More Civs in Civ4!

[dh_epic]

Lockesdonkey, way to defend the existence of multiple civilizations from brutal overgeneralization. "Well, there's France, Germany, Rome, England, the Celts... and the Arabs and the Asians..." It's funny to note that in the 7th and 8th century, the Near Eastern world got into the habit of calling all of Europe the "Franks". This persisted well into Europe's Rennaisance. Maybe we should just replace all the European civilizations with "The Franks!"

Although "Ethiopia" is the western name for the only uncolonized country in Africa. Historically, that country was more commonly known as "Abyssinia". Of course, I'm really just mincing hairs, because I'm learning new things about that country because I may travel there this summer. Did you know their native language is basically Semetic? This is interesting since Moses allegedly took an "Ethiopian wife", according to the Bible itself.

 

[mastertyguy]

There should be more civs, including europe as much as precolumbian civs. Maybe Quebec too (Vive le Québec libre!!!!!!!). I think that you should be able too divide your civ in different countries. It would be with a predefined number of capitals that increases with time. It would decrease corruption.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I think that a base of 19 is fine. As long as it is possible to add alot of civs in the editor, I am happy.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Lockesdonkey, way to defend the existence of multiple civilizations from brutal overgeneralization. "Well, there's France, Germany, Rome, England, the Celts... and the Arabs and the Asians..." It's funny to note that in the 7th and 8th century, the Near Eastern world got into the habit of calling all of Europe the "Franks". This persisted well into Europe's Rennaisance. Maybe we should just replace all the European civilizations with "The Franks!"

Although "Ethiopia" is the western name for the only uncolonized country in Africa. Historically, that country was more commonly known as "Abyssinia". Of course, I'm really just mincing hairs, because I'm learning new things about that country because I may travel there this summer. Did you know their native language is basically Semetic? This is interesting since Moses allegedly took an "Ethiopian wife", according to the Bible itself.

And according to Ethiopian tradition, the royal house of Ethiopia is descended from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba...

And don't forget, Mansa Musa of Mali funded the Rennaisance!

 

[Corvex]

What we need are more Africans and fewer Europeans. And we should avoid nonsense like wasting valuable space by including a Sumerian civilization when there is already a Babylonian civilization that is a composite of all Mesopotamian nations prior to Persia's conquest of the region.

 

[the_corvos]

By your rationale, we should not have the French, because the Romans had them, or the Koreans, because the Chinese and Japanese took them over, or the Chinese, because the Mongols took them over, or the Aztecs, because the Spanish took them over, or the Iroquois, because the Americans took them over...The point of each civ is NOT its geography but its culture and its historical importance.

No, that's not by my rationale. My point was that each of those three listed civs had political and cultural centers that were too closely located (if not the same city, in the case of the Byzantines and the Ottomans), not merely that they each controlled much of the same territory. I would prefer for the Byzantines to be removed, and keep the Hittites and Ottomans--that way, the Hitties could control Turkey and the Ottomans could expand into Europe, as they did historically, unlike the Hittites.

 

[Virote_Considon]

What we need are more Africans and fewer Europeans. And we should avoid nonsense like wasting valuable space by including a Sumerian civilization when there is already a Babylonian civilization that is a composite of all Mesopotamian nations prior to Persia's conquest of the region.

You can't say Sumeria are unimportant! they were the olds FIRST proper CIVILIZATION!!!

But less europeans should be a good idea. they should at leats scrap Byzantine all together, maybe adding them in for a puppet civ for Rome?

as I play as the Hittites, and the Ottomans are always one of my first trading partners, I say keep both of them! But mos of hese civs should be reserved for expnsion packs/ editing

I also agree hat the 31 civ limit for the editor should be changed, to at least a higher number!

 

[Lockesdonkey]

No, that's not by my rationale. My point was that each of those three listed civs had political and cultural centers that were too closely located (if not the same city, in the case of the Byzantines and the Ottomans), not merely that they each controlled much of the same territory. I would prefer for the Byzantines to be removed, and keep the Hittites and Ottomans--that way, the Hitties could control Turkey and the Ottomans could expand into Europe, as they did historically, unlike the Hittites.

[RANT]
READ MY CAPS: IT'S CULTURE, NOT GEOGRAPHY!!!!!

Your thinking is too Earth-bound, too geared to recreating history than rewriting it. Think outside of the historical box! In most games I've seen, where are the Byzantines? Not near the Ottomans! The Ottomans are often near the Hittites, yes, but then, I play with culturally-linked start locations on. So if you have that off, what's your rationale for excluding them if in the game they are on different ends of the map? It makes no sense at all!

So you need to think about civ differently. So what if they were right on top of each other? They had radically different cultures, thus qualifying each of them for civ status. Babylon and Sumeria are a problem, yes. One or the other should be in, in my opinion. But the Hittites, Byzantines, and Turks all had unique cultures (and, may I add, that the Byzantine culture is also distinct from the Greek in the game, since the game's Greeks are the ancient pagan Greeks, as distinguished from modern, Christian ones).
[/RANT]

 

[Corvex]

And the Byzantines are at least as distinct from the Romans as the Americans are from the British, and were by far the most important civilization in Europe during the middle ages, so I think that its fair for them to be included in the expansion.

As for merging Western Europe in the 'Franks'? To be honest, I wouldn't mind. All these nations are all quite similar, and there isn't a single truly unique unit amoung all of them. If you merged them into one, then you could just give them a crusader.

 

[ledfan]

One thing that I hope they will have: fewer western European civs!!
Yes, I recognize the historical importance of this region in the last 500 years or so, but other regions have been important in the past and they're not so over-represented.
Is it really necessary to include England, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and Germany in the epic game? And America too, for that matter. (I'm not going to mention the Celts or Vikings, as their inclusion is from a different era). And all the while, all of South America and subsaharan Africa are represented by only one civ each! South East Asia isn't represented at all.

yes they are nesesary and should be included, all of them have massive historical importance, but all other major nations shoud be included in the game. e.g. the Mongols, Canada (after all they are the only nation to invade and burn the US capitol !! )......

yours
Ledfan
{EDIT}
ps, I'm English and live in France near the german/swiss border I have to say that they are as similar as China and Japan - not very. Would you also merge all of asia together and call them asians? Plus franks are countries of germanic origin, while France Spain Italy Portugal are latin desendants. Britain is sort of a mix - we got invaded too many times ...
hell I'm sure many Scottish people feel that they should be represented, cause even Scots and English have different cultures an they have been under the same rule for a lot of years.
{end EDIT}

 

[Portugal]

"19 playable civilizations will be featured in Civilization IV" to be precise...

Will Portugal be one of them?

 

[mitsho]

We don't know, but it's not probable. For reasons, go and look in the "What 19 civs?"-thread...

mitsho

 

[the_corvos]

Your thinking is too Earth-bound

I thought it was pretty obvious I was thinking about having even distribution on a real-world map. On random maps, I like cultural distribution, too, but that's not what I'm talking about. Besides, who judges cultural importance? If that's what we're going by, then Zululand, Mali, and Songhai should not be in the game. They were most certainly not three of the nineteen most influential civilizations in history. But, of course, everyone will have a different opinion on culture.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Mali funded the Rennaisance. Ethiopia/Abysinia was the first major Christian state, and was a great power in its own right. And it gave us coffee. And it was the gold mine of the ancient world. Who can deny the influence of gold and coffee?

 

[dh_epic]

A book I read called "The New History of the World" is considered one of the most comprehensive history books ever written, and goes so far as to say "while having impressive cultures and societies, many Native American tribes are beyond the scope of this book since they are not actual civilizations." Something to the effect. Insulting, but a common viewpoint nonetheless.

For the sake of the game, though, I think you need an Iroquois or Cherokee Civilization just to rep for North America. You need to look at it by era and region to some extent. When you look at the "new world" before colonialism, you gotta give props to the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas.

Back to Africa, you have to look at it by era. When you look at Africa before Islam, you have to acknowledge the Zulus. And after the arrival of Islam, I'd give a lot of respect to Mali as a representative of Muslim Africa, and making Timbuctu one of the cultural centers of Islam and the World. And when you finally get passed colonialism, Abyssinia is a shining example of a long-historic African Civilization that was relatively untouched.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

There should be more civs, including europe as much as precolumbian civs. Maybe Quebec too (Vive le Québec libre!!!!!!!). I think that you should be able too divide your civ in different countries. It would be with a predefined number of capitals that increases with time. It would decrease corruption.

Well, you probably won't get Quebec as a civ in the epic game, but you could mod it in.

I have visited Montreal and Quebec city on a little road trip through Ontario, Quebec, and the Northeastern United States. Montreal is a wonderful city!

 

[Dachs]

Back to Africa, you have to look at it by era. When you look at Africa before Islam, you have to acknowledge the Zulus. And after the arrival of Islam, I'd give a lot of respect to Mali as a representative of Muslim Africa, and making Timbuctu one of the cultural centers of Islam and the World. And when you finally get passed colonialism, Abyssinia is a shining example of a long-historic African Civilization that was relatively untouched.

Speaking of Abyssinia, ever heard of "Prester John"?

 

[bloodofages]

One thing that I hope they will have: fewer western European civs!!
Yes, I recognize the historical importance of this region in the last 500 years or so, but other regions have been important in the past and they're not so over-represented.
Is it really necessary to include England, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and Germany in the epic game? And America too, for that matter. (I'm not going to mention the Celts or Vikings, as their inclusion is from a different era). And all the while, all of South America and subsaharan Africa are represented by only one civ each! South East Asia isn't represented at all.

Keep the European civs and the American civs. Cause whar do you want?? I game with nothing but nations from Africa? (some would be cool, libya, ethiopa)

 

[CurtSibling]

Add the Africans! Africa rocks!

With a custom modded civ, you can be whatever you wish.

 

[Corvex]

Let me qualify my comments on Western Europe: It seems like if it's alright to lump all of Eastern Europe together as 'Russia', it should be alright to lump all of Western Europe together as 'the Franks.'
Just a thought.
Seriously though, they shouldn't do this.