1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Expansion Civilizations

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Xineoph, Jan 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HourlyDaily

    HourlyDaily Man-o-Mercy

    Sep 20, 2004
    Melbourne, Australia
    Some pretty good thoughts there JJ10DMAN

    I actually agree with the "common" civs that we can relate to. I've heard them called the most marektable ones in this thread.

    At least they are civs that you wouldn't mind having in your game.

    Consistently at the top of the polls I've read you see

    1. Babylon (sometimes Sumeria)
    2. Ottoman Empire
    3. Vikings
    4. Iroquois
    5. Carthage
    6. Celts
    7/8. Dutch (or Portugal as the next modern euro Civ)
    9. Korea
    10. The return of the Zulu (under whatever name)
    11. Mayans

    I doubt you will see anything that is too radical a departure from that. Though given the amount of agitating for a Hebrew civ and the religions - it may just happen.

    The only real feature I wish to see in any expansion is a sophisticated civil war model.
  2. CrazyMrLeo

    CrazyMrLeo Wild Child

    Dec 27, 2001
    The Canada
    That strikes me as the kind of thing that would be more likely to end up in the inevitable Civ 5.
  3. cuchulain

    cuchulain Chieftain

    Jan 10, 2006
    How come I always see people voting for the Scotts as a Civ but not Ireland? Ireland has had more of an impact historically/religiously and is still its own independent country. Irish monastacism was the foundation of medieval European religion. Apart from that, Scotland and Ireland are basically the same. I'm not knocking Scotland mind you, I just dont understand the lack of enthusiasm for the Irish. Possible leaders: Brian Boru: aggressive/ financial or agressive/spiritual. Michael Flatley: financial/fabulous

    I usually vote for Celts just to make both sides happy. BTW - Scott means Irish :)
  4. titanium

    titanium Chieftain

    Mar 11, 2002
    Again ... how did we come up with the "common" civs? Because looking at some of your selections above, I certainly cannot relate with them.
  5. Laurence72

    Laurence72 Chieftain

    Jan 12, 2006
    Spokane Washington
    While I don't fully agree with your reasoning about why you don't care which civs are added (I myself find a greater, um, affection?, for my civ when I can relate it to some great power from the past), I agree that new traits would be a good addition. Adding them in to a civ already in existance requires only a new leader for the civ, and not a complete reworking of them.

    I like this idea, except I would just keep it as an identical twin of Financial; +1 hammer if a space already produces 2. From I've seen and read, not too many cities will be able to take as much gain from it as they would from financial, as clear cutting tends to reduce squares that would otherwise qualify for this bonus. This trait might, though probably not, even lead to a different path to victory at higher levels than chop chop chop.

    I like this idea even more. I wouldn't even be worried about overlapping cheap buildings; the ones it overlaps with still would bring a third cheap building to the set, and there are some traits that have only 1 cheap building, ex. philosophical with university.

    I'm gonna have to end the agreement here though. DOn't like this for a couple of reasons. 1) Would mean a ton over changes to stuff already in the game, taking up valuable space on the disk that they could be cramming with other stuff. 2) It's like what Soren Johnson talked about in the Afterwords in the manual that came with the game, along the line of how Golden Ages came to be. They started out making civs go through Dark Ages, where everything was terrible, then went back to normal. An interesting idea, but no fun to play through. I think that applies here too, to negative traits. Nobody would enjoy having a penalty; in a way, we all have a ton of penalties by not having the same bonuses that the other traits enjoy (if that makes sense), so why add more?

    My idea for another new trait would be Religious. It would give that civ an additional +1 happy face if a city has a religion present, regardless of which religion it is, or if you have a state religion or not. Instead of a cheap building, since Spuritual has temple covered, maybe make Missionaries 1/2 price?
  6. CrazyMrLeo

    CrazyMrLeo Wild Child

    Dec 27, 2001
    The Canada
    Perhaps you can not, but many people can. They're not supposed to be common to everyone, just to a lot of people. And those civs are the ones most commonly found in people's most wanted lists.
  7. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Chieftain

    Nov 14, 2003
    Westlake Village, CA
    Ok, so I've modified myself some scenarios at home and now I have to push for the Civs that youd think are not important.

    my scenario was
    Ancient Mediterranean:
    1. Mycenae
    2. Egypt
    3. Hatti (Hittites)
    4. Medes
    5. Babylon
    6. Sumer
    7. Phoenicians

    (I added)
    8. Mitanni
    9. Minoans
    10. Israel
    11. Philistine
    12. Abyssinia
    13. Persia
    14. Assyria

    Its the greatest scenario Ive ever played. I loved the Minoans best. I use to take out Phoenician, Greek and Philistinian boats out early, and the special Minoan unit was a marine type Spearman. The volcanoe on Thera exploded three times, but I still was able to take Mycenae, Hattusas and Jerusalem at the same time. Then everyone was attacking me. So I took Tyre and Gaza next, built a colony on Cyrenaica and waited for Egypt to attack as I paid the Abyssinians to fight them. Assyria and Babylon went to war. Then Sumer joined Babylon and Israel joined Assyria. I finished off the Mycenae and Hittites weakly exposed to the Medians next to Mount Ararat. The Mitanni saw this, and attacked me near Lake Van. (for fun I wrote the Mitanni in as Armenians, even though historically it hasnt been proven. The Mitanni, Hurran and Armenian tribes were known to work and fight together but they are mentioned side by side so its confusing as to whether they were one race, separate kings or just separate people.) Anyways, I had left over troops near the Bosporus after taking Thebai (which was built where Byzantion is in real life). I left the Armenians Washshukanni, their capital, attacked Assyria since they were winning. Lost Tyre, Jerusalem to the Assyrians, but had reinforced Gaza with my Cyrenaica troops. Ethiopia crushed Egypt. Took most of Assyria into Mesopotamia. Got everyone against Persia, then Media, then Sumer, then Abyssinia, and the I left Jerusalem as my prize winning city.

    I also made a scenario for Khmer, Siam, Burma, Vietnam, Malay, Sumatra, India, Qin, Tibet and Gupta. It was fun, always funnest to be Siam.

    Yes this is all on Civ 4 and I know this post is a story, but I had to say it here to prove that sometimes you need to have these scenarios to show how cool different Civs can be, and see how important they were. Especially to their region.
  8. JJ10DMAN

    JJ10DMAN Chieftain

    Jan 8, 2006
    I suppose I should reply since someone actually thought my post merited a quote-by-quote response.

    As for the numbers - the +hammers for a productive civ for example - I've found commerce to be pretty low-power compared to a similar number of hammers, but your milage may vary; I was trying to illustrate some possibilities more than design traits that would actually fit into the game.

    And as to penalties: I read Mr. Johnson's words regarding Dark/Golden ages, and I don't think that applies well in this case. This is more of a trade-off, just like, to get a golden age, you need to sacrifice great people or sacrifice production on the taj mahal, you would "sacrifice" in a negative trait to get another positive one.

    Since this would only apply to new leaders, the affect on disk space would pale in comparison to the new units or other features typical in strategy game expansions.
  9. Gazglum

    Gazglum Chieftain

    Dec 31, 2005
    Ok, a lot of the choices being spouted are just silly. Sure, everyone would like to see their own land represented but that what mods are for. The official game should pick civilisations of -global- historical importance. To start with, Sumer or Babylon has to be in. I mean it has to. The SUmerians were the first major civilisation, and no matter how dull people might find them, or how crowded the near east is with civs already, they have to be in for that alone. ALso, whoever said "Persia already covers them", that's not an argument taht really holds much water. The Spanish empire covered the Aztec lands, the British the America, the Mongols ruled China and so on. History is too complex to reduce to one civilisation per geographical area.

    That said, I would also add two more civs to help balance the current geographical distribution. I think a Native North American civilisation is really needed, not so much for their importance, which was neglible, but because such a fertile continent should really have another group in to hem in the americans in historical maps. Secondly, SE Asia and the Pacific are currently under-represented: as in zero civs. I'm Australian, but Australia would be a terrible choice, we've had virtually zero effect on the world stage and are only 200 years old (the aborigines were pure hunter gathers, and so don't qualify as a 'civ' in game terms, since that kind of requires cities). Perhaps a Polynesian civilisation would be fair.

    Other groups I would like to see,
    1. Hebrews: sure, they were never Power Players on the global stage, but the influence their culture has had is just huge. Plus they've never been in the game before.
    2. Byzantines: one of the most powerful civilisations of history, there are plenty of threads covering them already.
    3. Scandinavians: Vikings are just cool, and the Scandinavian countries currently lead the world in many areas. They had a huge effect on Europe, and as we all know, Europe went on to have a huge effect on the rest of the world.
    4. I want to say Portugal for their trade empire, Ottomans for their power or Carthage for their great fame in the history books, but Europe/Mediterranean is already pretty crowded. So I'm nto sure about this one. I think another Sub-Saharan African civ would be the most interesting, but I'm not learned enough about that area to pick one.
  10. gianluca790

    gianluca790 Chieftain

    Jan 22, 2006
    I think another Sub-Saharan African civ would be the most interesting, but I'm not learned enough about that area to pick one.[/QUOTE]

    Marocco, Ethiopia, Berbers, Bedouins.
  11. gianluca790

    gianluca790 Chieftain

    Jan 22, 2006
    Excerpt from Wikipedia:

    Nations of sub-Saharan Africa
    The exact position of the dividing line between the two regions is not clearly defined because of discontinuous and blurred break-points between national boundaries, ecologies and ethnicities. However, according to one classification of the two regions, sub-Saharan Africa includes forty-eight nations. Forty-two of these nations are on the African mainland. In addition, four island nations in the southwest Indian Ocean (Madagascar, The Comoros, Mauritius, and Seychelles) and two island nations in the Atlantic Ocean (Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe) are considered part of sub-Saharan Africa. According to this classification scheme, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are:

    Central Africa
    Angola (also sometimes considered part of Southern Africa)
    Burundi (also sometimes considered part of East Africa)
    Cameroon (also sometimes considered part of West Africa)
    Central African Republic
    Chad (also sometimes considered part of West Africa)
    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Equatorial Guinea (also sometimes considered part of West Africa)
    Gabon (also sometimes considered part of West Africa)
    Rwanda (also sometimes considered part of East Africa)
    Republic of Congo
    Zambia (also sometimes considered part of Southern Africa)
    East Africa
    Burundi (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    Mozambique (also sometimes considered part of Southern Africa)
    Rwanda (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    North East Africa
    Somalia (including Somaliland)
    Sudan (often also considered part of North Africa)
    Southern Africa
    Angola (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    Mozambique (also sometimes considered part of East Africa)
    South Africa
    Zambia (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    West Africa
    Burkina Faso
    Cameroon (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    Chad (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    Côte d'Ivoire
    Equatorial Guinea (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    Gabon (also sometimes considered part of Central Africa)
    The Gambia
    Sierra Leone
    African island nations
    Cape Verde (West Africa)
    Comoros (Southern Africa)
    Madagascar (Southern Africa)
    Mauritius (Southern Africa)
    São Tomé and Príncipe (Central Africa or West Africa)
    Seychelles (East Africa)
    Territories, possessions, départements
    Mayotte (France)
    Réunion (France)
  12. loui89

    loui89 Chieftain

    Jan 24, 2006
    well here is my view,

    civs that should be added,

    - scottish, they should be added, they could be so cool
    (leader Mary or Charles)
    - canada, i dunno really much about em.. just that if they were on i would play as em lol
    - italy, and get rid of rome, they do my head in.

    civs that should be deleted,

    -aztecs, they always go to war with me and they always loose... i ahte em, so annoying.

    Also i dunno if this is the right thread or not, im new to this forum so if i posted this in wrong place dnt shout lol, but i reckon they should add natural disasters like earquakes and tsunamis. And the function of being able to give or recieve aid iin terms of money or resources, and a different sort of alliance, like NATO or triple entente, something other than a mutual protection pact... cos i hate those. Also lol, shouldnt some countries have characteristics like there real life counterparts, what i mean is... for example the french and the english hate towards each other. :mischief:
    Also, i reckon the religion of christianity should split further along the game to catholic and protestant, and that could create sparks between catholic and protestant countrie like it has in history, i wouldnt mind playing a scenario like that.
  13. sligo

    sligo Chieftain

    Jan 19, 2006
    Not sure, really
    Interesting thought, but Christians are the only victims of schisms.

    Hebrew split - Israel & Judea
    Islam split - Sunni & Shiite (and others, of course)

    I don't know enough about Hindu, Buddhist or the others, but I'd imagine they've had their divisions as well.

    An interesting way to handle it is with a "great person" going in to another country and causing the split.

    There really isn't much opportunity for civil war within the game, either. It would be interesting to set up a scenario of Union vs Confederate, with all the civics pre-set and the tech tree locked in at the appropriate level. One could also do the Russian revolution, but again, my knowledge is limited in that area.

    - Sligo
  14. Odin2006

    Odin2006 Apolytonian

    Jan 22, 2006
    Moorhead, MN, USA
    Scandinavians, ( or Norse, NOT VIKINGS, vikings were an occupational term given to early medieval Scandinavians that were raiders, pirates, explorers, and merchants, calling all my ancestors pirates is an insult ;) ).

    Poland, as many others have said, very under-rated and needlessly ignored.

    Israel, DUH!

    Ethiopia, need another proinent Sub-Saharan African civ.

    Celts, the Big, Bad masters of much of central and western Europe before the Romans and Germans came along.

    Korea. kept Japan and China at bay for centuries, and South Korea is the second richest modern East Asian country (after Japan) today.

    NO BYZANTINES! They were, for all practical purposes, the Greeks of the middle ages, although they considered themselves Romans and were politically the survivling portion of the Roman Empire.
  15. SenhorDaGuerra

    SenhorDaGuerra Chieftain

    Dec 13, 2005

    For one simple reason. they discovered most of the known world today. Fernão Magalhães was the first sailor to circumnavigate the globe. Bartolomeu Dias was the first to go past the african cape of good hope. Vasco Da Gama discovered the Sea route to India. Pedro Alvares Cabral Discovered South America (Brazil). and at one point in time Spain and Portugal Divided the known World between them (Treaty of Tordesillas), and portugal pushed for the longitudinal line to be pushed further west so that it would include Brazil because the spanish had no idea that south america existed. Portugal also had many Colonies in Africa (Angola, Mozambique).

    So if Portugal is not in the expansion i will be hugely disapointed., for those reasons and also because i am Portuguese! ;)

    Leaders could be Marques de Pombal or Dom Afonso Henriques.

    Other Civs that could be interesting:


    But Portugal definately.
  16. serb_guy

    serb_guy Chieftain

    Jan 25, 2006
    you forgot orthodox christianity...
    i think that there should be more east european civs... like hungary, poland and of course serbia (if the europe is crowded put serbia in siberia :cool: :cool: )... and byzanth.
    babylon is a must.
    and some more african civs... and israel sound good, religions are important...
  17. serb_guy

    serb_guy Chieftain

    Jan 25, 2006
    yeah, and the serbian leader should be Emperor Dushan... it's not cuz i'm serbian, but we played some important roles in history (fighting the turks, ww1...) yeah, and we need turks in the next civ :)
  18. tanniini

    tanniini Chieftain

    Nov 17, 2005

    AFAIK all of them did. One can argue that Christianity is an European religion, after all the gospels were written in Europe and it mainly spread in Europe. Still it clearly originates from Judaism (which originates from Asia) and the founder (if you consider Jesus as the founder) lived in Asia.

    So it's at least 6/7 if not 7/7
  19. Asoka

    Asoka Chieftain

    Dec 19, 2004
    I agree with you on the Khmer empire I mean they did as much for history in south east Asia as any of the other civs we already have they had a massive empire once that takes part from south of china to india.
  20. Eternalsteelfan

    Eternalsteelfan Chieftain

    Jan 21, 2006
    Thugz Mansion
    More African and South American civs; Ghana, Ethiopia, and the Mayans, maybe the Moors.

    edit: And they should add Tupac Amaru as an Incan leader.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page