Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Varitok, May 28, 2016.
Sid Meier is Canadian. It is a travesty that Canada has not been represented yet.
It's hard to imagine any unique characteristics for Canada that don't involve a joke.
Thanks a lot.
Anyway, Canada is not merely an appendage of the United States.
Canada will be celebrating their 150th anniversary next year and it would be a nice present to see Canada as a DLC. That and Italy who will also be celebrating their 150th anniversary.
If Canada is added, they need to include an option to turn certain Civs off. I would get annoyed if I had Canada in my games. It would kill my immersion. I can take the U.S. serious since it was/is a serious world power, but Canada isn't unique or powerful in any particular way that deserves inclusion. If it was included, it would be simply to appease the fans.
Remember that one time Enrico Donatello with the help of Hiawatha sacked Copenhagen, the holy city of Judaism, at 455? what kind of immersion are you seeking exactly?
The Polynesian region isn't and never was known for its world dominance but for its distinctive culture across the islands.
while Canada for most of its history was a colony of the crown it has a distinctive history and culture due to influence of the British, French and native tribes.
If the geographical place would need a civ for a TSL wouldn't it make more sense to add the Inuit or a similar Civ instead of Canada?
There's always a lack of aboriginals and too many modern civs as it is.
Next to that, flavour wise, wouldn't Canada just be a "USA Light"?
This kind of option would be welcome at any rate. It would be nice to be able to an exclusion list so that you can have, say, a game with only ancient/classical civilizations, while still having some surprise as to which civilizations you'll meet.
And yes, it is a bit immersion-breaking to meet guys in business suits in 2500 BC.
My feelings about the inclusion of Canada as a civ are a bit like with Switzerland. They sure are powerful nations with proud histories, but I feel -- and please do not take any offense -- they're just too bland for a game like Civilization.
I'd prefer Canada to be represented by the Cree or some other indigenous people.
If it weren't for bland 'ol Canada, there wouldn't be a Civilization computer game in the first place.
If Canada is not to be included, wouldn't mind seeing the Cree or the Inuit, though.
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Personally, If Canada was ever put in, I'de do my best to mod them out.
In defiance of Arioch:
Canada - led by [terrence & Philip? Idk]
UA - [america's furry hat? Uh] Units beginning their turn next to a river get +2 movement points. Market Districts generate +2 gold for every trade route that passes over it.
UU1: Trapper - Lower combat strength than the Explorer it replaces. Can found OUTPOST adjacent to unclaimed luxury/strategic resources.
UU2: Mounted Police - Lower combat strength than Cavalry which it replaces. +25 combat strength when fighting within Canadian territory.
UU1: Outpost - Acquires each adjacent resource. Must not be built within 3 tiles of another resource. Can upgrade Outpost to a city after 10 turns by paying 200 gold to install an adjacent Trapper (or Great Person) as governor.
This. I'd also like to see dynamic civ names and flags.
Where do you draw a line for a "modern" civ? One could argue that Indonesia is not at all a "modern" civ. Poland has existed for over 1000 years now, too. Where does "modern" start?
No, I hope to see more ancient and medival (or exotic, unknown, forgotten) civs. They are more interesting to me.
I don't think I would like to play as Canada unless I was born in Canada. It seems pretty boring. I also do not like to see Brazil, Argentina etc. I want to see ancient equivalents of those civilizations. In South America, there was enough ancient civs, which are more flavored and interesting to play in the game.
I've said in another thread that I'd prefer no civs more modern than 16th century and no leader more modern than 18th. I don't mind making an exception for Germany (since the modern Republic of Germany is probably easier to include than the HRE or Germania), and I don't have a problem with Poland either. Was Indonesia as depicted in BNW modern? They didn't strike me that way. Point is, there are certainly cases where exceptions can be made, but overall I'd prefer as few as possible post-Medieval civs and leaders. Including Brazil and Canada and Australia and all these other post-colonial civs just seems unnecessary to me, and while America will inevitably always be included I would have no problem cutting them too.
I see no problem with tagging Civs as ancient and modern. That way it could be an option to play with whomever they like. More options are better.
This attitude that old things are best and modernity has nothing to offer is ridiculous, though.
Not the best, but a lot more climatic, gamey, exotic, interesting etc. Ancient civs or medival civs are more "tasty".
This. Selection of civilizations should be to improve gameplay, not to satisfy the nationalism of regional players.
Kind of the whole idea of playing Civilization is to experience the "other."
Not the best, but a lot more climatic, gamey, exotic, interesting etc. Ancient civs or medival, generally old enough civs are more "tasty". I also like renaissance period, though.
A matter of opinion, though, or as you say, "taste."
Separate names with a comma.