with the idea of what she could look like. I even made a design of Cuba and Fidel Castro, even though I know that Castro is unlikely to be in civ someday. Anyway, I added a new leader for Argentina, now Evita...

UPDATE: Argentina Argentina Leader 01: Eva Perón Leader 02: Marcelo Torcuato de Alvear Start bias: coast, not far from tundra UA: Paris of South America - Cultural buildings and wonders have double slots for Great Works when built in the capital. When in a Golden or Heroic Age, Argentine...