Civs You'd Like to See

[Lord Neil]

I say that The Native American Empire should be split into multiple Civilizations.
At least the Iroquois and Sioux.

 

[Edgecrusher]

I forgot to mention this in my earlier post, but the Timurid Empire, that existed from around 1370 to the 1500's existed in the area of central asia occupied by current Uzbekistan, Afgahistan, Turkmenistan, etc.. (there is come overlap with Mongolia/Persia/India.

For what its worth, the Timurids were the 24th largest empire (land wise) to date. (between the Byzantine, 23rd, and Hunnic, 25th). Incidently the successer of the Timurids was the Mughal empire that expanded into India/Pakistan after loosing land to the north, which was ranked 21st.

My "source" is wikipedia so take it for what that is. Incidently on the same list, Chinese Dynesty's appear 4 times in the top 20, Arabian empires 3 times, so there is much overlap.

Other then that, the only empires in the top 25 (land wise) that arent in Civ are the Mexican Empire and Brazilian Empire, which one could argue was part of the Spanish/Portuguese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_empires

*shrugs*

also regarding the "list" its the usual suspects.

 

[jkp1187]

The C.S.A. is actually one of the few civs I'd actually argue against inclusion, just because historically it was a tempest in a teacup -- at least on the time scale we're dealing with in the standard "epic" game. On the sort of timescales used in Civilization, Jeff Davis is an American leader....

Personally, my short list for inclusion is:
* Afrikaners/Paul Kruger, Jan Smuts
* Vietnamese/Ho Chi Minh
* Polish/Pilsudski
* Israelis/Solomon, Ben-Gurion
* Brazilians/Dom Pedro
* Cherokee/John Ross
* Sioux/Sitting Bull
* Iroquois/Hiawatha

I also agree that Central Asia needs more representation in the game.

 

[TheLastOne36]

When Boudica was racing about on her chariot the ancestors of the English were living in Denmark and Germany. I'd suggest we don't need an English (or American) civ, Germany will do for both. Replace them with the Welsh, Scots and Irish.

then how do we represent the english civilization during the colonial period, and WW era? Germany certeinly didn't have colonize america and australia, circumnavigate the glove etc.

 

[paydro]

I don't think either of them should even be in there. Even the Iroquois shouldn't count. I like having an "India" so that Gandhi can remain a leader, but an earlier dominant culture seems like a nice addition.

I reject the CSA, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Bulgarian out of hand. The CSA is ridiculous, Canada/Australia/NZ are all too close to Britain, and Ireland/Scotland I think are too dominated by Britain and also sort of represented by the Celts.

"Polynesia" and "Serb" are okay ideas, I think, as representations of a geographic area that is otherwise not represented. "Serb" is no better than "Croat" or "Bosnian" or "Albanian" but it would be a nice addition.

I really like the following: Vietnam (to get another SE Asian culture, prob. Ho Chi Minh), Sweden (Gustavus Adolphus I suppose), Poland (whoever, the apparently numerous Poles on this board can pick one), Austria (Maria Theresa?) and Hebrew (King David).

The rest (Brazil, Mexico, Tibet) are kind of marginal. I can't think of a good leader for any of them, and I'm not sure how separate they can be from their parent country in the case of Brazil/Mexico.

I know nothing of the Congo, Hittite, Uighur, Hun, or Assyrians, so I won't comment.

Anyway, I think those new leaders should try the remaining combinations:
Charismatic/Creative, Protective/Organized and Philosophical/Industrious.

I would say Pro/Org would be a great choice for Maria Theresa, since she's mostly famous for reforming and centralizing the Austrian government. It would be pretty easy to make a Pancho Villa for Mexico who was Charismatic/Creative, and... I have no idea who is Philosophical/Industrious. Honestly Mao leaps to mind, and then you could give protective/expansive to Casimir III of Poland.

As for King David, honesly he'd be best off as Spiritual and maybe Charismatic or Creative. Ho Chi Minh would be Charismatic/Organized, and then Gustavus Adolphus would be Aggressive/Expansive. Maybe you would use Songtsen Gampo for Tibet, he should probably be Spiritual/Creative.

 

[paydro]

Quick update, I meant the native american empires shouldn't be in there, because they really aren't even civilizations.

Also, Solomon would actually be a very good choice for Philosophical/Industrious.

 

[HerrDoktor]

then how do we represent the english civilization during the colonial period, and WW era? Germany certeinly didn't have colonize america and australia, circumnavigate the glove etc.

Actually, the "glove" was first circumnavigated by a Portuguese under the Spanish banner, Fernao de Magalhaes, who, by the way, died during his trip so actually his fellow subordinates were the first men to proof that "The Earth is Round".

There are absolutely no reports indicating that, from then on, Spanish or Portuguese ships turned magically faster overnight.

Also, Brazilian Empire was somewhat a feat just because Dom Pedro II managed to keep all the mess stitched together, different from what happened in Spanish America.

I'm just wondering what the Brazilian UU would be... "Lazy worker" - doubles improvement time but diverts some money to your coffers due goverment scams. Topless Carnaval peacock-dressed mulata, a Weapon of Mass Distraction.

 

[Fireseal]

Seconded.

God knows what the UU/UB would be though. Robert the Bruce for leader?

You want that guy for leader?

PS Everything I know about him I saw in Braveheart (movie)

 

[ConanKND]

Don't for get the Thai Kingdom as a candidate for SE Asia! Too bad that since Khmer is in, Vietnam will be a bit more favoured because of the closeness between Thailand and Ancient Cambodia. The other problem is the strict lese majeste law in Thailand, but that shouldn't stop Firaxis.

 

[AmazonQueen]

then how do we represent the english civilization during the colonial period, and WW era? Germany certeinly didn't have colonize america and australia, circumnavigate the glove etc.

In case you didn't notice I wasn't being entirely serious
Much as I love my home I don't think small nations/cultures that failed to crush/subjugate/conquer others have a place as thats what the game is mainly about

Timurid Emirates is an excellent idea although I suppose there is some overlap with the Mongols
A civ I'd like to see is Venice, a major power in the Med. Enrico Dandolo, instigator of the capture of Constantinople by the 4th crusade as leader

 

[LendMeYourTeeth]

You want that guy for leader?

PS Everything I know about him I saw in Braveheart (movie)

Well, we don't want those pesky types from over the border to become too powerful, do we?

 

[moopoo]

I think Austria-Hungary's place in WWI as one of the Major Powers entitles them to a run in Civ. Unless I am mistaken every other major power involved in a world war is represented.

As an Indian, I very much dislike the idea of splitting up India, and Much prefer India as it is now in the game, mostly there to represent the last 60 years, and the power they gave to the British Empire (which is why, i think, they included the fast worker as a unique unit). I do however like the idea of a Mughal Empire, although i think they are partially represented by both Arabia and India as they are in the game now.

 

[modo_komodo]

I think its difficult problem for us to talk about as we all seem to be suggesting civilizations based on different criteria.

How are we all supposed to be measuring the success of a civilization or it's 'right' to be in the game?

 

[LendMeYourTeeth]

It's also worth noting that stereotypes are inevitabley going to occur in games like thes, just read further back to the Japenese Samurai. I'd prefer if the UU was called a Clansman (complete with huge claymore) but wouldn't mind if it was a Highlander.

Only if it had it's own Buckfast promotion that made it go completely mental for five turns.

 

[AljayBoy]

Only if it had it's own Buckfast promotion that made it go completely mental for five turns.

Yes, ditching the claymore in favour of running about with said Buckie bottle shouting "Mon' Ya Bass!"

On a (slightly) more serious note, the criteria I use for considering who should be included, in no particular order, goes something like this:

• Area of landmass controlled, directly or indirectly, by said nation. With allowances made for time period.
• Cultural and philisophical imprint and effects, which have lasted or may last longer than the nation where they where first 'discovered'.
• Leading nation in the world of technological and/or social advancement, in any one era or timeframe throughout history.
• Any nation which could be regarded as a 'superpower' in terms of military projection capability and overall military might.

So, going by that criteria, I'd take out the Native American civ, and certainly not replace it with seperate ones, and swap HRE with an Austria-Hungary civ.

Unfortunately, while my native Scotland would satisfy half of the above criteria, the fact that we could be said to be already represented by both the Celts and even England means Scotland will never be included.

England because it is mainly the existence of the British Empire that they are included for, which included Scotland also.

 

[troytheface]

the criterea not only varies, but also- any Civ would theoretically be viable in so far as the idea of "alternate" history.
Phonecia beats Greece, Confederate States win, The Iroquois drive the settlers off the continent, ect.

 

[GIO888]

HerrDoktor LOL! you is funny Dude.

Seems to me this kind of string needs a bit of levity. The best one was replacing the English (thus the USA, Canada-mostly, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa-somewhat, various islands, etc) with Germany.

that was almost as funny as your comments, Herr Dok!

 

[AmazonQueen]

HerrDoktor LOL! you is funny Dude.

Seems to me this kind of string needs a bit of levity. The best one was replacing the English (thus the USA, Canada-mostly, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa-somewhat, various islands, etc) with Germany.

that was almost as funny as your comments, Herr Dok!

To extend it further replace germany with Prussia. 1 bunch of WASPs is enough for any game.

 

[braindrain]

Quick update, I meant the native american empires shouldn't be in there, because they really aren't even civilizations.

i seriously don't understand how you can say this... i don't even know how to begin to defend agaisnst such a rediculous statement...

this is just about the most ignorant and narrow minded statement i've ever heard!

what makes a civilization?
*perminant cities? native north americans did have some perminant settlements, and besides the mongols were pretty much nomadic anyway, so that is out
*written language? ok sure native north americans didn't have perminant written records, but tell me how many european nations developed their own writing? sometimes i wonder if the sumerians and other ancient civ's didn't develop writing, would any of europe have writing? close contact and more far flung trading in europe due to it's easy accessability with other areas (middle east and such) really affected european devopments. i really don't feel that the lack of writing in native north america is basis for dismissing them as a civilization. besides, favoring an oral tradition over a written one is NOT a sign of inferiority.
*religion, art, culture? now if you tell me native north america lacked any of these i would die laughing.
*government? it is well documented that the iroquis nation was largely democratic. some form of intellegent and organized and effective government must have been in place to accomidate this confederation and other settlements. it is estimated that pre european contact populations in native north america was many millions. there had to be more than big chief so and so in order for this many people to live together for so long.

so how is it that native north americans don't deserve to be considered civilizations?
are you still under the illusion of 1950's cowboy movies where natives are depicted as nothing more than uncivilized savages? i'm just curious to hear why you don't feel like they deserve to be properly represented.

i find it awfully funny that there are 5 american civ's in civ 4, including central and south america and the united states. that's 5 out of 32? (i think it's 32 anyway) the americas cover a massive massive portion of the earth and it's lack of representaion is sickening, and it is due to generations of ignorant inconsiderations like your post.

 

[HerrDoktor]

My very restrictive criteria:

1. Try to imagine what are the consequences of entirely removing a civilization from History.
2. Is there any serious worldwide enduring consequences, politically, culturally, religiously?

By this criteria, there are lots of civilizations NOW added just for the sake of geographic covering or politically correct - also read: marketing - sensibilities.

I can't think of any other Civilization fitting these rules. Well, maybe Hungary/Romania for their role in restricting Ottoman expansion - I would LOVE to see Count Vlad Dracula as a leader...

Another Idea: add modern leaders for ancient civilizations to prevent overlapping. What if Garibaldi or Lorenzo di Medici were leaders for Roman/Italian civilization, and Justinian just another Greek leader? For instance, the Byzantines were just called "greek" by their times. Also: Michael Collins of the Celts/Irish.