Expansion Civilizations

[hanspe]

new world religions should be darwinism and the belive in aliens (phelo seti theorie, some like that), but as well weaker natural religions for the beginnig which will get useless during the game (native religions).

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Hey, I just took a gander at all the posts. I couldn't help but notice that almost all 'suggestions' came from people either living in or are associated with that particular country! It all seems a big nationality trip; Canada? Poland? Israel? No wonder they picked Gaul!

But to add onto the topic, I suggest Iroquois and another African civ; simply because I'm tried of seeing Mali, Egypt, and America rule over everything on the world map.

 

[Hellfire]

Both Orthodox and Protestantism are sub-strands of Christianity, so including either as a seperate entity would be stupid.

Christianity could be considered a strand of Judaism, as could Islam. They are all religions "of the book" and have some commonalities to them. At the same time they have drastic differences.

Look at Catholicism versus Eastern Orthodox in this light and it's not so different, and not so stupid. One needs to analyze things before one calls something stupid.

I'd prefer to see more emphasis on later religions and the impact they can have. I don't have Civ4 yet but I hear that early religions are more important and the later religions aren't as important because the older religions have so much strength. Christianity and Islam dominate the real world but I see few discussions where these are an important part of a game. The only reason why eastern orthodox might be "stupid" is because it would be something that comes too late and not be as much use in terms of gameplay elements.

 

[jm_dracolich]

I would really like to see the Austrian Empire as a new civ, although that might put too much emphasis on Europe. Personally, I think that if you have Russia, France, Prussia (Germany with Frederick), and England, then we should have Austria so that we would have all five great civilizations of Europe from the 16th century to the 19th/20th century. It always bugged me that I hadn't been able to make the Holy Alliance of Russia, Austria, and Prussia.
Leaderwise, I think that they should have maybe Maria Theresa, the enlightened absolutist of the 1700s, and/or any one of the Ferdinands...

those are my two cents...

 

[TsekoSifonq]

I want Bulgarians and Vikings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bulgarian race is the most important to me The Great Tzar Simeon of the bulgarian was the only one who defeated cery easily the Byzantium Empire. His "empire" was on three seas, something that was hardly done before because of the Roman and Byzantium Empires. The same was done again by Tzar Ivan Asen 2nd in the 1230 year. But after that the bulgarians are defeated by turkish men and because of that nobody knows us. Please Firaxis and 2k, put Bulgarians. They have a great history! I can help with whatever I can for making them

Of cource there is no problem for making some other civs like the Almighty Indians, Vikings, Arabian civs and many many many many many many more

 

[schtiv]

How about the Australians, the Canadians, the Cubans, and the Irish as new civilizations? I like the idea of putting in the Hebrews but who would you have as their leaders? Sharon? There is also the option to put in alien civ's like in Civ 2. One last idea I had was making special civ's to be used only on special maps. For instance you could have the Confederates in a Civil War Mod. What do you all think?

 

[Xineoph]

The Australians and Canadians are too new and have not had alot of influence in the world. Cubans would be entertaining....but thought be part of an Indian civ....Who lived there anyways? Arawaks? The Irish i'd see no problem with...no idea for a UU though.

And as for Hebrews, there are tons of leaders and UU to give them...

And when could you put aliens in civ 2??

 

[Tataryn77]

I hate how some people want their home countries to be Civilizations, especially if theirs isnt one.

I've heard ridiculous ideas like:

1) Canada
2) Australia
3) Sicily
4) Sudan
5) Papua New Guinea
6) Cuba
7) Mexico

These 7 are hilarious. and are definately not Civilizations.

Ive previously listed my top 10 for Expansion Civilization ideas.

 

[Human Map]

Why can't they be civs?

 

[Human Map]

Too little is know about the Etruscans. Portugal's a maybe, but I'm not sure whether it's differnent enough, civilizationally, from Spain to justify its inclusion in an already Eurocentric game. Austro-Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire are essentially the same thing, and far to similar to Germany to warrant inclusion.

Well at least add Etruscans as babarians.Portugal is very diffrent then Spain and Austo-Hungary and Holy-Roman are not too similar to Germany.

 

[Andolini]

There really is no debate. If you step back and look from a historical perspective, I believe the following ten civilizations are the most influential and had the greatest impact on modern society.

The List:

1) Byzantine Empire - Byzantines
2) Carthaginian Empire - Carthaginians
3) Hebrew Kingdoms - Hebrews - 12 Tribes
4) Iroquois Confederacy - Iroquois
5) Khmer Empire - Khmers
6) Kingdom of Korea - Koreans
7) Mayan Kingdoms - Mayans
8) Ottoman Empire - Turks
9) Scandinavian Kingdoms - Vikings
10) Sumerian Kingdom - Sumerians

Once again, I believe these are the most suitable ten civilization choices for an expansion.

I agree with you.

 

[HypnosTene]

I see three main problems with the 'new civs' issue.
1. Some people are aiming for an equilibrium between all the continents.
2. Others are trying to create a list of the 'most important civs in world history'.
3. Finally, some are trying to promote their own countries..

All three are understandable, and my first thought after seeing this thread was to follow the last two points. But these solutions lead to nothing.
ad 1: history has never been equal, there is no equilibrium
ad 2: we can try forever. we have a limited historical knowledge and we are biased by our education.
ad 3: I don't really think I have to comment on that one... (even if i think that my country would fit right in ;p)

The simplest solution would be to add ~30 or so civs. Unfortunately the game has a limited number of civ traits. In order for the system to work, more unique characteristics would have to be added. IMO, it wouldn't be too hard. This leaves us with those new shiny animated leaders, which are not only ugly, but also quite pointless (IMO, IMO and once again - IMO). I cannot imagine Firaxis creating so many new animations. It would be great to see them cut.. and more civs added instead

This doesn't solve another problem I've had with the series since civ1. Namely - ancient and modern civs on one map. I'd like to see a major change in this aspect of the game. By picking a starting period, and/or geographical region, you would also pick a different set of civilizations. This would make the addition of many smaller civs possible.

I understand that this would be a major change in the construction of the game and probably won't be possible until civ5.. but heck, it would rock.

 

[balthamael]

Jesus Christ! How many nationalists are there in this thread!
Here is a good set of guidelines for CIVs (IMO):
1) Must have a Unique Culture.
2) Must have survived for at least 400 years.
3) Must have had a famous soldiier (UU).
4)Must have had an Empire at some point.
5) Must have contributed Technonligicaly.
6) Is not Canada.

I think that wraps it up...

 

[Xineoph]

lol

poor Canadians.

 

[benjamin28]

Not needed 400 years to be important: think about USA. And I think the game can also explore those Civs that could be powerful, not only the ones who actually were. It doesn't mean we must put in the Inuits, as someone suggested in old threads, but, why not Canada, Australia or Mexico? The first two are important in the international context, and Mexico had an important culture, was once an Empire and fought against USA.
And the Iriquois were not THAT important, they did little (and my "little" is really small) to the world history. Your vision is very centered in the American History. A lot of American Countries were much more important than the Iriquois Land.
That was my opinion
Greetings

 

[SilentDemon]

I hate how some people want their home countries to be Civilizations, especially if theirs isnt one.

I've heard ridiculous ideas like:

1) Canada
2) Australia
3) Sicily
4) Sudan
5) Papua New Guinea
6) Cuba
7) Mexico

These 7 are hilarious. and are definately not Civilizations.

Ive previously listed my top 10 for Expansion Civilization ideas.

Not trying to reopen this discussion but the looming civ that "should be but isn't" (PC reasons) going to be in the expansion is Nazi Germany...

 

[Xineoph]

Nazi Germany??? Why should that be its own civ? That would just be Germany, and using Hitler as their leader. Or is there something i'm missing?

 

[titanium]

I see three main problems with the 'new civs' issue.
1. Some people are aiming for an equilibrium between all the continents.
2. Others are trying to create a list of the 'most important civs in world history'.
3. Finally, some are trying to promote their own countries..

All three are understandable, and my first thought after seeing this thread was to follow the last two points. But these solutions lead to nothing.
ad 1: history has never been equal, there is no equilibrium
ad 2: we can try forever. we have a limited historical knowledge and we are biased by our education.
ad 3: I don't really think I have to comment on that one... (even if i think that my country would fit right in ;p)

The simplest solution would be to add ~30 or so civs. Unfortunately the game has a limited number of civ traits. In order for the system to work, more unique characteristics would have to be added. IMO, it wouldn't be too hard. This leaves us with those new shiny animated leaders, which are not only ugly, but also quite pointless (IMO, IMO and once again - IMO). I cannot imagine Firaxis creating so many new animations. It would be great to see them cut.. and more civs added instead

This doesn't solve another problem I've had with the series since civ1. Namely - ancient and modern civs on one map. I'd like to see a major change in this aspect of the game. By picking a starting period, and/or geographical region, you would also pick a different set of civilizations. This would make the addition of many smaller civs possible.

I understand that this would be a major change in the construction of the game and probably won't be possible until civ5.. but heck, it would rock.

Very well said ... thank you very much

I hope this would put an end to the insults that are being thrown at one another just because "your X civilization is not influential at all", etc., etc. - GROW UP PEOPLE !!!

Again,

 

[titanium]

Nazi Germany??? Why should that be its own civ? That would just be Germany, and using Hitler as their leader. Or is there something i'm missing?

Nazi Germany does not differ from any other dominant civs of today - be it France, America, England, Japan or even modern day Germany. These civs have all done atrocious acts against humanity. Ancient civs like the Mongols and the Vikings, have all committed or tried to commit genocide one way or the other. Americans (British back then) almost completely wiped out the entire Indians civs of North America.

The ONLY and BIG difference is that Nazi Germany was stupid enough to keep records of their crimes ... plus the fact that the surviving Jews are now so dominant in the world theatre that they keep rubbing it on our faces in the form of movies - Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc. The Jews suffered immensely and I'm not here to discredit that. All I'm saying is that the Jews don't have a monopoly of the world's suffering. In Stalingrad alone, the Russians suffered terribly during the siege, the Death March in the Philippines under the Japanese occupation, and countless others.

There is no dominant civ of today that doesn't have any record of crimes against humanity. Not America. Not Germany, Japan, England nor China.

Although we all have to profess - the Germans are big bullies! Give them another deranged leader and they would no doubt do the same crap all over again and start World War III even

 

[HourlyDaily]

I see three main problems with the 'new civs' issue.
1. Some people are aiming for an equilibrium between all the continents.
2. Others are trying to create a list of the 'most important civs in world history'.
3. Finally, some are trying to promote their own countries..

All three are understandable, and my first thought after seeing this thread was to follow the last two points. But these solutions lead to nothing.
ad 1: history has never been equal, there is no equilibrium
ad 2: we can try forever. we have a limited historical knowledge and we are biased by our education.
ad 3: I don't really think I have to comment on that one... (even if i think that my country would fit right in ;p)

The simplest solution would be to add ~30 or so civs. Unfortunately the game has a limited number of civ traits. In order for the system to work, more unique characteristics would have to be added. IMO, it wouldn't be too hard. This leaves us with those new shiny animated leaders, which are not only ugly, but also quite pointless (IMO, IMO and once again - IMO). I cannot imagine Firaxis creating so many new animations. It would be great to see them cut.. and more civs added instead

This doesn't solve another problem I've had with the series since civ1. Namely - ancient and modern civs on one map. I'd like to see a major change in this aspect of the game. By picking a starting period, and/or geographical region, you would also pick a different set of civilizations. This would make the addition of many smaller civs possible.

I understand that this would be a major change in the construction of the game and probably won't be possible until civ5.. but heck, it would rock.

Good post. I like shouting into the void and seeing what echoes people come back with. All of these "What Civ should be in" threads are populated by plenty of ridiculous statements. I hope the people who suggest them aren't really expecting civs like Australia to be in the game (anti category 3 for me).

I'd like to see a fair balance between important civs and representation across continents and time. I don't agree with people who say there are too many Euro civs and I don't agree with people who are against civs they don't know anything about. But all of that is personal and worth nowt more than what anyone else thinks.

I like your idea about civ and era selection. Did Rise of Nations do this? I can't really remember. But it is easy to implement as a selectable check box so why not for those who want it?