Civs You'd Like to See

sirsnuggles said:
So many wonderful ideas for new civs. Poland. Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yisrael. Scotland/Ireland (the Scots came from Ireland). Vietnam. And so many others. Perhaps the vision of Firaxis is obscured. Perhaps their eyes remain incapable of seeing the great wealth that lies within their grasp.
Click to expand...
I don't think Firaxis's vision is obscured, so much as there being only so much they can do with deadlines, research, and such. Then again, they also released modding tools and the like to help players make Civ their ideal game, as they can add in things that they might have felt that Civ should have.

My vote goes for a Mexico civ, just 'cause. XD And maybe a Canada one too. A modern-day African civ would be good too, like South Africa, or Nigeria...
 
OK.
So we have Native Americans, Mayan, Inca and Aztecs. I clearly do not claim that they are the target buyers of BTS :) But they represent (in some way) the history of both American continents.

We have also many Middle East civs: Sumer, Babylon, Arabs, Ottoman, Persian...

I'm just wondering what are the criteria for choosing the civs? If you have Byzantium and HRE (which is BTW a little bit not historical: Charlemagne was in fact the king of Franks, and only nominally an Emperor of HRE. Historians claim that the idea of real HRE came true in 962 and was implemented by German emperor Otto. It would be more appropriate to put Otto as a ruler of HRE), and Romans instead of Italy so you might think that creators of the game prefer historic civilizations rather than present ones.

I don't want to sound nationalistic :) I just think that Slavs are worth to mention. It is important culture of Europe. Polish Kingdom in 1400s and 1500s was much bigger than France or Spain are now and it was one of the greatest powers of Europe at that time.

Anyway it is not a problem for me. I realize that Poland (as well as Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) does not mean a lot right now. It is great that we have Polish version of the game, no doubt.

I believe we are just exchanging opinions, right? That is the point of the forum. I think that the more playable civs - the better. It makes the game more interesting. But I also agree with one of the guys who said that the game had been created in such way that there was no problem to mod it and change it as someone would like.
 
moopoo said:
I think there is a different criteria for european nations to get into civ. All the one's in the game either had a strong colonial presence, featured in an alliance in one of the World Wars, or featured prominently in the Middle Ages or ancient times. While I have no idea of Poland's prominence in the Middle Ages (Although the fact that I know nothing of them says something, i suppose), they don't meet any of the other criteria.
Click to expand...

Spoiler :



^ in 1638

And Poland did colonize

And Poland was important during the middle ages. Poland was the Richest, Most Populous, Largest, Most Powerful, and had the best living conditions in europe at one point during the middle ages. (Although i do admit that's mostly due to all of europe except for Poland getting the "black death")
 
Assyria. If we can get Babylonia and Sumer in together, we can certainly have what is probably the most famous of the Mesopotamian peoples to the average layman in the game.

Hatti. They were in Civ 3; an important bulwark to the Greeks and Babylonians and Assyrians and discovered iron working. Very much deserve to be back in.

Phoenicia Proper, NOT just Carthage. Important seafaring people, gave the ancestor of the modern alphabet....and if you don't go for THAT, please note that it's sad to see the Cannanite cities split between Persia and Egypt too much. ;)

Nubia/Kesh. Very important local power next to Egypt and Ethiopia when it wasn't warring or conquering one of those two nations.

Vietnam. Important southeast Asia people! And we can always use more Asian civs.

Thailand. See above. Another bulwark to India.

Iroquia. More American civs. Split Native Americans into this and...

Dakota. ...the Sioux. More even playing field for North America.

I'm sure I'll think of more. They're in there too also take up more space on the world map in certain areas.
 
^^
i love everything you just said umbric :)

i think there is room for the polish-lithuanian commonwealth on that list too
 
I'm still for Count Dracula of Wallachia.
 
Israel. How can you have Jewish religion and not have Israel? For all purposes Jew=Hebrew.
 
Things I'd like to see

A Better Greece
From what I've learned in my studies, Alexander wasn't the type of guy to chill in his palace and promote legislation. I consider him more of a warlord (Like Genghis Khan) than a great leader. He went out and conquered the known world which was Great, but not enough for me.
For leaders I'm thinking Peisistratus, Lysander, Solon come to mind when I think of the crafters of Greece.
Or give Athens and Sparta their own Civilizations.
Can we give them better Units too? Give them extra power or some sort of group defense, that when attacking together gets extra attack. I mean Alexander didn't conquer the world with guys who got extra hills defense.

More North America

USA- Add in Teddy Roosevelt maybe? (Imperialist, Charismatic) Or possibly Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. I think Washington gets too much credit. He was indeed the first and set the premise for what to do and how long to do it, but by today's standards, Washington isn't impressive.
I think the Navy Seals on Civ 4 are too weak. By the time I get them into the field they are bulldozed by tanks. The US is the innovator in future warfare so can we include plastic tanks, laser guided bullets, automatic shotguns?
Or how about militia? Something was being done right to defeat red coats in the revolution. Maybe a unit that has guerrilla 2?
And a mall as the unique building? I don't think any american civ player wants their civ to be known as the innovator of the shopping mall.
Maybe football/baseball stadiums (coliseums are outdated)
Fastfood? More sickness but more happiness? Possibly?

Mexico possibly?
The aztecs do not represent mexico. For great leaders- antonio lopez de santa anna, guadalupe victoria (if washingotn is on the game than so can guadalupe), augustin I (mexican empire?), Porfirio Díaz, Benito Juarez

UU and UB- I'll get back to you

Canadian- No leader comes to mind but we can probably throw some mounties into the game and people'd be happy.

Civs I would like to see gone

How does every Tom, Dick, and Harry that ruled a tribe in central america get a civ, but there's only 1 native american?
Aztec, Mayan, Inca - No, way too many.
Just make them their own expansion pack with the Toltecs, the Olmecs, and the Quiche. I really don't think we need so many guys clad in ancient tanktops with crude pyramids in the background. The ruler of the Mayans looks like he should be locked up.

I'm aware that people like to pit the old rulers against the new guys, but I really don't care about the sumerians. I dont know why, but I just think they are a little superfluous.


That's all for now folks.
 
Massaker said:
Things I'd like to see
And a mall as the unique building? I don't think any american civ player wants their civ to be known as the innovator of the shopping mall.
Maybe football/baseball stadiums (coliseums are outdated)
Fastfood? More sickness but more happiness? Possibly?
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a mall represent 'my' Civ than a friggin' McDonalds... >_>

Civs I would like to see gone

How does every Tom, Dick, and Harry that ruled a tribe in central america get a civ, but there's only 1 native american?
Aztec, Mayan, Inca - No, way too many.
Just make them their own expansion pack with the Toltecs, the Olmecs, and the Quiche. I really don't think we need so many guys clad in ancient tanktops with crude pyramids in the background. The ruler of the Mayans looks like he should be locked up.
Click to expand...
Because Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Inca kicked ass and formed a large empire. All Native Americans did was run around, trading with each other, wiping each other out, but otherwise not making much 'progress' in terms of forming a greater political unity (forced or voluntary) than a tribe. Not to mention the greater visibility behind those three.

At least, that's what I think.
 
As a Pole I would like Poland (or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) included but I am afraid it is not going to happen (apart from some scenarios like WWII or medieval Europe). The reason is that Europe is already overcrowded and if anybody wants to add a new European civ, many people from other continents cry "No more European civs!".

Apart from that, it would be nice to see:

- Hungary with a mounted UU
- Sweden (with UU replacing Musketmen or Grenadiers)
- Israel (huge impact on religion and culture)
- maybe Phoenicians?

S.
 
Massaker said:
More North America

USA- Add in Teddy Roosevelt maybe? (Imperialist, Charismatic) Or possibly Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. I think Washington gets too much credit. He was indeed the first and set the premise for what to do and how long to do it, but by today's standards, Washington isn't impressive.
I think the Navy Seals on Civ 4 are too weak. By the time I get them into the field they are bulldozed by tanks. The US is the innovator in future warfare so can we include plastic tanks, laser guided bullets, automatic shotguns?
Or how about militia? Something was being done right to defeat red coats in the revolution. Maybe a unit that has guerrilla 2?
And a mall as the unique building? I don't think any american civ player wants their civ to be known as the innovator of the shopping mall.
Maybe football/baseball stadiums (coliseums are outdated)
Fastfood? More sickness but more happiness? Possibly?

Mexico possibly?
The aztecs do not represent mexico. For great leaders- antonio lopez de santa anna, guadalupe victoria (if washingotn is on the game than so can guadalupe), augustin I (mexican empire?), Porfirio Díaz, Benito Juarez

UU and UB- I'll get back to you

Canadian- No leader comes to mind but we can probably throw some mounties into the game and people'd be happy.

Civs I would like to see gone

How does every Tom, Dick, and Harry that ruled a tribe in central america get a civ, but there's only 1 native american?
Aztec, Mayan, Inca - No, way too many.
Just make them their own expansion pack with the Toltecs, the Olmecs, and the Quiche. I really don't think we need so many guys clad in ancient tanktops with crude pyramids in the background. The ruler of the Mayans looks like he should be locked up.

I'm aware that people like to pit the old rulers against the new guys, but I really don't care about the sumerians. I dont know why, but I just think they are a little superfluous.


That's all for now folks.
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree with whatever you are aiming for here.
another american leader? already have 3

and besides maybe adding an uninspired mexico or canada you want to eliminate all other american civilizations? for being the entire western himisphere of the whole planet we are already extremely under represented. Plus there are extreme differences between the mayan and inca and aztec, and they are responsable for much more than 'crude pyramids'. I wouldn't have a problem with an expantion with just american civilizations though... anything to have more of them in the game.

There was a lot more going on in this so called new world other than sitting around and waiting for europeans to come and conquer it. Just because the written records do not exist to spell out everything that happened here doesn't mean nothing happened here.

and sumeria absolutely needs to be in any game having anything to do with civilization...they invented it after all..as well as getting credit for the plow and the wheel and whatever else. take away any, but sumeria needs to be there, and i'm very shoked it took two expantions to get them and/or the babylonians in the game.
 
SWEDEN
Poland
Austria-Hungary (or Austria)
Olmecs
Israel
Pheonica
Hittites
Assyria
Siam
Nubia
Vietnam (or Champa/Annan)
Huns
Denmark
Saxons
Schythians
 
I'll add my vote to Sweden - hugely important nation in the 17th-18th century, from memory. Great source of iron ore if this could be worked into the UB somehow?
 
ferenginar said:
Gauls, UU - Asterix
UB - Getafix's Apothecary - Combat 2 to all units
Click to expand...

Hahahaha... More Historically Accurate: UU - Obelix, str 500, 10,000% against praetorian. Asterix would be your first GG. Getafix's Apothecary would let you build more than one Obelix.
 
braindrain said:
I strongly disagree with whatever you are aiming for here.
another american leader? already have 3

and besides maybe adding an uninspired mexico or canada you want to eliminate all other american civilizations? for being the entire western himisphere of the whole planet we are already extremely under represented. Plus there are extreme differences between the mayan and inca and aztec, and they are responsable for much more than 'crude pyramids'. I wouldn't have a problem with an expantion with just american civilizations though... anything to have more of them in the game.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I probably should give more credit to the central american tribes.
But it just seems that they are all similar in too many ways.
As far as crude pyramids are concerned, they were ziggurats, which were actually quite cool.

American Expansion pack = genius.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[BTS] Who are your favorite Leaders/Civs?
Replies
13
Views
792
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
M
UU/UB's and Wonders for map type, map speed and tech trading type
Replies
5
Views
2K
sampsa
sampsa
F
GameRant: Abandoned Civilization 4 Leaders Who Should Return in Civ 7
Replies
5
Views
967
Lennier
Lennier
P
The Japan Thread
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Blake00
Multithreading & 64bit memory access to increase Civ4's speed in large games?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
snowern
snowern
Top Bottom