Brainstorm possible Civs'!

Well after having beating the AI numberous times at same level... i find it quite booring trying it with handicap, just to make a good fight. I have never liked cheating in any form, instead i try different approaches to the goal... or just relax and imagine the hole scene.

So if we shouldnt have any real earth history here then it doesnt matter what tribe to pick... and hmm what about all wonders ? Just make some wonders up... you get the point. The hole game value lies in the real world/earths history.

About the americans, well as i said before. Since CIV 1... i got boored about their ignorance, and they claim quite a chunk out of the worlds history.

I didn't say we shouldn't have any Earth history. I said that confining the playable time of a given Civ to when it historically existed is injecting too much devotion to Earth's timeline to the point of negatively impacting playability. Some Wonders have been made up in various incarnations of Civ. Adam Smith never ran a trading company, and Leonardo's Workshop isn't exactly a well-preserved landmark in Europe. Many of the traditional "seven wonders" of antiquity were omitted from Civ I and Civ II. We don't have a Space Elevator yet, and we may never, nor do we have SDI/Star Wars, nor Space Ships.

The game is a fantasy version of Earth, loosely based on her history. But you reach a point where confining the game mechanics too much in the interest of duplicating Earth history interferes with gameplay and fun. Given your parting shot about American ignorance, I can't help but suspect you harbor some general distaste for the USA and it annoys you see it listed next to the likes of Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and Carthage. Which is fine, you're welcome to your opinion. I'm not exactly a big fan of Stalinist Russia, for example. But I wouldn't try to confine its playability in the game because of that. Fun first! Realism second!
 
I dont dislike US in any form, i think we are blessed to have a strong democratic voice... (thats another subject).
Fun and realism goes hand in hand... together with fantasy, and i think CTP 1 have the best playability as for strategic purpose as well, but they lack in gameplay which is a great deal.

But CIV 4 lacks in realism as well... there is a lots of mods out there i have noticed, that corrects that.

My point, once again, it disturbs me to see Abraham Lincoln or George Washington ranting around with stone age warriors. That was the point, but i think im to focused on realism... i mean why not let them have camel riders and elephants as well, maybe throw in some samurais for them, all for the fun of it.
 
Ok, but the average world leader lives for, in Civ terms, about 5-10 turns. Until the 18th century, anyway. You could only play Pericles for 1 turn, basically.

I don't quite get your connection between realism and fun. That is, I don't see how the game would be MORE fun if you were forced off the leader you wanted to play. It seems to me that the technologies, leaders, civs, etc, are just there to provide some familiar flavor. The underlying game mechanics could exist independently of Earth history.

If realism was fun we wouldn't play video games. We'd just go outside. That's as realistic as it gets.
 
Ok, but the average world leader lives for, in Civ terms, about 5-10 turns. Until the 18th century, anyway. You could only play Pericles for 1 turn, basically.

I don't quite get your connection between realism and fun. That is, I don't see how the game would be MORE fun if you were forced off the leader you wanted to play. It seems to me that the technologies, leaders, civs, etc, are just there to provide some familiar flavor. The underlying game mechanics could exist independently of Earth history.

If realism was fun we wouldn't play video games. We'd just go outside. That's as realistic as it gets.

The realistic feeling is quite obvious, all the shooter games are based on realistic feeling... that is, its meaning that you should feel that you are there. Same goes for strategic games. I do agree on that the underlaying mechanics can work with any type of units.
I dont agree that its just go outside and feel how it is to experience a war, a battle, or any aggressive behaviours. Our limited experience is based on facts, books and movies.
But lets not continue this anymore, i respect your thoughts. I want a game based on the worlds history as close as it can get.
 
*Note, this is a long post, so parts are in spoilers*
The 15 Major Civs as defined by modern historians are:
Andian , Indian, African, Egyptian (nubia incl), Crete, Greco-Roman/Classical, Byzantine, Orthodox, Mesopotamian, Mesoamerican, Japanese, Chinese, Western, Islamic, and one other one I can't reme,ber at all. Civ4 with BTS incl has the following:

Spoiler :

Andian
Incan
Indian
Indian
Khmer
African
Mali
Zulu
Ethiopia
Egyptian
Egyptian
Crete
None
Classical
Roman
Greek
Carthage (ish, nowhere else to put it)
Byzantine
Byzantine
Orthodox
Russian
Mesopotamian
Babylon
Sumer
Persia
MesoAmerican
Aztec
Maya
Native American
Japanese
Japan
Korea (more Japanese than Chinese, as far as I know)
Chinese
Chinese
Mongolian (closest fit)
Western
American
French
German
English
Holy Roman Empire
Dutch
Portuguese
Spanish
Viking
Celtic
Islamic
Arabian
Ottoman


Please feel free to tell me how to update this list. I think I have all the game's Civs. The last Major Civ i don't remember, but I will update this list later once I know.
 
Hi Gooblah,

I dont know what you are meaning with that list ? You devide civs with each topic i pressume...
Byzantines were Orthodox, so i dont know why you have them separated with the orthodox russians (the orthodox byzantines fled from the ottomans (turks) and settled where now russia are today, so they brought their traditions with them, so they are more or less modern russians...

. .. .. .. .... pardon me, i will leave this thread :)

"he who defends all, defends nothing" - old pope
 
I ment that Byzantines and The Holy Roman Empire is remenants of the Roman Empire... which divided into east and west Roman. Its ironical to bring civilizations that belongs in the same culture/people tree into the game. I think they should have civilizations choosed with the right time they formed. If you stard at 4000 BC then Egypt, Persia, Aztecs, Zulu...

The Americans will the show up during the renaissance age... England, France during the dark ages... and so forth.

It was wrong to bring up the thing about the ironclad unit here (my first time ever to write about CIV in any forum, so i have had the issue since CIV 1).
Its just that i havent heard any famous battle taking place with ironclads in it... if any have any tip of where i can find historical documents or books to this subject ? (the steam engine it had, and the heavy weight of the "ship" made it quite useless in navies and world threat, it was not until the development of and engine that such ships/vessels could be usefull... therfore i think the ironclad is obsolete, as goes for the famous artillery unit "big bertha" which was a train artillery... try to deploy that in the far east ;) )

First, on navies: reading about the evolution of navies from the wooden ships powered by sail to modern oil-powered and nuclear ships (still a relative minority) is fascinating. There were dozens of weird ship classes created, especially in the 1870's-1890's where they were still figuring out how to build metal ships with coal-powered steam engines...and then the evolution to oil-powered ships created an entirely new genre of ships. The name "ironclad" is an American term, granted, but several European navies had oddball ship classes like ironclads or weird mixed ships as well. I don't have access to my library at the minute, but take a look at Wikipedia to get started. Then find a real source. :rolleyes:

However, I believe you are incorrect on the HRE. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the most complete manner, and did not exist for several centuries until the HRE came into existence. The HRE was originally just a figurative title, the "Holy Roman Emperor", which was bestowed by the Pope upon a powerful European Christian monarch. It was more of an honorific that marked that particular kingdom as the heirs of Rome, and was intended as a signal that they were the leaders of Europe. For a brief while, under men like Barbarossa, it had a stronger and more centralized administration, but that inevitably for some reason or another didn't work. It eventually transformed into a complicated system where a few electors of the greatest of the myriad of German states would elect an emperor, typically an Austrian, to officially lead the Germans when they were a confused bunch of independent states. Of course, this incredibly oversimplified story doesn't even mention the weird role of Prussia or all the bizarre politics...and how the system didn't work.

The HRE was an odd thing, and changed throughout the centuries. No single paragraph like the one I wrote above can be a complete description of them, and I know there could be a dozen people right after me that post "hey, but what about these factors and those effects and how this particular system worked?" on the HRE. The one thing it wasn't, though, was a direct descendant of the Romans. They were Roman in name only, a title bestowed by the Pope.


On the US, they are the only post-colonial state I would consider adding. However, I tend to focus on more ancient history and not the modern era (as you may notice from several of my other posts and rants), so if I had to pick leaders, I would probably select Washington and Lincoln. If I had to pick a third, T. Roosevelt, no more recent than that. I typically object to 20th century leaders, but America has to be an exception due to its shorter history.

That being said, if I could have more ancient Civs like the Hittites, I would be willing to sacrifice post-colonial Civs. However, I would first want the HRE transformed into Austria, and that foolish "Native American Empire" to be obliterated. Long story short, there's too many factors to say definitively.
 
I would like to see the Danes, Belgians, Italians, Austrians, Mexicans, and Canadians. But I think also that more modern states like Brazil, Argentina, and other south American countries should be added. They only give ancients for South America... they should give Australia also. Israel should be in the game, they have judaism but no Israel, stupid! I would like to see a feature where different civ's could form a "European Union"... some would say that would ruin a game, but every civ wouldn't join of course.. maybe a limit scaled to the number of civs playing to balance the game? of course all civs would have to have the same civics, etc. to form...
 
To Antilogic

About Ironclads. I read the wikidipedia a week ago about ironclads, and its like you state, they had their lifetime of 30 years... but they were not developed and existed more like a prototype. That is why i think the unit should be deleted (there are so many other weapontypes in history that could fill that spot).

About HRE. What is a civ ? A title ? Its hard to define... but the fall of Rome does have its history. The latin europe, the orthodox east europe and the northern germanic people... the northwestern europe. So Rome have more or less influence in all modern europe. So its a great deal to add Roman as a civ as it obsoletes all other civs in europe (spain, germany, england, france). So the question still remains unanswered... how to determine what civ to exsist and not, and during which time.


To Duc de Villars The jews where given land after the WWII... that is why there is still conflict there. Besides israel = judaism is a wrong statement. Its a belief not a country. So Israel is a very young country.
Australians ? You mean the native Australians ?

If to be strict historical, the old world, including australia should be just settled with barbaric tribes, and late game conquered by the england.
 
As far as I'm concerned, there has to be something to fill the gap between the wooden sailing ships and the modern destroyers. Having ironclads and then a dreadnought-like unit (20 Strength, 5 Move) might be a good setup. Or, add two simultaneous ship classes after the ironclads, like an armored cruiser and a dreadnought, both of which upgrade to modern ship classes. Just do something to fill in the gap better than with an ironclad unit.

Yes, the fall of Rome does have its history. It was replaced by the Goths, Visigoths, and a number of other settled peoples. But the continuation of the Romans was the "East Romans" who still called themselves Romans, and we call the Byzantines. It was not the HRE. I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but you seemed to indicate before that the HRE was a direct outgrowth of the Roman Empire. It was actually an invention of the papacy, the Germans, and others many centuries after the fall of Rome. The HRE is not the "remnant" of the Romans, at all.

Also, the Jews had inhabited the lands around Israel in ancient times, also calling themselves Israelites. They were conquered by the Romans, the Persians, the Arabs, and how many other times did the lands change hands in the Crusades before a Jewish state was finally recreated there. However, Israel has a much longer history than Post-WW2.
 
Back on topic

Scotland

Leader:
William Wallace (Protective, Aggressive)
Robert the Bruce

UB: Keep (Castle) +75% Defense Available W Construction
UU: Highland Clansman replaces mace-man (requires no resources) +25% V Mounted Units
 
Although another modified maceman would be a good shot for a UU, especially for the Scots, I don't like the idea of another Castle UB. Really short lived, and I can't stand playing Spain right now because of that.

I wouldn't pick the Scots as a first choice...I would probably pick the Hittites and Israelis.

Coming up with a UB for Israel is quite difficult, actually. You could give them a slinger UU that is a cheaper archer, maybe, and the Spiritual trait for their ruler is a must.
 
Well I had the castle come with Construction to increase it's lifespan, and perhaps Israels UB could have something to do with either the Ark, the western wall or the temple itself.
 
Antilogic

The point of it all, is what i have said... its hard to define a civ. And still harder to choose civs in a computer game. Who are barbaric, and who are not. Its up to each and everyone. (Like i want to have the nords/vikings... which have endured during a large span of time...)

The boats between sails and combustioned ships... there doesnt have to be a ship in between. There is no timeframe or point to add another unit.
 
Civs I'd like to see (I'm not particularly going to go the route of trying to justify these as "major" civs, but I think they were all at least somewhat important or notable and would make interesting additions):

Europe:

Minoans
Italians
Poles
Lithuanians (pre-christian era)
Moors/Berbers/Andalusians
Magyar

Middle East:

Hittites
Israelis/Hebrews

Americas:

Iroquois
Souix
Apache/Navaho
Brazil

Asia:

Moghuls
Siamese/Thai
Malays
Vietnamese
Polynesians



Africa:

Ashanti
Shona
 
@quarq:
I ment that Byzantines and The Holy Roman Empire is remenants of the Roman Empire... which divided into east and west Roman. Its ironical to bring civilizations that belongs in the same culture/people tree into the game. I think they should have civilizations choosed with the right time they formed. If you stard at 4000 BC then Egypt, Persia, Aztecs, Zulu...



Interesting that you should mention those four, as only one of them was in existence as a political entity anywhere near that time period.

Persia was founded around 550 BC, it was ruled by foreign powers and not a distinct political entity until that time period. Zulus weren't a political entity until around the same time as the (US)Americans, when they created a kingdom for much the same reason the Americans did. Aztecs founded Tenochtitlan in 1325 AD, though other city states and empires (Which were distinctly not aztec and in not related to the mexica ethnic group) existed in the area from around 200 BC on.
 
Once again I will reiterate my support for the Majapahit Empire. Indonesia has never been mentioned, while just about every other area on the planet has. Indonesia has a population of over 230 million people I think it could use some representation. The Majapahit Empire covered most of modern day Indonesia and Malaysia from 1293- ca.1500.
The ruler would be Gajah Mada, the UU could be the Bhayangkara. There are plenty of city names including the city of Majapahit, Trowulan (later capital), and Palembang. I'm not sure what a good unique building could be yet.
 
Once again I will reiterate my support for the Majapahit Empire. Indonesia has never been mentioned, while just about every other area on the planet has. Indonesia has a population of over 230 million people I think it could use some representation. The Majapahit Empire covered most of modern day Indonesia and Malaysia from 1293- ca.1500.
The ruler would be Gajah Mada, the UU could be the Bhayangkara. There are plenty of city names including the city of Majapahit, Trowulan (later capital), and Palembang. I'm not sure what a good unique building could be yet.



Majapahit would be interesting, I wouldn't put it in before Siam but Siam, Majapahit, and Vietnam along with Khmer would give a nice SE Asia representation.
 
Top Bottom