GGTL: 25 civilizations that should be added as DLC for Civ V
- Thread starter cowkimon
- Start date
Do you mind a critique?
I appreciate that you included the Assyrians but I think you can make them a tad stronger than that. Give them the Battering Ram as an Ancient Era siege weapon (available with The Wheel) and make their UA 'Deportation' (no resistance in conquered cities due to scattering native populations throughout the rest of the Assyrian Empire).
That would make them a very rush-oriented civ with priority on Ancient Era warfare. Which would be art imitating reality.
I appreciate that you included the Assyrians but I think you can make them a tad stronger than that. Give them the Battering Ram as an Ancient Era siege weapon (available with The Wheel) and make their UA 'Deportation' (no resistance in conquered cities due to scattering native populations throughout the rest of the Assyrian Empire).
That would make them a very rush-oriented civ with priority on Ancient Era warfare. Which would be art imitating reality.
KungCheops
Warlord
The Kingmaker
Alexander
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,975
And people who play EU3...
I find that those two groups at least tend to have a lot of overlap.
well it isn't his fault that for 500+ years europe dominated the planet. and i disagree that it would be european bias to have portugal and dutch included because they were both major powers at their height and what about a scandinavian civ?? you got the vikings and swedes represented there (which need to be represented) and they need to bring back the celts or just make a british civ to replace the english one we have now to give something to the celts again. europe has a lot of representation because they had several very powerful and influential nations often at the same time as each other. not to mention that no nation has been able to conquer all of europe throughout all of human history and considering that it is only larger than australia and antarctica (by a tiny bit) thats saying a lot.
Nice list... I do think however that its a bit biased, some countries there I do not quite agree with... First: no Mayans in your list... Poland was an important part of history... Austria? How could you exclude Austria? Seriously. I do not think its right for them to be under Bismark, he was never their king...
You could add Moors, Vandals, Sumeria, Macedonia (while representing the greek city states as city states, which is very historical, Sparta - military, Athens - cultural, etc
If adding Latin American nations, I`d prefer Bolivia, Peru or Chile, as they are much more colorful than Brazil or Argentina (they lack the football skills though). Adding Brazil or Argentina would be the lucrative choice though. Mexico - I completely agree.
With most of your other nations I agree with (especially Norse, Zulu, Carthage, Eastern Roman Empire - not Byzantium, Gaul, Celts, Cambodia, Bulgaria).
mexico is represented by the aztecs. eastern roman empire wouldn't make a civilization and celts and gaul are almost the same thing (celts were the original inhabitants of gaul and iberia) to reduce the greeks to city states would perhaps be the worst thing you could do to change this game because of the fact that the greeks gave birth to all western culture and were much like a confederation of states not seperate city states in ancient times (they were allied when fighting a foreign power for mutual defense but fought each other when there were no outside threats)
I agree, maybe put them as full time civs once the game is complete. They jipped us good with this one crumb every two months for 5 bucks each deal.... but I don't expect to see Portugal or Netherlands any time soon. You got to go Africa, Asia, and maybe Western Hemisphere before you go back there. So we'd be looking at 2012. Just in time for the Mayans to come back and dominate the game.
And I know Denmark is more general populous that covers more than Viking dominance, but does it really incorporate the Swedes? They were separate for the most part. I think Sweden/Finland has clout to get it's own if we were sticking to Europe. I mean there are probably 3-4 Euro-civs you can throw in without even counting previously featured ones. Obviously I wouldn't put them in; but if they continue to stick to Civ IV BtS civs no one is really going to complain. It's the times they go outside the box that may tick some fans off; but they didn't misfire with Polynesia that's for sure.
i disagree with making the turtle ship have 5 extra damage compared to the frigate (which would make it better than the english ship of the line and very unaccurate historically) and with having gaels and celts seperate. otherwise from what i read i agree with you on a lot of this stuff.
You, my friend, are a genius.
shouldn't the robots get terminators as their special unit?? lmao
labrynianrebel
Warlord
Not a huge fan of civilizations that practically share a capital, such as Mexico, Eastern Roman Empire, Papal States etc.
Not at all, critique away, good sir.
I like the idea of an rush-oriented ancient era civ like this. I do think, however, that the Heavy Chariot needs to be part of the Assyrian arsenal, as it was basically the tool that allowed their armies to wash over the Ancient Middle Eastern world like a tsunami. Maybe a Battering Ram alongside it, and no unique building? Also, that unique ability really does work historically. It's similar to some of the unique abilities I have for other civs, but hey, everything can be changed so gameplay balances out (as long as it stays true to history).
I know what you mean when it comes to the Turtle Ship (at that point I rushed a bit to meet my article deadline, focusing more on finding historically appropriate units than balancing out gameplay). Thinking back on it, I think I'd change the Turtle Ship so that it's basically a frigate a bonus against naval units, and possibly a second bonus for fighting in your own territory (a la Battle of Sacheon).
As for the Celts and Gaels being separate... I've gotten a lot of mixed reactions on this subject. There are basically three camps: A) those who think Celts should encapsulate Gaels, B) People who think Gaels should represent both Scottish and Irish history, and C) Fans of independent Scottish and Irish civs on their own. The main reason I'm a fan of either B) or C) is that the Celts I think of are basically the Gauls that Rome fought against - from modern-day France. The culture differences between them and the kilted Irish and Scots of medieval to modern times is stark enough in my mind to merit their own civ representation. That said, there are only so many civs we'll be willing to shell out $5 for, so maybe a combined Celtic civ is best for financial reasons alone.
Thanks for all the feedback - feel free to keep it coming. I've got a Viking DLC review coming out Saturday - you can expect a link to it here on the Civ V General Discussion forum.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Butting in on the conversation: I agree the Assyrians need chariots and deadly horsemen, they were primarily famous for Blitzing the Near East with them, and that should be reflected if they do eventually appear in Civ V (and I really hope they do!)
The Turtle Ship being a primarily defensive and deadly unit would make sense. Perhaps to bolster its defense, the +25% defense against ranged, like the Huscarl unit in the Viking DLC scenario?
The Turtle Ship being a primarily defensive and deadly unit would make sense. Perhaps to bolster its defense, the +25% defense against ranged, like the Huscarl unit in the Viking DLC scenario?
Ermak-
Prince
ITS A JOKE TO EVEN SUGGEST ZULUS HAS A 'CIVILIZATION' - bush people with sticks is better description- and they still are.
Moderator Action: If you want to make such comments, then support them with arguments and facts, else it's considered trolling.
Moderator Action: If you want to make such comments, then support them with arguments and facts, else it's considered trolling.
When the Vulcans make first contact (Star Trek canon says we've only got a few decades to go) we'll all just be people with sticks, friend. Everything is relative. That said, the Zulu are most definitely are a human society with highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization - a definitive civilization.
And their pointed sticks took down a few thousand Redcoats hailing from a land of Shakespeare, classical music, and expensive teas. Don't be too quick to judge.
KungCheops
Warlord
The "Zulus" wasn't a single "civilization", it is a collective name of (I don't know how) many tribes in South Africa...
snipperrabbit!!
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,396
And what is 'Iroquois', please ?
KungCheops
Warlord
I am not very fond of an Iroqouis Civ either... I think they should have made them barbs, like I think they should have done with the Vikings (and made a civ that focuses on the civilized part of Scandinavian history).
Lose
King
Well thought out
I agree with you. Heavy Chariot + Battering Ram and Deportation would definitely be the best way to represent Assyria.
