- deleted thread -

[kuj8808]

Yeah, one of my favourite things about the Civ series is that they generally try to include at least a few lesser known civs. We've gotten the Songhai and the Siamese for Civ 5, and that kind of gets you to at least look them up./QUOTE]

The problem with this is that the new civs take away from the civs that really should be there, like the Mongols, Scandinavians, and Incans. The other ones that I would like to see would be the Dutch, the Assyrians, and some sort of Polynesian/Indonesian/Aboriginal civ.

 

[Vordeo]

Moderator Action: Please don't announce that you are reporting a post, just report it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Apologies, will do so in the future.

The problem with this is that the new civs take away from the civs that really should be there, like the Mongols, Scandinavians, and Incans. The other ones that I would like to see would be the Dutch, the Assyrians, and some sort of Polynesian/Indonesian/Aboriginal civ.

That's true, but I do appreciate the variety, and I'm guessing they're keeping some of the mainstays for the expansions (because I'd imagine more people will buy a game that adds Mongolia as a civ than an expansion that adds say, Tonga).

All I'm going to say is I'm very thankful we have mods.

 

[IgorS]

But that's only true to an extent. If I recall correctly, you can only edit the name of a civ if you're playing it, rather than the AI. And I'd much rather go up against The Scandinavian Civilization, than a bunch of smelly vikings.

No, you're wrong here - you can edit the files of the game (which is not difficult at all, and there are plenty of guides and people you can ask on the forums), and change the name of the civ as it appears in the game itself.

 

[WastedEfforts]

Apologies, will do so in the future.

All I'm going to say is I'm very thankful we have mods.

lol reporting me because you can't refute my points. That's cute.

 

[MajKira]

Im being a korean and like to build up a korean empire with a female leader
other nation would be Britannia/United Kingdom/Great Britain also with female leader Elizabeth I.
or United States of Americaa(female leader)

or Geronimooo, Apache leader striking down whites for an Indian American World Empire

 

[Pouakai]

or Geronimooo, Apache leader striking down whites for an Indian American World Empire

He features ingame as a great general.

I'd like to see:

Inca
Nubia
Polynesia / Maori
Aborigine (Australian Natives)
Byzantium
Mongol
Navajo
Spain

 

[Optimizer]

Spain is a no-brainer.

Spain, Norse, Mongolia, Korea, Inca and Ethiopia would be fine.

 

[grandad1982]

These fisrt 3 should have been in the game from the off. Seriously WTH?

Vikings
Zulu
Mongolia

Carthage - Amphibious attack elephants?
Minoans - very influencal and have a wonderfull Aesthetic. A trading civ?
Polynesians - Spead from Tailand over nearly all of the Pacific. A good water map civ with an early embarcation for settlers maybe?

It better contain Babylon as well now I think about it. And all the other DLC civs. And a moon on a stick.

 

[Frank327]

I definately want to see the dutch civilisation. They were after all one of the 6 biggest empires in the world at one point. Also, there's a lot of ways to go with it.

One cool trait would be Colonization. Basically, if you'd annex a city on a different land mass or far enough away from your capital bordering a sea, you don't get a happiness penalty for occupation.

Another way to do that without the trait, and with a UB instead would be to give the harbor the effects of a courthouse, and make it 50% more expensive to produce. If you leverage it, it would be very powerful, but like other civ traits/UB's, it's situational.

Otherwise, there's always still the choice of making the UB the windmill and making the UU the east indiaman replacing the caravel.

 

[Vordeo]

Or because he saw your way of posting a bit... inapropriate.

Pretty much. Some people just aren't worth wasting the time on, really.

And I'm not exactly sure if 'unbiased opinions' actually exist. Or what his points are.

 

[WastedEfforts]

Pretty much. Some people just aren't worth wasting the time on, really.

And I'm not exactly sure if 'unbiased opinions' actually exist. Or what his points are.

It's disturbing because I'm using your own twisted logic against you. It's alright though when you grow up you will look at your old posts and laugh at your ignorance.

 

[Estarrioll]

My wish-list - definitely Korea, Poland, Spain, Mongols.

Also, we can just search through the history of the world. Let's see:

Europe - Northern civilizations are missing, Vikings should cover that. Spain, for sure. Ireland (Celts) - maybe. Poland - from my p.o.v, Poland had been one of the strongest countries in Europe until it was divided between Russia and Germany in 17th-18th centuries (hope, no mistake). However, Poland has been neglected for a long time in Civ games.

Middle East - Enough is enough.

Asia - Korea should be a great civilization. Mongols - oh, they had conquered a lot. Don't know about South Asia, though. There has to be more than Siam, but who?

Africa - Definitely more civilizations, this region is almost totally forgotten about.

Americas - Maybe Maya, and some more nowadays civilizations, like Brazil or Cuba.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

Ethiopia, Carthage, Zululand, Beors (will never happen, but whatever)

Spain, Portugal, Celts

Mongols, Manchurians, Kjmer

Inca, Mayans, Sioux

They weren't a civ they were just south african colonists that fought the brits a bit.

 

[Thor Macklin]

(Ugh, don't people know that Firaxis will never add civs that were founded
based on Colonialism? With the exception of America. Being as america
has made PROFOUND impact on the world.)

My list,
All the civs from Civilization IV.
(With the exceptions of Sumeria, Zululand(maybe),
Native Americans, Khemer, and the Holy Roman Empire, being as it was
really only in existance as suchc during Charlemagne and Otto's Rule.)
They really should add the following though.

Bulgaria (Even though I'd love to see Serbia, I must acknowledge that
Bulgaria has had a far more extensive history, and a slightly more profound
impact on other civilizations.)

Hungary (Hungary was a major player during the history of europe and denying
it would be downright wrong.)

Austria ( Well it would be a much more suitable sic then the holy roman empire.
and ANYONE who studies history would know what a profound impact it has had.)

Sweden (Well even though one would think the Norse/Vikings would cover this,
Sweden and Norway have both had HUGELY seperate histories, each making a major
impact.)

But here's a note of fear, prehaps the whole point of city states is that Firaxis thinks
that by adding them they can get away with not adding those civs!!??

 

[IgorS]

But here's a note of fear, prehaps the whole point of city states is that Firaxis thinks
that by adding them they can get away with not adding those civs!!??

As far as I remember vanilla Civ IV had some barbarian cities, that were later removed and added to new civs.

 

[Thor Macklin]

(yes but the city states are their own empires, and firaxis might get
the misconception that that's good enough.)

As an edit to my list, (might aswell change afew things before I post an
actualy list.) I say that perhaps adding the Papal states, or perhaps a civ
for Italy, being as it's culture has shaped the world as we know it.
Almost as much as it's predecessor Rome.

 

[Vordeo]

It's disturbing because I'm using your own twisted logic against you. It's alright though when you grow up you will look at your old posts and laugh at your ignorance.

...

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about at this point. At first I thought you were just really really really pissed off that I didn't want the Byzantines in the game for some reason. Then you started ranting about my having a biased opinion and ignoring your 'points'.

First off, I don't think it's actually possible to have a 'biased opinion', because opinions, by their very nature, are coloured by bias. Call my opinions stupid if you must, but calling my opinions biased doesn't really mean much of anything.

Second, I'm not sure why you care so much about having the Byzantines in a video game, but it's your life. I just don't see the need for insulting people for not sharing your opinion.

Third, my opinion was that Byzantines shouldn't be in the game because they essentially occupied the same land mass as the Ottomans, who are already in the game, and because culturally they're extremely similar to both the Romans and the Greeks, who are both already in the game, and I'd prefer to have civs I could place on a true Earth map with overlapping.

You argued (in a very abrasive manner, I might add) that the Native Americans and Americans also had overlapping territories (though I could argue the same thing about the Greeks & Persians, English & Romans, Americans & English, etc.), which was fine, but their territories didn't overlap to the extent that the Ottomans/Byzantines did and they didn't share a capital. Also, their cultures are extremely different, whereas anyone with a history book will tell you that up til a century or two ago, the Byzantines were actually called the Greek Empire, because it was identified so heavily with Hellenic culture. I'm not saying the Byzantines didn't have their own distinct culture, but I am saying that with the Romans and Greeks in the game, adding the Byzantines won't do much for diversity.

Fourth, again, I really don't get why you care about having the Byzantines in the game so much. I mean, come on. You're getting worked up over a guy on a forum discussion (that the Civ developers almost definitely don't care about) not thinking that an empire that disappeared hundreds of years ago shouldn't be in a video game.

I mean, I love CiV too, but you really need to relax.

 

[Vordeo]

But here's a note of fear, prehaps the whole point of city states is that Firaxis thinks that by adding them they can get away with not adding those civs!!??

Well, they can't include everyone (that's what modders are for ). At least they're getting a mention in the core game.

As an edit to my list, (might aswell change afew things before I post an
actualy list.) I say that perhaps adding the Papal states, or perhaps a civ
for Italy, being as it's culture has shaped the world as we know it.
Almost as much as it's predecessor Rome.

I would actually be interested in seeing the Papal States, or at least the Vatican as a City state, though again I wouldn't particularly like not being able to fit both them and the Romans on a True Earth map (for obvious reasons!).

I'd like to see the Austro-Hungarian empire, actually.

 

[Estarrioll]

I'd like to see the Austro-Hungarian empire, actually.

Oh, great idea, I second that. But TSL mods will be so hard to make then, with Europe so crowded and Africa and Asia so empty.

 

[Vordeo]

Oh, great idea, I second that. But TSL mods will be so hard to make then, with Europe so crowded and Africa and Asia so empty.

They always end up like that, unfortunately. Was like that in Civ 4, where England, Spain, Germany, France, and Rome all started really close together, with Russia and Greece not far off. Would've been even worse if you'd thrown in the Dutch, Portuguese, or Vikings. Meanwhile Monty and Roosevelt had 2 entire continents to themselves.