any signs of Byzantine DLC ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phoenician-Carthaginian cultures and American-British cultures are waaay more similar than Roman-Byzantine.
For starters, the Romans first had their own religion, and were later Catholic. They spoke Latin.
The Byzantines were Eastern Orthodox for most of their history. They spoke Greek.
They in turn were "succeded" by the Ottomans. The Ottomans were Muslim and spoke Turkish, but they were indeed the successors to Byzantium.
Anyway, this might not deserve its own thread.
Its a great topic, I mean no offense to the OP, but there is surely some thread it could be merged into.
 
Fair enough. At some point, surely.
That being said, I can think of probably ~ 30 undoubtedly unique civs that I would like to see first, and some of those could be said to "deserve" that position.
As a side note, Ancient Rome is not presented in the game. The Roman Republic straddled the boundary between "Ancient" and "Classical". The only civs represented as ancient in the game (that I can think of) are Egypt, Babylon, and maybe Persia (they might be a little late, too..)
That, of course, using the historical definition, not the game's.
And yes, I realize I just posted a completely irrelevant tangent...
 
If I had tiers of originality, giving points for unique culturally, unique geographically, and unique for play style, here's roughly how I'd break it down. This certainly isn't an exhaustive list, but I've tried to include all Civs included in previous games. Didn't count conglomerate civs like the Vikings and Native Americans, however:

Tier One
Carthage
Ethiopia
Netherlands
Zulu (I don't think they should be in, but fast infantry and subsaharan Africa give it lots of points)
Mayans

Tier Two
Byzantium
Sumeria
Celts
Sioux (also don't think they should be in, but they get medium points)

Tier Three
Portugal
Hittites
Holy Roman Empire
Khmer
Mali

I think Civs from the first two tiers should be included before Tier 3, but weight for historical importance, interest by the general public, and ease of including in some kind of scenario should factor in as well.
 
Tiers of uniqueness? I'll bite.
I'd drop Carthage and the Netherlands one tier, pull Khmer up one.
I'd also propose Costa Rica and the Huari Empire as Tier 1, Brazil as a Tier 2 (maybe 3).
Though, this may be going off topic now...
 
I put Civs with an obvious parallel Civ in tier 3 (Khmer and Siam, Mali and Songhai).

Netherlands depends on how you make them. I agree they are a good candidate for a tier two, but I've imagined them as a sea money Civ (as opposed to Arabia, which is a land money Civ). I've also suggested making them different by giving them no UUs. Carthage is tier one because it's a viable African civ, which isn't very common (yes, I realize they're Mediterranean, but their connections to the Numidians, Libyans, and other berber tribes makes them unique as well).

It is off topic, I just figured it was worth mentioning. That's why I didn't bother to think of never-used Civs (although I'd always push for Indonesia and the Moors with the Mississippians and Haida as wishful thinking).
 
CTH said:
I am pretty "sure" that swedish civ will be included at some time, just because the denmark civ could just as well have been a Viking civ but it was not which leaves room for a swedish civ. I dont expect it soon though, perhaps in an expansion or a DLC a year or so from now. I do however agree that Byzantium should be included.
Click to expand...

Its an outrage that the danes are out as a civ before the swedes. danskjävlar!:mischief:
 
I like Swedes as representative of the period around the 30 Years War when Gustavus Adolphus ruled (full disclosure, I am slightly Swedish). I would probably put them in a lower tier, but I do think they are extraordinarily distinct from the Danes. If I had to think of a Civ that would be the closest, it would be either the Ottomans or Spain, but, depending on the UA, there's plenty of room for a difference there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom