Civs that should be in an expansion

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Mirc, Nov 13, 2005.

?

Which civs should be in an expansion?

  1. Babylon

    191 vote(s)
    58.6%
  2. Byzantines

    101 vote(s)
    31.0%
  3. Carthaginians

    134 vote(s)
    41.1%
  4. Celts

    121 vote(s)
    37.1%
  5. Dutch

    94 vote(s)
    28.8%
  6. Korea

    87 vote(s)
    26.7%
  7. Maya

    98 vote(s)
    30.1%
  8. Ottomans

    148 vote(s)
    45.4%
  9. Portugese

    61 vote(s)
    18.7%
  10. Sumerians

    80 vote(s)
    24.5%
  11. Vikings

    199 vote(s)
    61.0%
  12. Zulu

    84 vote(s)
    25.8%
  13. New: Ethiopia

    53 vote(s)
    16.3%
  14. New: Indonezia

    21 vote(s)
    6.4%
  15. New: Mexico

    15 vote(s)
    4.6%
  16. New: EU

    20 vote(s)
    6.1%
  17. Other...

    70 vote(s)
    21.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jecrell

    Jecrell Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California, USA
    Such a place can exist in the modern world?

    The only way to argue that is to change the definition of culture or to confine it to a set of rules that defeats its defeinition. But we've been over this before in the "We hate USA -- gtfo our Civ games" threads havn't we?
    I know most of you don't hate the USA, and I know some of you are really pouring your hearts into a legitimate arguement against the united states, but some of you are getting fierce and choose to redefine the word "civilization" to racial types...

    Anyway, I say practically every Civilization/Nation of people deserves a shot at a Civ game.
     
  2. ThePunisher

    ThePunisher Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Kings Langley, Herts, UK
    I'd like to see the Scots too, but what cities are you thining of that would have to be changes?
     
  3. ucel

    ucel Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    360
    Poland, that's what I want.
     
  4. Carewolf

    Carewolf Gammelt røvhul

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    Well I will vote for Scandinavia/Vikings.

    Though I would love to see Denmark in the game as major power from 10th - 17th century, it will only evolve to a battle for including Sweden which took Denmarks seat among the great powers in the 17-18th century, and then along comes the offspring nations in Finland and Norway and require to be included. Just make it Scandinavia.

    There is only one leader that really gives itself "Margrete the Great", who as queen of Denmarks married the old Norwegian king and inherited the realm on behalf of her son and usurped a poor king from Sweden, and created the Kalmar Union.

    The capital should be Roskilde as it is the only city that has ever served as capital of all of Scandinavia. If a player wants Stockholm or Copenhagen as capital, they would have to build their palace there later like in the real history.

    Someone asked what the "vikings" brought besides the first ocean-going ships. Well trade and mass-production. The danes/vikings became a became a power through trade which was enabled by the at the time odd notion of export oriented production. Basically blacksmiths switched to being weaponsmiths, armorsmiths and goldsmiths and produced quantities useless to the local population in order to export it. This culture was one of the most important things England learned from the Danes settlers and conquerors.
     
  5. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    I really hate the term 'Scandinavian'. Nobody identifies themselves as scandinavians, only as a secondary or tertiary identity. Why don't we just mash the spanish and portugese into one and call them the iberians? Or canada and the US as the 'north-americans'. I'll tell you why, because it's not fun! Playing as 'scandinavia' is not fun while playing as the vikings IS. I don't really care if they never had an empire or that their 'reign' was shortlived or that they have few scientific achievements to speak of. What matters is that I have fun playing as them. Atleast call them the Norse or something. Hell, I'd even settle for a swedish civilization over just a scandinavian one (don't tell the swedes though).
     
  6. Jimbo30

    Jimbo30 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Scotland
    Don't forget we're also proud owners of the worst violent crime levels in the western world too...yep apparently Glasgow is even worse than New York. We should put all this aggression to good use, like maybe by invading England again.:p
     
  7. GenericKen

    GenericKen Not at all suspicious

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    202
    Speaking of extra leaders, I was always a little surprised that the US wasn't spiritual, given the frequency with which we tend to change our civics.



    Anyway, highest priorities should be Babylon, Vikings, and Ottomans. After that Byzantines, Carthage, and maybe another european or african civ.

    One thing that I think might be incredibly controversial... is which civs are effectively represented by "Barbarians"? Barbarian is a handy concept for representing a decentralized confederacy of very small nations, but just the stigma of never having the chance of "winning the game" is incredibly dangerous.

    In any case, regarding Israel, I'm a little warry of adding any civ that has effectively been a OCC/wandering settler all it's history without winning very many major wars (given that Israel did not keep any territory, I don't think the seven day war counts). Plus, it just seems wrong to found israel and not go with judaism. It's just not worth the controversy.

    EU is not a nation; it's a very large open boarders/MPP.

    While portugal had many colonies, I'm not sure it's distinctive enough from spain (in history and leader traits) to warrent being in civ, especially when it has been in before.

    Korea is a must, given the gamer demographics. :) Plus, they stuck it to Japan for a long while.

    I dunno about sumeria. It's arguably the most important, being (arguably) the first, but I think you can fold them in with Babylon and nobody would know the difference.

    I think north/south america can handle only one more civ, and it should likely represent a native american nation. The iroquois nation was a messy compromise last time, imo, but I think just labeling indian cities barbarian would be unaccetable. I suppose native american representation could dovetail with a bit of Canadian representation, given their particular shared history of peace (relative to the US, anyway).

    I forgot that the aztecs were already in the game and voted mexico. :(

    Did the Celts ever actually conquer anybody? Don't mean to be insensitive, just ignorant. :)
     
  8. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,476
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    Where's the culture in those? That's just trade.
     
  9. Siggy19

    Siggy19 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    125
    Without meaning to get into any sort of flame war (honest !)... If the Jews had wanted Jesus dead, they would have stoned him, which was a totally legitimate punishment for anything from breaching the Sabbath to Declaring oneself the son of God. Instead, he was crucified, which was a specifically Roman punishment. The likelihood is that by the time the New Testament was written down, it was more sensible to blame the Jews than the Romans, since Rome was the empire they lived in and the Jews had just rebelled (yet again).
     
  10. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,476
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    Are you sure that Civ4 Barbarians cannot win? Would be fun if they suddenly launched their spaceship, the 'Conan'. :mischief:

    The Picts?

    In the first expansion pack, I would like to see:

    Babylon
    Dutch
    Ethiopia
    Iroquois
    Polynesia
    Vikings

    and 3 more, I guess.
     
  11. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,964
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    @which would make about 12* new leaders/trait combinations (needed). Quite a lot, not? (besides you would need to add 2 new traits and then there will be a lot of free trait combos)

    *your 6 civs + 3 others (Turks, Poles and Korea imo) + minimum 3 second leaders (Rome, Greece, Egypt) = 12 leaders
     
  12. Mirc

    Mirc Not mIRC!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    15,825
    Location:
    Düsseldorf, ->Germany, E.U.
    This is not culture, of course.
     
  13. Philips beard

    Philips beard Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Location:
    Norseman
    I'm more interested in the quality of the excisting Civs, then new ones! 3-4 new Civs would satisfy me, but I would like to see 2 leaderheads for each Civ, and at least 2 unique units per CIV! Eye candy like unique graphics of different culture groups would also be nice stuff for an expension, oriental workers, and indian styled cities etc..... I would rather like that, then 12 new Civs, for instance.....

    NB! The 4 most urgent CIVS: Babylon, Chartage, Ethiopia and the Mayas! Perhaps a new european too, like the Vikings, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrians, Netherlands or the Portugese......
     

Share This Page