Civ in and Civ out

[yannoche]

Any swiss around?
Well, i'll just have to do it myself..
I think it'be great to have Swiss around in wartimes, just though it'd be funny to know there's always one last nation that will NEVER go at wars against you..
Geneva convention, sea access for inland nations, right to exile on its territory without other nations attacking you (=neutrality-type government?), swiss guards acting as UN troops in other countries (possibility of upgrading path), food bonuses for cities in mountains tiles, mountain tile bonus movment for UU, unique banking system...

Will please somebody help?

 

[mitsho]

As you may have seen, I just posted right before you, and I am a Swiss. And I have nothing against the inclusion of the Swiss in civIV, but not in the initial release, we are 'too unimportant' for that and not in such a comical, hilarious and humiliating (because based on clichees) way.
We are a very military nation - just look at our army which is one of the biggest of Europe... and I could give you some more examples,
We weren't always peaceful, our first "golden Age" was in late late midevial or even renaissance times, when we were a very aggressive, expanding nations, defeating the Habsburgs every one and then... And then, there is the second "Golden Age" which made us one of the richest nations (if not the!) of the World, because of our neutrality. Please, include it - if - in a serious way, not how you proposed! Instead, I would propose you to look up Swiss history, perhaps at www.wikipedia.fr (or .ch ).

m

 

[Urederra]

Hi mitsho!

I am glad you didn't take offence. I just wanted to make a joke about including the Swiss, which is always unfair when you are focusing on one single clichee, and it is even worse when the clichee is so far from being real. Sorry about that.

So, you are swiss? That's good. As I said before, you are great. Maybe that's why there is no Swiss civ in C3C. You have to have a huge history of wars and conquests to be included in CIV IV. Only the Indians have been included in Civ IV being pacifists, or, at least, being regarded as pacifists. (although they have nukes now)

I would like to visit Switzerland one of these years. There are a lot of good medicinal chemists over there.

Regards

 

[yannoche]

Sorry, just trying to be humorous..the wargoing thing..appart from that, no thankyouverymuch, don't need to go thru wikipedia. And i'm very serious with bit about neutrality, and i know Swiss conscription is very well developped (that too coul be a nice addition as a bonus thingy..seriously!)
And oh, about the mercenaries, that just what i meant: you could trade units from Swiss that you couldn't get otherwise (Swiss UU), and I mean very efficient units, not just peace-keeping ones.

Still you're right, I would not put Swiss from scratch in the game, as I come to think of it. Maybe a nice idea for mods though? Especially for middle-age/modern scenarii..
No offence, mate!

 

[yannoche]

Hi mitsho!
Maybe that's why there is no Swiss civ in C3C. You have to have a huge history of wars and conquests to be included in CIV IV.

oh,.. dear.. A bit out off topic are we now?

Still, what about Vietnam/siam in?

 

[Urederra]

yeah, a bit off topic, sorry. It might be a good new thread, though.

 

[mitsho]

@Urederra forgot to answer the post before, So I was right with my initial thought - Basque, cool? So you are from Basque? Probably a nice land with a rich history...

If you come to Switzerland because of chemistry (chemical medicine), you'll land in Basel, my place, as you see in the location. (CH = Confoederatio Helvetica = Federation of the Helvetians/Swiss = Switzerland). And if we are included as a modern nation, the neutrality would certainly be an option...

@yannoche If you're humorous, no problem. I just hadn't had the impression. I can take humour. And I agree, the "Reisläufer" would probably be the uu (as in civ3 - the dutch).

But now I really got to learn for the advanced tomorrow. m

 

[Belboz]

It's always a tough call on who to take out and put in. If a decision is based on how long cultures or empires exist, then there should be a Celtic civilization just because the Celts managed to seize control over so much of Europe during the early Iron age and even though they were displaced by the Romans in Spain, France and subjugated in Britain, they've still managed to hang on to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and (arguably) Brittany in France. Of course, the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Bretons might dislike being lumped together in one unit. I don't have much of a problem with Babylon being left out, since all of Mesopotamia was a fusion of cultures and peoples as the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Persians all moved into Mesopotamia, settled down, and adopted cultural elements of the people they subjugated; The two most famous 'Babylonian' Leaders were from different peoples: Hammurabi was an Amorite and Nebuchadrezzar was a Chaldean. The Persians were at the tail end of the process and created the largest ancient Empire in the Near East, so including them makes sense, but for balance I think the Sumerians should have been included, so the great cultures of Ancient Mesopotamia have an additional representative. I think if you invent something as significant as a form of writing used for 3000 years, which the Sumerians did, that ought to get you a place. Of course, by that logic, the Phoenicians should be included, because they invented the alphabet. . . Of course the Phoenicians also explored, Asia, Africa, and Europe, founded numerous colonies in the Mediterranean, including Carthage. Hmm. Maybe we should include the Phoenicians.

Compared to the length of time that the Chinese, Arab, or Celtic civilizations dominated large sections of the globe, some of the ones included (America, e.g., or the Mongols) seem almost like flashes in the pan. The Maya should replace the Aztec. Even though the Aztec empire was larger, it only lasted two centuries, while Maya civilization lasted much longer.

 

[xiaoafei]

In reference to what I've posted on earlier threads--Mongols out, Babylon in.

'Horde' civs like the Mongols, Celts, Vikings, Goths, Huns, Zulus, etc. could be featured in an expansion.

agree!
And they should have their own way to develop, other than building cities and irrigating the nearby tiles.

 

[GoodGame]

America out, and a composite American Indian in.

Alternatively, in addition to North American Natives, have America in, also, but then get rid of one of these:
Persia - Arabia - Babyon. Probably get rid of Babylon.

Compensate with a Mesopotomia and American Civil War scenarios.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

As far as we know, Babylon didn't even make it into this game, so it's kind of hard to remove them