But to find something it must have first been lost, and it certainly wasnt lost, ask the native inhabitants
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword Expansion Pack Announced!
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
But to find something it must have first been lost, and it certainly wasnt lost, ask the native inhabitants
RegentMan
Deity
So when we discovered electrons, they were lost before?But to find something it must have first been lost, and it certainly wasnt lost, ask the native inhabitants
So when we discovered gravity, it was lost before?
So when we discovered how to make fire, it was lost before?
So when we discovered electricity, it was lost before?
So when we discovered the perfect recipe for cookies, it was lost before?
So when we discovered...
Culture was introduced in
![[civ3]](/images/smilies/civ3.gif "Civ3 Icon [civ3]")
my friend. And having a significant culture alone isn't reason to be included in a computer game.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Sorry, I haven't bothered to read all of this thread but has anyone come up with an answer on wether BTS will work with Warlords if you own both?
I feel it would be a backwards move to create an expansion pack that doesn't work with everything avalible so far. I want to beable to have both Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill in the same game!
I feel it would be a backwards move to create an expansion pack that doesn't work with everything avalible so far. I want to beable to have both Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill in the same game!
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Yes, BTS will almost definitely have Warlords included, since it's the only logical thing to do (and also because of mentions of, for instance, new Unique Buildings for the new civs, which was a Warlords concept).
By the way, good to see another guy from Christchurch here.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Yes, BTS will almost definitely have Warlords included, since it's the only logical thing to do (and also because of mentions of, for instance, new Unique Buildings for the new civs, which was a Warlords concept).
By the way, good to see another guy from Christchurch here.
Awesome. Sounds right to me.
Crusaders should be a civ
(Watch the misquotes from this 1!)KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
One thought on the Corporations, as they sound Similar to religions, Might one have an Official Corporation (perhaps only for Mercantilist and State Property Civics?)
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,708
Remember another thread somewhere else that debates what is a civilization and what is a country? While I firmly believe that a civilization is not the same as a country, Firexis obviously understands that small, modern nation-states have wealthier citizens, and hence will sell games better (who's going to include an SE Asian civilization?!). Trying my best to be Politically Polite (TM): there's over 150 countries in the UN right now, but who can say that they're all seperate civilizations? Are there over 30 civilizations in Europe? Of course not... some nations just have to admit that their own culture is not enough to stand up as a seperate civilization, no matter how patriotic they are.
That being said, although I won't buy the game myself, I believe it does have a lot to offer, and should be great fun for those that can afford the time commitment.
That being said, although I won't buy the game myself, I believe it does have a lot to offer, and should be great fun for those that can afford the time commitment.
risc06
Chieftain
Yeah - corporations sound interesting. I'd be happier if they were more powerful/important than religions, though, e.g. something like a Dutch/English East India Company, which could operate covertly to bring down opposition Civs or force them to do your evil bidding.
This would add spice (and other tradeable commodities) to the game.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Good job they discovered it else all those native Americans would have never known where they were all living
I wasn't at all trying to indicate that the country was unknown, I tried to postpone one of the reasons why the Vikings was included in the game, as they weren't only raiders.
Thorburne
Centurion
Well, flipping through part of this thread (at least from where I last posted a few pages back) I noticed that I only saw one post that inquired or referenced Israel. I, too, hope that they will return to Civ. Especially now that they have religion ion the game. I could be mistaken, but it seems that all of the other religions besides Judaism have the founding nation (or what eventually evolved into the founding nation) in the game. I know that this exp is more focused on the more recent stages of civilization, but that doesn't mean that they can't include a couple things from earlier eras.
Besides, Israel is one of the few ancient civilizations that has reached into the modern age (by name and culture) despite numerous conquests and attempts to rid the world of them or suck them into their own entity (as my ancestors... Rome... did).
As for those who feel that there are enough civilizations in the game (as well as those complaining about other additions such as new scenarios), they are not included merely for a marketing attempt. Though that may play a small part in it, the new civ's are there to create diversity and to give more options, first and foremost. Options is the key word there! The new civ's and the scenarios and most of the other features are all purely options that you do not have to play with. Though there are those of us who would love to play a marathon game on a gigantic map with every single civilization available (even if our computer's don't want to), most players are fine with just a handful of civ's. The additional civ's are there to give player's a choice of who to play with. Maybe you get tired of wooping Alexandar around after a while... don't include hime and include somebody else.
All in all, and this may seem harsh, but quit whining about more stuff. It's like being handed a million dollars in cash and saying, "I don't want money, I want a new car!" Get over it! I'm sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. If you are not happy about the fact that the game is getting more choices included with the expansion (btw, expansion is another key word), then I suggest you save your money and buy a cheese factory. Otherwise, use your whining privilage for something that matters, like...
The fact that religions are hard to change/edit/add/remove from the game. I simply can't find it anywhere in all of the XML files. In fact...
(For more on the last thought in this post, please look for a continuation and reiterization in the Creation and Custimization Forum)
Besides, Israel is one of the few ancient civilizations that has reached into the modern age (by name and culture) despite numerous conquests and attempts to rid the world of them or suck them into their own entity (as my ancestors... Rome... did).
As for those who feel that there are enough civilizations in the game (as well as those complaining about other additions such as new scenarios), they are not included merely for a marketing attempt. Though that may play a small part in it, the new civ's are there to create diversity and to give more options, first and foremost. Options is the key word there! The new civ's and the scenarios and most of the other features are all purely options that you do not have to play with. Though there are those of us who would love to play a marathon game on a gigantic map with every single civilization available (even if our computer's don't want to), most players are fine with just a handful of civ's. The additional civ's are there to give player's a choice of who to play with. Maybe you get tired of wooping Alexandar around after a while... don't include hime and include somebody else.
All in all, and this may seem harsh, but quit whining about more stuff. It's like being handed a million dollars in cash and saying, "I don't want money, I want a new car!" Get over it! I'm sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. If you are not happy about the fact that the game is getting more choices included with the expansion (btw, expansion is another key word), then I suggest you save your money and buy a cheese factory. Otherwise, use your whining privilage for something that matters, like...
The fact that religions are hard to change/edit/add/remove from the game. I simply can't find it anywhere in all of the XML files. In fact...
(For more on the last thought in this post, please look for a continuation and reiterization in the Creation and Custimization Forum)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Just wanted to empathize the inclusion of Israel. 
risc06
Chieftain
Got to agree with the last two guys by the way: if Australia has NOT contributed enough to warrant inclusion as a CIV, then Israel/Jewish Civilization has contributed SO MUCH that I'm a bit confused as to why they haven't yet appeared (particularly since Judaism appears in CIV IV). And Thorburne note on the longevity of the civilization is perhaps the incontestable fact.
That said, I'd prefer to see a potential Israel civ less focused on modern Israel and more on the heritage of the past (special units might be Zealots of the Herodian/Roman period - fast moving, strong guerilla types capable of making huge trouble for Roman legions* through to the gunpowder age). A special building could be a synagogue, the existence of which were the most improtant factor in the expansion and sustaining of the diaspora after the Flavian destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (could give the benefits of a regular temple, but with courthouse-like anti-corruption features).
Leaders - Solomon or David? and then one from the modern Israeli period - Ben Gurion or Rabin perhaps.
*By the way, has it annoyed other people that CIV IV replaced the Roman Legion with a Praetorian? Plain stupid in my book, given that Praetorians were a unit formed of/from legions/legionaries.
That said, I'd prefer to see a potential Israel civ less focused on modern Israel and more on the heritage of the past (special units might be Zealots of the Herodian/Roman period - fast moving, strong guerilla types capable of making huge trouble for Roman legions* through to the gunpowder age). A special building could be a synagogue, the existence of which were the most improtant factor in the expansion and sustaining of the diaspora after the Flavian destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (could give the benefits of a regular temple, but with courthouse-like anti-corruption features).
Leaders - Solomon or David? and then one from the modern Israeli period - Ben Gurion or Rabin perhaps.
*By the way, has it annoyed other people that CIV IV replaced the Roman Legion with a Praetorian? Plain stupid in my book, given that Praetorians were a unit formed of/from legions/legionaries.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well one problem with including Israel IS the Judaism religion. With the possible exception of India/Hinduism no civ is as strongly defined by its religion. One could argue that Israel is already in (whenever Judaism is founded, the Jewish civ has been born.. whether or not they have a state is a different factor)
Overall I'd be in favor of them, mostly because the number of worthy civs begins to get thin adding ten more, but I can see a reason for keeping them out. Although I'd put a Khmer-region and an Ethiopia-region civ first (now that Babylon is in)
Overall I'd be in favor of them, mostly because the number of worthy civs begins to get thin adding ten more, but I can see a reason for keeping them out. Although I'd put a Khmer-region and an Ethiopia-region civ first (now that Babylon is in)
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Just pointing out that the Jewish Synagogue is already a building in the original game.
But Israel hasn't been long-lived at all. There is no continuity between the modern state of Israel and the ancient kingdom. The ancient kingdom was conquered and assimilated by the Roman empire and effectively ceased to exist after the Jewish War of the first century AD. The modern state has been founded in the same place and has the same name, but there is no temporal continuity, as it were. There was no Israel in the Middle Ages, except in the sense that the Jewish people survived - but whatever a "civ" may be, I don't think that a people, living in many different countries, counts as one.
You could create a new state in the middle of Mexico and call it "The Aztec Empire" but that wouldn't mean that the Aztecs had survived into the present day - at best it would mean that the empire had been recreated.
Which isn't to say that there is no reason to include Israel, but I think there are other civs that have a better claim first, such as Ethiopia (which really has survived for a very long period).
You could create a new state in the middle of Mexico and call it "The Aztec Empire" but that wouldn't mean that the Aztecs had survived into the present day - at best it would mean that the empire had been recreated.
Which isn't to say that there is no reason to include Israel, but I think there are other civs that have a better claim first, such as Ethiopia (which really has survived for a very long period).
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
macedon should be one of the new civs
yaluckyboy
Chieftain
I wonder if they'll put Canada and the Iroquois?
I hope it will be easier to make great generals
FREE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!
I hope it will be easier to make great generals
FREE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!
risc06
Chieftain
This is so problematic, I'm not sure where to start - no continuity? Jews have been resident in the holy land since the destruction of the Herodian temple, as well as being dispersed throughout Europe and the world. Certainly, their numbers fell drastically following the first-century conquest, but there were subsequent Jewish revolts until the final destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, when the diaspora became the majority Jewish population - there was never an 'assimilation' into the Roman Empire, or later empires. And the 'restoration' of the nation-state of Israel was partially justified because of the ancestral links to the territory of the Levant (although Herzl originally had his eye on British Uganda). The Jewish civilization ('Israel' - the people of Israel) does have an unbroken continuity, if not of basic state-territoriality.
Though the comparison may seem a little ironic: the Arab civ - 'a people, living in many different countries' - that we have had since early days is a similarly problematic one but one which has not been challenged (Vikings; Byzantines could be Greeks...).
I agree with Ethiopia, by the way.
Similar threads
