Koelle
King of Kings
Mazinger said:
Btw, i reckon that Korean und Japanese are just pirated versions of Chinese
Expansion Civilizations
- Thread starter Xineoph
- Start date
- Status
Btw, i reckon that Korean und Japanese are just pirated versions of Chinese
I think that one of the expansion civilizations should be the Byzantines. Although they were a part of the Roman Empire they formed their unique culture and spoke a different languege so they deserve having a place next to the original Roman Empire. If they won't take place in the lşst of the civilizations, it will be something like not accepting the Americans as a civilization considering that they were a part of the English Empire. On the other hand the Byzantines were one of the longest living empires in the history of the World. The Byzantines have many uniqe units(Cataphract, Fire Ship...) and significant leaders(Justinian...) making them suitible for Civilization. Other than the Byzantines I think,
Austrians
Mezapotemians
Turks
Africans
Austrians
Mezapotemians
Turks
Africans
deo
Emperor
Civs That Deffinetly Should ne incuded are
1. Turkey or Ottoman Empire
2. Scandinavia
3. Byzantine Empire
About Latin American Civilizations, they don't deserve to be in civ, the only south american civ that deserves it are the Incas.
1. Turkey or Ottoman Empire
2. Scandinavia
3. Byzantine Empire
About Latin American Civilizations, they don't deserve to be in civ, the only south american civ that deserves it are the Incas.
Ebitdadada
Master Baiter
I'd like to see:
Canada - One, I'd like to play as Canada; Two, I usually play as the US and would like to have another natural / historic ally (along with the Brits who I am usually irrationally nicer to as I find it fun to be in a deffensive pact with England as it seems realistic)
Brazil - Old colony yes but 10 times more important than their mother-nation. Some beleive it is a rising power. It also happens to semi-dominate one of the worlds continents which is something.
Australia - Would fill in world maps nicely.
I don't remember what they were called but there was a Native US tribe on the Mississippi that built some large cities and then vanished. I don't remember if they vanished before or after old world diseases killed off most Native Americans though. The only problem is they vanished before Europeans saw them and if they did have a written language no one understands it so leaders, city names etc. are pretty much imposible.
It would also be neat to have a "modern civs" option. I found it somewhat odd to be defending myself from Incan bombers.
Canada - One, I'd like to play as Canada; Two, I usually play as the US and would like to have another natural / historic ally (along with the Brits who I am usually irrationally nicer to as I find it fun to be in a deffensive pact with England as it seems realistic)
Brazil - Old colony yes but 10 times more important than their mother-nation. Some beleive it is a rising power. It also happens to semi-dominate one of the worlds continents which is something.
Australia - Would fill in world maps nicely.
I don't remember what they were called but there was a Native US tribe on the Mississippi that built some large cities and then vanished. I don't remember if they vanished before or after old world diseases killed off most Native Americans though. The only problem is they vanished before Europeans saw them and if they did have a written language no one understands it so leaders, city names etc. are pretty much imposible.
It would also be neat to have a "modern civs" option. I found it somewhat odd to be defending myself from Incan bombers.
FatCityPhil
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1
I really like all the suggestions for an expansions civs. My vote would go for the Vikings and the Moors. However, I do have some other suggestions:
A). Native American tribe, except how about the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole) this time? Leaders could be Sequoyah, Opotheholya, or Osceola.
B). Texans (or Texians, originally) under Sam Houston. Definitely aggressive and expansionistic!
C). Knights Templar. I'm not familiar with their leaders, but the religious aspect of them could be interesting.
Anyway, just some ideas........
A). Native American tribe, except how about the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole) this time? Leaders could be Sequoyah, Opotheholya, or Osceola.
B). Texans (or Texians, originally) under Sam Houston. Definitely aggressive and expansionistic!
C). Knights Templar. I'm not familiar with their leaders, but the religious aspect of them could be interesting.
Anyway, just some ideas........
senor freebie
Chieftain
No nation should have more then 1 unique unit unless all nations are given numerous unique units that have even smaller advantages then normal.
As for the inclusions I have seen suggested in this thread;
Canada is not an empire. It is part of one. Sure Canadians don't consider themselves loyal British subjects anymore but they are certainly stuck in the sphere of influence of 3 more powerful nations (Britain, France and USA). Their history has been shaped by this, they've fought wars due to this and have never been a colonial power (eg. conquered countries).
Australia is the same. Albiet with minor differences. The USA was not an influence in foreign policy until the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in WW2. Also Australia has been a minor colonial power and a major regional power due to the nature of the many small island states surrounding it. Britain conquered India and subdued China as an empire. Australia sent 'police' to help out neighbouring island nations. Its hardly the same ball park so a definite no to Australia.
Belgium is a ridiculous suggestion. Not only is its population, landmass and military power totally insignificant compared to ANY other existing civ (ingame), even in their present state with Greece being the only exception. But it simply was about the least colonial of the European powers. Some Dutch companies had larger colonial holdings the entire land mass of Belgium during the colonial period ... and thats before you even start quoting the colonial strength of powers like Britain.
The only suggestions that I think should be included (that haven't been) are some of the major central african kingdoms / empires such as the one that ruled Congo. These were colonial powers in their day, conquering neighbouring kingdoms and controlling large sects of land. Some of them were never defeated by the Europeans, but instead by their own people meaning they would still be in existence today (in a game-like sense). The Mayans deserve an honourable mention but there simply isn't enough room for 2 civilizations on the Central American sub-continent and the Aztecs definitely take the cake as the most imperial / powerful civilization.
The Indonesian empires throughout history have had large amounts of territory to control, huge populations and reasonable parts to play in the real worlds history. The main reason to consider them however would be the 'empty space' they occupied.
Personally I think that the best suggestion for new 'minor' powers would be to further develop the role of barbarians. Neutral city states that are independent and can expand (only into empty space) would make an interesting variation to Civilization and with options for diplomacy larger 'civilizations' could bring them very close to being puppets or proxy states. The best way to do this would be to increase the complexity of the way barbarians operate. Some barbarian cities could trade with players, most would never build new cities, options could be allowed that made them join a powerful neighbouring civilization and for the peaceful ones, civilian techs could spread with cultural influence.
Can anyone name a number of powerful African kingdoms that lasted a long period of time and were powerful enough to maintain their kingdoms against 'minor' threats?
As for the inclusions I have seen suggested in this thread;
Canada is not an empire. It is part of one. Sure Canadians don't consider themselves loyal British subjects anymore but they are certainly stuck in the sphere of influence of 3 more powerful nations (Britain, France and USA). Their history has been shaped by this, they've fought wars due to this and have never been a colonial power (eg. conquered countries).
Australia is the same. Albiet with minor differences. The USA was not an influence in foreign policy until the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in WW2. Also Australia has been a minor colonial power and a major regional power due to the nature of the many small island states surrounding it. Britain conquered India and subdued China as an empire. Australia sent 'police' to help out neighbouring island nations. Its hardly the same ball park so a definite no to Australia.
Belgium is a ridiculous suggestion. Not only is its population, landmass and military power totally insignificant compared to ANY other existing civ (ingame), even in their present state with Greece being the only exception. But it simply was about the least colonial of the European powers. Some Dutch companies had larger colonial holdings the entire land mass of Belgium during the colonial period ... and thats before you even start quoting the colonial strength of powers like Britain.
The only suggestions that I think should be included (that haven't been) are some of the major central african kingdoms / empires such as the one that ruled Congo. These were colonial powers in their day, conquering neighbouring kingdoms and controlling large sects of land. Some of them were never defeated by the Europeans, but instead by their own people meaning they would still be in existence today (in a game-like sense). The Mayans deserve an honourable mention but there simply isn't enough room for 2 civilizations on the Central American sub-continent and the Aztecs definitely take the cake as the most imperial / powerful civilization.
The Indonesian empires throughout history have had large amounts of territory to control, huge populations and reasonable parts to play in the real worlds history. The main reason to consider them however would be the 'empty space' they occupied.
Personally I think that the best suggestion for new 'minor' powers would be to further develop the role of barbarians. Neutral city states that are independent and can expand (only into empty space) would make an interesting variation to Civilization and with options for diplomacy larger 'civilizations' could bring them very close to being puppets or proxy states. The best way to do this would be to increase the complexity of the way barbarians operate. Some barbarian cities could trade with players, most would never build new cities, options could be allowed that made them join a powerful neighbouring civilization and for the peaceful ones, civilian techs could spread with cultural influence.
Can anyone name a number of powerful African kingdoms that lasted a long period of time and were powerful enough to maintain their kingdoms against 'minor' threats?
Egypt and Carthage in the north.senor freebie said:
Farther south:
Mali (already ingame, listed for completeness) - filthy rich. Mansa Musa singlehandedly destroyed the value of Gold because he spent so much of it when he made the Hajj
Songhai - similar to Mali...more or less the same spot and situation.
Nubia - Egypt's upstream neighbor. IIRC, actually conquered Egypt at one point.
Bantu - Not so much an empire as an ethnic group who spread out and settled in most of sub-saharan Africa. I guess they'd be kinda like Africa's version of the Celts...or something.
Zulu - Held off the British for a while.
Abyssinia/Ethiopia - One of a VERY VERY VERY few places in the world that managed to stay independant during the Colonial Era.
...can't think of any other biggies off the top of my head.
senor freebie
Chieftain
Thank you Artanis, obviously you read your history much more thoroughly then me 
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
interesting to hear the australia and canada "don't include" arguements. Both trade with more nations- have bigger armies, more territory, bigger economies and more sophisticated economic systems than babylon ect. ever dreamed.
senor freebie
Chieftain
Trade isn't everything to an empire. Military might has been of foremost importance throughout history. If you were to use the argument that a civilization isn't relevant due to lack of trade you can scratch the Mongolians from the list because they practically never traded. However at the same time they conquered the largest amount of land in recorded history, most likely in human history.
So going with your big traders system of approval lets make a Hong Kong and Singapore civilization.
Now that you've realised the folly of that argument lets move onto the next one. Thousands of years have passed since Babylon was a major power. In those days a civilization only needed to be civilized to be a hegemon. To be a hegemon so early on was a jump start, as is shown by the successively powerful civilizations of the middle east and also by modern China (descendant of a 4+ thousand year old empire).
Look at Greece. It also was tiny in comparison but without it European civilization would likely be 200+ years behind technologically. Things were different in those days and therefore things need to be put into historical perspective. Most of the empires included in Civilization have some sort of historical importance.
Also ... arguing that Australia and Canada are powerful now is all good and well but what about the myriad of other nations more powerful then them in our present world? If we are to cut out those that weren't as powerful as new-found nations that exist today then we could easily find 20+ nations more powerful then Australia or Canada. South Korea, Indonesia, Israel, Ukraine, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, Pakistan and the list only grows longer when you look into it further.
To be honest, there are just far too many arguments against Australia and Canada being included for it to even be suggestable. Sure its ok to make an addon of your own and include it in scenarios based post 1941 (the ratifying of the Westminster treaty) however anything before that is completely irrelevant for this game and should be ignored in favour of the 50+ other more worthy civilizations that founded their own culture, society, technology and empire rather then relying on colonial powers and their influences.
So going with your big traders system of approval lets make a Hong Kong and Singapore civilization.
Now that you've realised the folly of that argument lets move onto the next one. Thousands of years have passed since Babylon was a major power. In those days a civilization only needed to be civilized to be a hegemon. To be a hegemon so early on was a jump start, as is shown by the successively powerful civilizations of the middle east and also by modern China (descendant of a 4+ thousand year old empire).
Look at Greece. It also was tiny in comparison but without it European civilization would likely be 200+ years behind technologically. Things were different in those days and therefore things need to be put into historical perspective. Most of the empires included in Civilization have some sort of historical importance.
Also ... arguing that Australia and Canada are powerful now is all good and well but what about the myriad of other nations more powerful then them in our present world? If we are to cut out those that weren't as powerful as new-found nations that exist today then we could easily find 20+ nations more powerful then Australia or Canada. South Korea, Indonesia, Israel, Ukraine, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, Pakistan and the list only grows longer when you look into it further.
To be honest, there are just far too many arguments against Australia and Canada being included for it to even be suggestable. Sure its ok to make an addon of your own and include it in scenarios based post 1941 (the ratifying of the Westminster treaty) however anything before that is completely irrelevant for this game and should be ignored in favour of the 50+ other more worthy civilizations that founded their own culture, society, technology and empire rather then relying on colonial powers and their influences.
Absolutely. If you look at the Canadian civilisation in 1,000BC (give or take a millenium) and compare it Babylon there's only one clear winner. There's no way you can compare modern situations to ancient ones.
Otherwise Luxembourg would count as a greater civilisation than ancient Rome, simply because if it were transported back 2,000 years then Luxembourg could conquer the world with ease.
Civilisation has to consider global impact and culture. As playing Civ will show you, small things in ancient times can have huge effects on the modern world. Obviously this can be hard to judge for isolationist civilisations, but I think that the developers have done a fairly good job of picking out a decent selection of civilisations.
It would be good to have a 'modern states only' button though.
Otherwise Luxembourg would count as a greater civilisation than ancient Rome, simply because if it were transported back 2,000 years then Luxembourg could conquer the world with ease.
Civilisation has to consider global impact and culture. As playing Civ will show you, small things in ancient times can have huge effects on the modern world. Obviously this can be hard to judge for isolationist civilisations, but I think that the developers have done a fairly good job of picking out a decent selection of civilisations.
It would be good to have a 'modern states only' button though.
In regards to the Africa question, what about Ethiopia and Menelik II. Ethiopia was the only African country to resist take over after the Berlin Conference. This was mostly because of Menelik's leadership. Italy asked him to sign over SOME of Ethipopia as a conlony to avoid war to which he agreed. When they brought him the treaty, they had changed the wording so that he would have to give over ALL of Ethiopia (a la US policy with Native Americans). Unfortunatley for the Italians, Menelik could read Italian and had been buying machine guns from the Russians and sucessfully prevented a foreign take over.
Laurence72
Chieftain
Here's an idea for those who think that certain civs deserve to have multiple UUs. Instead of just tying the UU to the country, tie it to the leader instead. This would allow for the Unique Unit to match the leader for "time line" purposes. Tired of seeing George Washington running around with Navy Seals? Give him some sort of a Minuteman instead. Don't like either of Germany's leaders using a tank that seems to be the only way they recognize Germany's power in WW2? Give em something in line with their respective eras. After all, if they can give each leader different traits, why not different units too?
ConFEWscious
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2
Where are the Portuguese!? They once held the largest Empire. They even were the first ones to Circle the most southern tip of South America to get to India and China, when Columbus fumbled, um I mean discovered the Carribean. It's too bad they're so under rated!
Fantasy2006
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5
Vote for Korean 
Lee Hyori "sarang heyo"
Lee Hyori "sarang heyo"
As long as they do a Cath-job on Wang Kon, make him look less like Edward out of the League of Gentlemen.
Actually, we're in need of an Asian female leader and Korean birds can be pretty foxxy. So how about a sexed-up Myongsong?
Actually, we're in need of an Asian female leader and Korean birds can be pretty foxxy. So how about a sexed-up Myongsong?
aaronflavor
Warlord
Artanis said:
Since we just learned about this in world history class,
I'm fairly certain it happened the other way around. As near as I can tell, Nubia never really formed a significant civilization, and were largely held down by sporatic raiding by the Egyptians, until they were eventually conquered by the New Kingdom.I agree with others that we seriously need more female (and hot) rulers.
For the most part, yeah. Some time after Egypt pulled out though, the Nubians took over Egypt for about a centuryaaronflavor said:Since we just learned about this in world history class,
I agree with others that we seriously need more female (and hot) rulers.
- Status
Similar threads
