1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ 5 Expansion Pack Civ Ideas

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Torterra275, Jun 15, 2010.

?

What Civs do u want

  1. Spain

    221 vote(s)
    50.9%
  2. Vikings

    244 vote(s)
    56.2%
  3. Carthage

    170 vote(s)
    39.2%
  4. Israelites

    82 vote(s)
    18.9%
  5. Inca

    146 vote(s)
    33.6%
  6. Sioux Or other Native American Tribe

    72 vote(s)
    16.6%
  7. Mayans

    132 vote(s)
    30.4%
  8. Portugal

    147 vote(s)
    33.9%
  9. Khmer

    48 vote(s)
    11.1%
  10. Vietnam

    56 vote(s)
    12.9%
  11. Celts

    157 vote(s)
    36.2%
  12. Byzantine

    167 vote(s)
    38.5%
  13. Mongols

    135 vote(s)
    31.1%
  14. Polynesia

    48 vote(s)
    11.1%
  15. Zulu

    157 vote(s)
    36.2%
  16. Dutch

    180 vote(s)
    41.5%
  17. Sumeria

    99 vote(s)
    22.8%
  18. Nubia

    62 vote(s)
    14.3%
  19. Other (please tell)

    70 vote(s)
    16.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lord Lakely

    Lord Lakely Idea Fountain

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,928
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgium
    I want some new Civs to grace the franchise, and endorse any votes in the direction of the following people:

    Assyrian
    Phoenician
    Bulgarian
    Polish
    Austrian
    Hun/Magyar
    Flemish
    Polynesian
    Swiss
    Israeli
    Mughal
    Frankish
     
  2. LordTC

    LordTC Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Toronto
    I want an expansion that enables good scenarios for a specific region or time period. So if you focus on a mediteranian classical period I want:

    Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Numidians and Seleucids. I'd want an expansion of naval mechanics, and a dramatic change in the ancient/classical era tech tree here.

    If you want to do a colonial period I want: The Dutch, The Spanish, The Portugese, The Incas, and enough native tribes to actually represent North America well (Already have the English and the French). I'd want a focus on Naval mechanics, and an expansion of the colonial era tech tree etc.

    What I don't want is a "These are a bunch of random civs from all over the world with no thematic connection" that we just feel belong in the game. And with them is some unfocused game changes with no overarching theme.
     
  3. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    I didn't get this when BTS was released and I don't get it now. Just what does a Holy Roman Empire Civ represent which isn't already perfectly well covered by France and Germany? A Charlemange-led Civ with a Landsknecht as UU is just beyond the pale, but fortunately the LK is already taken this time around...

    But anyway, the HRE is really:
    1. Born during the Carolingian period as France occupying German cities
    2. Ottonian period (or even earlier) and forever onwards, just Germany (sometimes occupying Italy)
    Having a separate Civ for such an entity is pointless. Granted, Civ 4 "HRE" may have been concived as a Habsburg Civ, which at least makes a tiny bit of sense...
     
  4. LordTC

    LordTC Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Toronto
    I want the religion expansion featuring the following:

    1. A new city state type: Religious city states, which create missionaries (or equivalent unit idea under different names) and spread their religion to a civ (it can also spread through allying). The city states can then issue decrees (kind of like a papal states) which are basically variants on city state quests with positive and negative consequences. Players should also be able to spread religion from cities that found it. There should be several of these available (one (maybe two if you want to do stuff like Pope in Rome vs Pope in Avignon) for each religion in the game), and there should be options to ensure they get included among the random city states. The city states slider gets replaced by a slider for each type: # of cultural city states, # of religious city states, # of maritime city states, and # of militaristic city states.

    2. A mechanism for civil war for each Civ in the game (maybe at -X happiness for some number depending on difficulty) and an appropriate faction for the split. The idea is each Civ will have two or more leaders, you can start the game with either leader, and the other leader will become the leader of the split faction. You could also have content based on the civil wars in the game. Some ideas include a War of the Roses scenario, a fictional Scenario based on a Civil War (medieval) in India/Pakistan instead of a political seperation(modern), and the US Civil War(industrial), and the collapse of Greece after the death of Alexander (classical).
     
  5. LordTC

    LordTC Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Toronto
    I'd definitely rather have the HRE with an interesting leader (many good choices) than Germany under Bismarck, but that ship has already sailed and I really don't think it makes sense to have both, especially since germany already has the LK.
     
  6. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    I'd say any Holy Roman Emperor from at least the Ottonians onwards could be used as a leader for Germany, unless they were intent on releasing a Habsburg Civ later. But I was never very fond of Bismarck either...
     
  7. Severpinator

    Severpinator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    Odense, Denmark
    I would like Lichsenstein. The country most important to history in the world. Don't believe me? WIKIPEDIA!
     
  8. Severpinator

    Severpinator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    Odense, Denmark
    So you see..
     
  9. Poke

    Poke Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Hari Seldon and the Foundations, thanks
     
  10. Thewicard

    Thewicard Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    I'd like to have some scandinavian countries exs Norway!
     
  11. ArataWata11

    ArataWata11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Many of the civ choices were identical and have share history with civ already represented or on lists.

    Byzantines is closely related to Roman, Greek and Ottoman.

    Carthage was phoenician city, Cathaginians were phoenician merchants migrated and settled in a city what was called carthage.

    Vietman should be absolved by khmer empire.

    Akkadian, Sumeria or Babylon shared place of origin.

    Celts arent they technically english?

    can Nobia disassociates most of its history away from egypt?

    Vikings should represent all norse.

    My choices would be Korea and Majapahit. so Siam has a buddy in south east asia. all in all, we have fairly represented northeast and southeast Asia.
     
  12. blind biker

    blind biker King

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Not only technically, but de facto the only "pure" English roots lay in the Celtic people. Even the Angles and the Saxons were and are considered invaders, foreign to the English culture and genome, just as the Vikings and Normans were. Note that all four (Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans) have, of course, left indelible traces in the art, culture and language of England (going totally off topic: did you know that all those towns whose names end with "by", like Thornaby, Whitby, Wetherby, Selby etc. etc. etc. have been founded by the good-ole Norse?).


    So yes, the purest English aristocracy will want to trace their roots to the Celts.
     
  13. SpearMan153

    SpearMan153 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia
    1. Israel - due to cultural impact on world history (judeo/christian world view has had a rather important impact on history don't you think) and stuff the contraversy
    2. Vikings - cause helmets with horns are cool
    3. Other: Australia and Canada - cause why not
     
  14. SpearMan153

    SpearMan153 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia
    The Welsh, Irish and the Scots are the Celts so not English (So I dare you to say that to a William Wallice - he'll do you jimmy) but are now part of the United Kingdom.

    The English are the Anglo-Saxons. Angles => Angle-ish => English

    "pure" English roots is the wrong term - weren't the original inhabitants called Brittons (a celtic people)?
     
  15. toft

    toft King

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    €urope
    With the introduction of DLC, I think civilizations are out of any expansions. It makes sence moneywise for 2K games and would perhaps bring us (players) more game features - those features that we are all craving for anyway to save this game.

    It doesn't matter to me if I play a broken game as an orange or blue player. I just want more features and options during the game and I hope they focus on that instead of useless civilizations.
     
  16. blind biker

    blind biker King

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    It is true than in England the Celts intermingled with the Angles and Saxons much more than in Scotland and Wales, but the English still have their primordial roots in the Celts, while the Angles and Saxons were conquerors and, if you wish, occupiers, not unlike the Normans who came later.


    By the way, I must agree very emphatically with your previous post.
     
  17. renkenbd

    renkenbd Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ah, but the Normans were, in fact, the Britons intermingled with the French, returning to take their "rightful" ancestral home. The oldest "original" inhabitants would be the Welsh; they watched the Scotts (other Celts) come in, they watched the Anglo-Saxons "invade", they watched the Vikings invade and intermingle with them (and chase others out), they watched those chased out (the Britons) come back from Normandy with a vengance... all the while keeping to their little corner.
    And they say the U.S.A. is a mixing pot!
     
  18. blind biker

    blind biker King

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Ow ow ow ow ... wrong!!! The Normans were originally norse (danes, in fact) which converted to Christianity in order to be left alone by the southern powers. It was a completely pragmatic conversion, not really out of love for Jesus H. Christ.

    Their genes differ considerably from those of the northern vikings (the ones that went on to populate some of the scottish islands and mainland, as well as found Dublin and other cities in Ireland), but that's where they hailed from, at least culturally. They were full-blooded pagans with their interests for Thor's hammer and the like :lol: until they decided the French were a bit too much bother.

    here, this is good read:


     
  19. TM Moot

    TM Moot King

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    693
    Location:
    Somersetshire
    No, no and no. ;)

    Say that to one of my Scottish/Welsh/Irish colleagues and i'll be eating hospital food for a month!!

    The ancient Britons were Celts though.

    Us English are a lovely mix of Celtic (Briton) / Roman / Germanic (Angle/Saxon/Jute) & Scandanavian (Viking/Norman).

    Saying that, for the last 1000 years its been relatively peaceful.:)
     
  20. HorribleHarald

    HorribleHarald Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    Other: Huns and Moors and perhaps Timurid Empire
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page