Civ4: Beyond the Sword - Full Details!

It is a shame that second japanese and spanish leaders were not added. Instead it was granted a third leader to France, De Gaulle (what a joke!). Philip II of Spain :king: would have been a great option for a second Spanish leader. Does anyone know where one can see Joao II of Portugal screen shot? :D
 
I agree it would've been nice to see Philip II of Spain, simply because I'd really like to try an Eighty Years War scenario with Philip II vs. William of Orange.. With a little luck, the new leaderheads will prove easily moddable and give the many modders here the ability to create Philip II..

There is a really good Hirohito leaderhead out there though.. Unfortunately since there is no tutorial on how to get leaderheads into the game without loading a seperate mod for them, I haven't installed it yet..
 
Maya and Aztec are both in North America.

The Incas are in South America.

I suppose they're more central American, but I suppose my point is more one of diversity. There are many different aboriginal peoples in the Americas, they're underrepresented. The Lakota, Iroquois, the Mohawk, each had a dramatic impact on history in North America.

Inca is the only South American one. The others are Northern Central.. Also the tribes like the ones you mentioned would no way qualify for a civ because.. they were only tribes. The Maya, Aztec and the Inca were more civilised because they were organised and they constructed large cities.

I believe you make a mistake in calling the North American tribes uncivilized because they didn't have permanent residences. They had cultures of their own, each with their own traditions and practices.
 
What´s the purpose of the Ship of the line if there are only ships of the line and frigates? Whithout a third naval unit that defeats these new units, it would make no sense to build frigates.

They said, the frigate is still the faster unit. So its similar to the modern era: while the battleship is the strongest ship, you need the cruiser as well, because its faster!
 
To answer the question somebody asked, I did the math and there are only three trait combinations that remain unused in BTS:

Industrious & Philosophical (to be expected)

Creative & Charismatic

Organized & Protective
 
I'm excited about the return of paratroopers and cruise missles. Plus the use of tactical nukes seems to indicate a return of old Civ2 style tactics in the late game.

Since it seems subs can carry tactical nukes all these anti-sub units are a necessary counter.
 
Since it seems subs can carry tactical nukes all these anti-sub units are a necessary counter.[/QUOTE]

I totally feel the same about this!
 
I am surprised that De Gaulle was included. He was responsible for the Quebec seperatism movement, which nearly crippled Canada and is still an extremely touchy subject.

The Native Americans have finally recieved some attention! They (in my mind) deserve more of a spot than many of the new civs being shoved into the overcrowded European group. As a resopnse to criticism, the First nations have contributed hugely to history. Over 60% of modern agriculture was developed in the Americas. They developed corn from scratch (no wild stuff). It could be argued that they have contributed more than even the greeks to democracy (The Great law of Peace). It is a shame that all of this has been lumped under "Native americans" though.

...oh yeah YAY FOR KHMER!!!
 
I'm excited about the return of paratroopers and cruise missles. Plus the use of tactical nukes seems to indicate a return of old Civ2 style tactics in the late game.

Since it seems subs can carry tactical nukes all these anti-sub units are a necessary counter.

The thing I'm most excited about is the AI. Blake had been doing some good work on the Better AI mod before getting tapped for the BtS project by Firaxis. Honestly, they could have just released a finished version of Better AI as an expansion pack and I'd have paid for it. With all the other additions... well, this could be the best expansion pack ever.
 
Honestly im glad Khmer's and Ethiopians are in. Because i hate having so many crowded country's in one area and having All that empty land in Africa and north America. I do agree with leif, and the comments, but i think they should've made native Americans civ into one separate country and holy roman empire into an African or native country. Though they should have also an Australian or Polynesian country because i hate to see empty areas on the map.
 
For those commenting on Japanese leaders... while it would be very nice to include, say, Meiji (a tidbit of Civ lore: he was actually in the original list of leaders for Civ 4 way-back-when) depicting any Japanese emperors, whatever the era is a very sensitive issue - which makes finding good leaders more difficult.
 
For those commenting on Japanese leaders... while it would be very nice to include, say, Meiji (a tidbit of Civ lore: he was actually in the original list of leaders for Civ 4 way-back-when) depicting any Japanese emperors, whatever the era is a very sensitive issue - which makes finding good leaders more difficult.

Including Hirohito as a leader is on par with adding Hitler.
 
I think it's interesting that we have four Allied powers with their WWII leader (Roosevelt, De Gaulle, Stalin, Churchill) but no Axis leaders. People can say these people were to "brutal" to be included, but in a game with Mao and Stalin, why not have Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini?
 
Including Hirohito as a leader is on par with adding Hitler.


I think it's interesting that we have four Allied powers with their WWII leader (Roosevelt, De Gaulle, Stalin, Churchill) but no Axis leaders. People can say these people were to "brutal" to be included, but in a game with Mao and Stalin, why not have Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini?

Oh boy, I can feel it coming. :deadhorse:
 
For those commenting on the HRE's inclusion it's worth remembering there is a Charlemagne scenario and also that tho Charlemagne was a Frankish king, the Franks were more "german" than modern "french" if such a comparison could even be drawn. STILL I agree it shouldn't have been included when there are more worthy civs to represent. Personally i feel De Gaulle should be in there if one were to be forced to choose a third leader for France, Jean D'Arc while cultural and historically important doesn't quite hold up to the more or less creator of the modern French state, irregardless I feel Japan or Spain could do with another leader, I have wanted Meiji in for a very long time and I'm sad to hear that it's difficult to put him in, also someone other than Isabella would be awful nice for poor Spain, tho I'm not sure I'd like playing Franco.

and the Byzantines are one of my topics of study so I'm a bit biased when it comes to them, but I do like their inclusion, after all they hung around for over 1000 years till the fall of constantinople in 1453 :goodjob:

also anyone see those screens of what I can only hope is Fall from heaven? very very pretty...
 
Franco. Okay, sure he was big on the whole Catholic thing, but he was arguably isolationist, and not wont to declare war if you looked at him funny. Would've been a good addition to the whole WW2 pack of leaders that a lot of Civs have.

In what way was Franco a great leader? He staged a coup and killed a lot of his fellow-countrymen, and after the Second World War he sheltered a lot of Nazi war criminals. That is the sum of his achievements. If one wants a second great Spanish leader, better go for Philip II, who was also intensely Catholic, liek Franco, but was at least a world player.

I'm not too habppy about the addition of more WWII leaderr; neither Churchill nor de Gaulle feels necessary to me. And I am an admirer of Churchill.
 
I am surprised that De Gaulle was included. He was responsible for the Quebec seperatism movement, which nearly crippled Canada and is still an extremely touchy subject.

The Native Americans have finally recieved some attention! They (in my mind) deserve more of a spot than many of the new civs being shoved into the overcrowded European group. As a resopnse to criticism, the First nations have contributed hugely to history. Over 60% of modern agriculture was developed in the Americas. They developed corn from scratch (no wild stuff). It could be argued that they have contributed more than even the greeks to democracy (The Great law of Peace). It is a shame that all of this has been lumped under "Native americans" though.

...oh yeah YAY FOR KHMER!!!

The Quebecois separatists were around long before de Gaulle took notice of them. As for the American Indians being "more responsible for democracy than the Greeks", that is just a silly claim made by people who want to beat the drum for the Indians. Furthermore, Eurasian agriculture (not to mention the breeding of domestic animals) was much more advanced than that of the corn planters in North America.

I agree about the Khmer, though. It's very good that they are in. And the European quota is filled to the brim. I hope Firaxis will ignore any petitions to them asking that even more European countries be included.
 
I think Portugal and Netherlands were necessary because they ended up being major international civs. I don't think HRE or Byzantium needed to have been included though.

My issue with Native American civs is that, while they were sophisticated civilizations in their own way, they just don't fit the way Sid Meier civilizations work. I just don't like to see made-up cities like 'Streaming Mountain' or whatever popping up.
 
Top Bottom