New civilizations beyond BTS: More civs or no civ spam?

[Pangur Bán]

Opening this thread because of various discussions I've seen. Beyond Beyond the Sword, are there enough possible new civs to make a new XP viable in at least new civilization terms?
\
There was a good conversation over at Apolyton about possible new civilizations. Many there think no more than 3 to 5 could be added to the game before creating a "Civ spam", whereby there are too many civs.

There is a similar poll to this here about civs that should have have been added to BTS (though no option for no civs should be added).

Are there enough new possible civs for a new XP, and if so, which are they? Tried to make the poll representative of 1) new civs representing important parts of the world 2) popular suggestions and 3) important civs.

I personally think there are enoughnew possibilities for another XP's worth, but prolly no more. I do not think most civplayers will be that bothered by lots of civs they've never heard of, so long as the civs add something educationally and game-play wise, and would appreciate being educated. That said, I do not support civ spam. IMHO, many new civs can be offset by new leaders for the core civs (such as Rome, China, Russia, etc). I prolly wouldn't support more than 10 or 12 ever being added to the game.

Your thoughts ...

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, the number of traits limits strongly the number of leaders that can be added ( when BTS arrives, only 3 trait combination will be open), so , unless other traits are created, I would only put more 3 civs with 1 leader each ( too few for a X-pak IMHO ). Even if new traits are created ,I don't think that there is too much room for new leaders, maybe more 10 at most...

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, the number of traits limits strongly the number of leaders that can be added ( when BTS arrives, only 3 trait combination will be open), so , unless other traits are created, I would only put more 3 civs with 1 leader each ( too few for a X-pak IMHO ). Even if new traits are created ,I don't think that there is too much room for new leaders, maybe more 10 at most...

Well, they could definitely add at least one more trait (such as Agricultural, +1 food on all food tiles) and double up in traits. With the latter though, yeah there's not as much point playing them, but so long as there are different UUs and leader personalities, traits will only be one distinctive characteristic.

 

[Josephias]

(reposted from old thread)

Possible new civs:
Poland, to cover north-center europe.
Hittites, as appeared in previous games, and important in ancient history (from Troy to Qadesh)
Gran Columbia (Bolivar) - a new Civ to be added to South-America: currently, only the Incas are in.
Iroquis (separate from Sioux) in north America (sort-of a "Canada" Civ, also )

Not specially necessary new civs:
Austria (just give new Austrian leaders for the HRE)

In the range of civ-spam, but maybe nice:
Assyria (if sumeria is in, why not? however, I would get rid of both, rename "Babylon" civ to "Mesopotiamia", and give it a Babylonian (Hamurababi), a Sumerian (Gilgamesh), and an Assirian leader).
Phoenicia (over-crowded area, and "represented" by Carthage)
Sub-Kingdoms of China/India?
Almohads-Moors (Well, compared with Europe, there is still space on North-Africa, but Carthage and Egipt cover this space quite well).
Italy (as per Renaissance North-Italy - considering all the independent republics -- much like Greece is a mix of all the independent city-states).


That makes 4 able for an x-pack, plus others that might be nice... and I am western-focused, probably someone asian-focused or african-focused might name a few more; Yep we can make a new x-pack adding civs. (Anyway, is it necessary the x-pack adds civs?)

 

[cybrxkhan]

a small, cheap XP, maybe 10 to 15 bucks, wouldn't be that bad of an idea, lathuogh im not sure if it would be economically wise for Firaxis. the XP could have one "core" feature, smaller than the corporation or random event features of BtS, but still big enough to have a big enough impact on the game. one (or maybe even two) additional traits can be added in order to provide enough for some new leaders.

five to six new civs could be added, inlcuding:

- Vietnam, YES VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Poland
- Austria
- Polynesia
- Indonesia
- Something African like Nubia, Kongo...

and so on. there should also then be new leaders for these civs:

- CHINA
- India
- Rome
- Egypt
- Spain
- Japan
- Native America
...

and so on. a smaller XP is possible, and has been done before for other video games.

 

[Infantry#14]

I think there are too many now....

 

[Thedrin]

Calgacus:
... and double up in traits. With the latter though, yeah there's not as much point playing them, but so long as there are different UUs and leader personalities, traits will only be one distinctive characteristic.

Leader/civ mixing and random personalities options mean that doubling up of traits won't provide the player with any unavailable experience.

 

[methane]

There's always room for more civilizations and leaders. And it will provide for a more diverse gaming experience, especially for those of us who play on larger maps and get a large amount of overlap in civs every game. When you see many people arguing for a 2nd leader for Spain and Japan before a 2nd leader for the Arabs, it's not generally for historical purpose they're arguing. They're just tired of facing those 2 leaders every other game.

Of course, they would need to add 2 or more traits. This helps keep the playing experience different, but it also makes each trait more 'unique'. If they have 12 traits then it will be less likely to have 5 'philosophical' civs on the map in each game (again, this is something those of us who play on big maps notice more than those of you playing on small maps).

With more combinations, it'll be more work to making sure each UU+UB+traits+starting tech combinations are balanced. I see a lot of people complaining that Imperialistic is 'underpowered', yet most admit that imperialistic civs have strong UUs and UBs that offset this. Having weak traits with strong UUs and UBs and vice versa gives more diverse gameplay. But I think it takes a lot of work to get the balance correct. While firaxis isn't perfect at it, they seem to be better than most mods I sample.

So anyway I'd be willing to pay $20 for an expansion pack that had no gameplay changes, but with a big boost to the diversity of civs & leaders. Say 3 traits, 16 civs, and 30 leaders. That'd take a lot of careful work balancing, but it would reinvigorate the playing experience.

Leader/civ mixing and random personalities options mean that doubling up of traits won't provide the player with any unavailable experience.

Mixing leaders with civs results in having some overpowered combinations and some underpowered combinations, and an unbalanced game.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, above was basically why I'd want more civs and leaders from a gameplay perspective. Let's talk about which civs I'd prefer to see!

I'd really like to see them to diversify the geographical areas and cultural representations as much as possible. Remember, we're replaying history. In real life, the axis of Europe to China had special starting advantages in that scientific discoveries could pass from one to the other much quicker than they could to large parts of Africa or to the Americas. Other civs might have been just as 'great' if they get the favorable starting locations when we replay history.

While I could definitely be persuaded to support other civs with a good argument (I'm not a history expert), here's what I'd choose to put in a 10 civ expansion right now:

1) Indonesia (or an older state representing Indonesia)
2) Kongo
3) Gran Columbia
4) Brazil
5) Poland or Poland+Lithuania
6) Swahili
7) Tibet (if it can't be put in for Political reasons I'd put Nepal there)
8) Polynesia
9) Burma
10) Nigeria (this civ would represent the historical area of the modern state taking a UU from one of the ethnic groups, a UB from another, and the leaders among the rest)

I'd likely give a slightly different list tomorrow. There are certainly more interesting civs in Africa and central Asia. Some native South American groups would be good, but I'm unfamiliar with them. Vietnam, Thailand, and Haiti would all be good choices, but I have them after the ones listed. Poland would be the only European civ I'd add in the next 10, but there are other interesting choices from Eastern Europe.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yes Poland!!!! Go Polonia! POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA!!!!!

Enough of that. i also voted for vietnam, Polynesia and Austria.

 

[Vertico]

Israel and Eastern European civ: candidates: Poland+Lithuania, Hungary, Bohemia or Bulgaria

 

[porto_alegre_xP]

Erm... sorry, but Brazil isn't modern-only state õ_ô

we have HISTORY!

 

[porto_alegre_xP]

Yes Poland!!!! Go Polonia! POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA!!!!!

Enough of that. i also voted for vietnam, Polynesia and Austria.

He sad "or any other modern-only country". This means that Venezuela was in.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Venezuela has as long a history as Brazil.

 

[porto_alegre_xP]

Venezuela has as long a history as Brazil.

I know.
But if Brazil is modern-only country, Venezuela is 2.

 

[TheLastOne36]

What? i don't understand what happened.

 

[porto_alegre_xP]

What? i don't understand what happened.

What? Me saying that Venezuela has history?

Is this revenge?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Israel, Hittites, Austria. If they ever wish to change the "Native American" civ, I'd also say Sioux and Iroquois.

Probably no more than 5-6 new civs should be added at this point. Although more is usually nice, we already have the core civilizations of the world, so the only other ones I might consider would be Canada and Australia, and maybe a South American race, but even these are a bit iffy.

 

[Onagan]

I missed the option for a Nordic European Civ (Sweden)

 

[Pangur Bán]

I missed the option for a Nordic European Civ (Sweden)

That would be covered by "Other". Surely there's no-one who wants Sweden or Denmark in addition to Scandinavia?

 

[cybrxkhan]

^its the Vikings that are in, not the Scandinavians...