Any Welsh Tribes?

[McManus]

Peronally I liked the way that new empires could splinter in Civ2, and would have preferred that the method of "America" forming. Have to agree with all of you that america civ is a bad idea only for licking up the people who live in the states... at least thats how I see it... no offence or anything, just an opinion.

And of the many different civs missing, if we judge which civs should be in for having an impact on the modern world, Finland should definatly be included . I mean, since the Roman empires power there are references to "the wild people in the north" who just won't be subdued, and condsidering Finland did manage to fight the USSR single-handedly not just once, but twice without getting totally wiped out is a feat not many would have been capable of... And who can deny the modern influence of Nokia?

McManus

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Sigh...that can of worms again

Ok, if you think the US (ok, "America" is silly) shouldn't be in the game because they weren't really around before 1776AD, then please tell who was even remotely around at 4000BC.
And if you think they don't deserve to be in because they're only a fraction of the British Empire, well: Vikings+Germans+France+England are all descendants from the same tribes.

 

[Welsh Warrior]

Sigh...that can of worms again

Ok, if you think the US (ok, "America" is silly) shouldn't be in the game because they weren't really around before 1776AD, then please tell who was even remotely around at 4000BC.
And if you think they don't deserve to be in because they're only a fraction of the British Empire, well: Vikings+Germans+France+England are all descendants from the same tribes.

I think the Americans should be in there but possibly as a super hybrid tribe which develops over the centuries incorporating units from all sorts of other civs. An amalgamation of splinter groups. Some sense of assimilation rather than conquer conquer conquer!

 

[Crimso]

Civ is about making your own history. Take away the civ-specific attributes and the ruler/leader/city names and the civilizations are just red, blue, green etc. The point is to take a civilization and shape a different course than what happened in real life, on a completley different Earth (unless you play on Earth).

I'm sick and tired of people trying to push their own country into Civ. My country isn't in Civ, but so what? If I really wanted to, I could add it in, a long with some of it's wonders. And so could you for your country. The reason I don't is because Civ isn't Greece vs Rome vs Germany etc., it's Red vs. Blue vs Green. The names and faces are just names and faces. Do you really play civ because you can hit 'b' and build a city named Babylon, just so you can say "oooh! I built Babylon! THIS GAME ROCKS!"?

The attatchment of the different teams to real-life civilizations is definitly a big part of the game, but it is not what makes it civ. Even with just colours, it would still be risk x10.

I think the Americans ... conquer!

How the **** would this make Civilization's America more like the real one?

 

[McManus]

Heh, no need to get all heated up... I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I wasn't being really serious with my "demand"..

And what Crimso said is entirely true: when it mattered to me (around civs I-II) I used to play with a white flag and rename all cities into finnish ones.. Now I just play the game, I mean, I could still make finns in the game.... but it's really not worth the bother... it's a great game

McM

 

[YNCS]

If you try the RAR mode, you'll find the Siamese, Tibetans, Polynesians, and a lot of other civs available. But not the Welsh.

 

[Welsh Warrior]

Civ is about making your own history. Take away the civ-specific attributes and the ruler/leader/city names and the civilizations are just red, blue, green etc. The point is to take a civilization and shape a different course than what happened in real life, on a completley different Earth (unless you play on Earth).

I'm sick and tired of people trying to push their own country into Civ. My country isn't in Civ, but so what? If I really wanted to, I could add it in, a long with some of it's wonders. And so could you for your country. The reason I don't is because Civ isn't Greece vs Rome vs Germany etc., it's Red vs. Blue vs Green. The names and faces are just names and faces. Do you really play civ because you can hit 'b' and build a city named Babylon, just so you can say "oooh! I built Babylon! THIS GAME ROCKS!"?

The attatchment of the different teams to real-life civilizations is definitly a big part of the game, but it is not what makes it civ. Even with just colours, it would still be risk x10.

What a lovely thought. That's like say supporting a football or hockey team is a waste of time as they are just red vs blue etc. Having grudges against other civs is what makes the game so entertaining. I can't get all excited about smiting the blue team. The leaderheads are all smug arrogant swines and are in need of a good smiting. By breaking it down to blue vs red etc you may as well do away with leaderheads and place names and just have them numbered. Booooooooooooring!

The key to the game is the opportunity of taking another civ to the cleaners.

I agree that some countries should not be included - Canada for example is huge but there are less people than in Britain and most that are there are British! ay.

England should not be in there. The Empire was the British Empire. The Acts of Union saw to that. English should be changed to British to incorporate the rest of Great Britain.

I play the game so I can hit the 'b' button and build cities such as Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychyndrobllllantisiliogogogoch. And yes "this game rocks!"

 

[majk-iii]

-i'm with Crimso on this one.

 

[frekk]

People need to learn the difference between a "civilization" and a nation. The reason that not every single individual nation that ever existed is found in the game is obvious. Wales is part of Celtic civilization.

Arguably, some of the picks in the game represent nations and not true civilizations (eg England or France) but I think if you look at the leaders chosen, its most often to be representative of a civilization in time which would otherwise have a weird name. France sounds better than the "Western Medieval Europeans" just as England sounds better than "Imperialist Europeans". Though I totally agree that "Britain" would have been a much, much better choice for a name. Along those lines it would be fitting to have two Celtic civilizations, or perhaps even three - one to represent the ancient Britons as well as the Gaelic nations of the UK, one to represent the Gauls, and one to represent the Celtic golden age (Hallstatt and La Tene cultures).

As to America, Lincoln in a fur cap bothers the hell out of me too, but on the other hand, its not any weirder than a Stone Age Queen Elizabeth, or Hammurabi sitting in an office tower. The absence of America would be conspicuous, I think, because it has profoundly affected the modern era and it is certainly distinct culturally. I used to think the same way about the States being in the game but on really reflecting on some of the other oddities that come up with civilizations out of their time, it isn't that strange. Medieval Iroqouis ... Aztecs with nukes ... a Roman Army made up of warriors in furs with clubs ... and Lincoln with a fur cap. It's all part of the game. To even contemplate having everything historically correct means no Epic Game, but only scenarios.

I must admit I do think they made a mistake when they got rid of breakaway civs that would happen when you captured a capitol in previous versions, though.

As for this:

I think the Americans should be in there but possibly as a super hybrid tribe which develops over the centuries incorporating units from all sorts of other civs.

No. All civilizations do that, to greater or lesser degrees. The Celts got their chariots from the Near East, the Romans got their triremes from the Carthaginians, and just about everything that was ever 'British' was brought from somewhere else - even the Celts weren't the first people to live there. We write with an Arabic script, and everyone judges time and radial degrees in sexadecimal numbers - a Sumerian invention.

 

[rbis4rbb]

There shouldn't be 3 celtic tribes...that's insane...

 

[Pounder]

There shouldn't be 3 celtic tribes...that's insane...

Your right, I think there should be 5 or 6 Celtic tribes

I would be great if the was no limit to the number of tribes.

Too bad there wasn't a face maker like some games have so you could make your own Leaderheads on the fly. You could also be able to set the Civ traits for these Civ's you make.

I can see why there is a limit to the number of Civ's in during each game, but you should be able to draw from an infinite pool at the being of the game.

It would be nice to have the ability to store all the leaderheads/civ's that are created by people on this site in a pool to draw from at the beginning of each game.

Too late for Civ 3, maybe in Civ X.