Civ5 Civilizations Wish-List

[amazingorange]

If you had Moses as a vassal state, couldnt he do all sorts of stuff to you though, like totally smash your populations in your cities, and pollute all of your water supplies and make all of your people sick until you let his people go?

 

[cheesemoose]

If you had Moses as a vassal state, couldnt he do all sorts of stuff to you though, like totally smash your populations in your cities, and pollute all of your water supplies and make all of your people sick until you let his people go?

I'd SO play as him! That's an AWESOME idea for a mod! Might be hard though . Would he also split apart seas instead of using naval units?

 

[The Almighty dF]

I'd SO play as him! That's an AWESOME idea for a mod! Might be hard though . Would he also split apart seas instead of using naval units?

I'd love that.
If only you could mod that.

I remember looking into how much you could do with Civ leaders back when I had planned to do an American Presidents mod. I wanted Harrison to be a super leader with every single trait, but you lose the game if you don't complete it within I think it was 30 days, the number of days he lived in office. Something like that.
Didn't look like it could be done, though.

 

[cheesemoose]

Hmmm... Yes! A Moses naval unit that uses a move to make desert out of coast/ocean squares. Complicated (or is it?) but possible

 

[amazingorange]

That would be one tough enemy to fight, since it isnt Moses himself who did all of that insanity, it was GOD. So basically you would be playing against GOD, and you would lose. Every time.

 

[cheesemoose]

That would be one tough enemy to fight, since it isnt Moses himself who did all of that insanity, it was GOD. So basically you would be playing against GOD, and you would lose. Every time.

Yes, but I lose all the time anyway. It does sound fun though. Having your naval units blocked by God in the middle of a war .

 

[amazingorange]

I guess he would be a nice ally, since if you converted your state religion to Christianity, then he might be a lot friendlier and you won't be the victim of whatever God decides to throw at you.

 

[cheesemoose]

If you managed to stay till 2050, would every Christian civ be Raptured? The civ with the most population and/or temples wins

 

[amazingorange]

The thing with Christianity is you don't win or lose, you just try to get to heaven and that is the reward in itself. I guess for the sake of the game whoever spread the most christianity would probably win, which would come down to the most temples and most converted cities and whatever. Besides, there is no way to know when Jesus comes back anyway, but we would just assume its 2050, for the sake of a playable game.

 

[michael_g24]

i def reckon a john curtain of the australians would be insanely awesome

 

[The Almighty dF]

I guess he would be a nice ally, since if you converted your state religion to Christianity, then he might be a lot friendlier and you won't be the victim of whatever God decides to throw at you.

If you managed to stay till 2050, would every Christian civ be Raptured? The civ with the most population and/or temples wins

The thing with Christianity is you don't win or lose, you just try to get to heaven and that is the reward in itself. I guess for the sake of the game whoever spread the most christianity would probably win, which would come down to the most temples and most converted cities and whatever. Besides, there is no way to know when Jesus comes back anyway, but we would just assume its 2050, for the sake of a playable game.

Which is fine except Moses = Judaism, not Christianity. There -is- a difference.
Christianity is basically a sequel to Judaism except with a different screenwriter and director, and in order to compete with other religions they eventually had to combine the scripts of both Christianity and the current Roman state religion to form a summer box office success.

 

[davidtylr]

Moses is a great prophet having him would be like having Merlin as a leader.

 

[toft]

I was about to say; "theres already a civ5 wish-list", but looking at this random offtopic religious discussion, I might just go: "HUH?!!?"

 

[squid1111]

Hittites. Also, the Khmer need to show up earlier.

 

[bob bobato]

Viking:
Leif Ericson Some have suggested making him a Great Explorer unit, I'd much rather seem him as an actual leader. I think he deserves it.

That doesn't matter. If he wasn't an actually ruler, then he cant be a civ leader. None of this silly and insensitive re-writing of history, like making Jean d'Arc leader of the French or Gandhi leader of India.

And you're porbably wondering why I said insensitive. Imagine everyone's reaction if Dick Cheney were a civ leader of the US, or Francis Drake leader of UK, or Plato leader of Greece. Yes it's just a game and all ,but that's no excuse for being inconsiderate and dismissive.

 

[Balderstrom]

Insulting? It's a game, not a history book. Anyone that says Blah blah blah - it can't be cuz thats not how it was in history. Yeah well 90% of the Civs didn't even exist in 4000 BC ... so what? Let's remove all those from the game so it can be accurate.
So Leif wasn't a leader of the vikings... um well he was a leader/captain whatever you want to call it; one of the more prominent as well, also known as Leif the Lucky.
Best to just remove the vikings entirely since they are just norweigan pirates... Since realism trumps fun obviously.

 

[bob bobato]

I'm not saying it should be completely, 100% historically accurate. in your 4000 BC example, it would be impossible to undo that without completely changing the game. There are somethings that are allowable, like making the Chinese go through European eras and making all the amerindiens one 'Native America' civ (pretty strange and, even, insulting name, since the 'native america' is from a U.S. point of view). It would just be too hard or complicated to change that. But if its just a matter of making a different leader head or giving them a different name, then that is stupid, because it wouldn't change gameplay would be essentially the same thing.

Realism doesn't trump fun...if realism would hurt fun. If fun wouldn't be changed, the realism comes first.

 

[_random_]

That doesn't matter. If he wasn't an actually ruler, then he cant be a civ leader. None of this silly and insulting re-writing of history, like making Jean d'Arc leader of the French or Gandhi leader of India.

And you're porbably wondering why I said insulting. Imagine everyone's reaction if Dick Cheney were a civ leader of the US, or Francis Drake leader of UK, or Plato leader of Greece. Yes it's just a game and all ,but that's no excuse for being inconsiderate and dismissive.

They made Eleanore Roosevelt an American leader in Civ2, and, as an American, I was not insulted. I don't see why other people would be just because someone never actually "led" their civilization.

 

[bob bobato]

Yes, but Civ2 was different. In civ2, they had male and female rulers for every civ. Obviously, since a lot of the civs had never had female leaders, they had to make them up-a lot of the female leaders were gods or wives. But, the thing is, if a civ's only leader didn't actually lead their country (like Jean d'Arc in civ3), then it's basically implying that the designers thought that they were better than any of the REAL leaders.

 

[Onionsoilder]

The New Zealand UU should be a worker that can populate any tile with a sheep.