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

[Pangur Bán]

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

Well, that's an unfortunate name as most agree, but the same civ in Civ 3 was called "Scandinavia", and that's what the Vikings represent.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^yes... i wonder why the cahnge...

 

[TheLastOne36]

I say a close 4 way tie between Hittites, Poland, Polynesia, and Israel. See traitorfish? Polynesia is a popular option.

 

[Nkot]

There are already too many.

Seriously though, at this point, they already have most areas covered, and more civs would not enhance gameplay.

I have played AT MOST half of the current civs (Warlords) because once I find a civ (/leader), I stick with it for awhile. In other words, if they added new civs, I would probably only play a few of them to test, and only one or two in more than one game. Also, you could argue that adding more civs changes gameplay by making you encounter different civs. While this is true, it still wouldn't enhance gameplay, since the new ones will either fall in the techer, warmongerer, or loser categories, and not really affect gameplay.

In terms of diversity, you'll have more nations, but most new nations already cover areas that are already represented, only in a different time period. Also, the most important nations have already been represented. C'mon, Poland? Israel? What if you were in a game with the Ethiopians, Poles, Hittites and the Israelites, while you played the Byzantines. Doesn't strike me as the original epicness that originally was intended.

Not trying to put down any country, but now it just feels like there throwing darts on a map of the world and randomly drawing a date from a hat to decide what civs are in, and while there does need to be African civs, it needs to be representative of the amount of influence African civs have made on the world. I mean you could make a long list of the important things that have involved civs such as America, England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, India, Rome (Italy), Greece, Persia, (Vanilla civs), etc., but you could hardly due the same with some of the civs being suggested.

That being said, I wish they would have just called the Native American civ the Sioux or Iroquois or something.

 

[DukeTancred]

Polynesia would be interesting. UU would naturally be a canoe (galley) that's like the old trireme, ie can cross oceans but will probably sink on the way. Eat your heart out, João.

 

[Margim]

My list for an expansion pack titled 'Its not just about Western History'. Just 4 candidates...

Polynesia
Thai
Khazars (Jewish Turkic Civ)
Javanese/Indonesians

 

[Thedrin]

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

I was refering to the possible increases in game play options if traits were to be doubled up; that is, that there will be no increase in game play options if traits are doubled up due to (among other reasons) the ability to mix and match traits.

 

[Leodavinci]

It is too many, as I usually love to play with random enemies and random leader myself, I do want to have at least some of important civilization present in my game. Imagine civilization game with random 8 being: Poland, Austria, Native Americans, Bizantia, Mongols, Carthague, Mali, Holy Roman Empire. It does not add much fun and off course does not look like replaying world history.
However if they keep on creating new civs and allow for random of classical civilizations (Rome, Greece, Russian, English, China, India, etc) option, I do not mind.
But off course: Have a look at my signature!

 

[Saim]

Austria
Italy
Huns
Srivijaya (Indonesia)
Majahapit
Siam
Manchuria
Tibet
Uigherstan
Seljuks
Armenia
Israel/Israelites
Phoenicia
Assyria
Moors

And I think Ive still forgotten a few.

Then you could also split the Arabian (Abbasid, Ayyubid, Umayyad, Rashidun), Indian (Magadha, Mughal) and Native American civs (Sioux, Iroquois)...

 

[TheLastOne36]

Poland comes after the Moors? Where is Poland on your list anyway Saim?
just curious...

In terms of diversity, you'll have more nations, but most new nations already cover areas that are already represented, only in a different time period. Also, the most important nations have already been represented. C'mon, Poland? Israel? What if you were in a game with the Ethiopians, Poles, Hittites and the Israelites, while you played the Byzantines. Doesn't strike me as the original epicness that originally was intended.

Poland is by no way represented yet. unless your one of the really ignorant people who think Poles are the same thing as germans.

Read some history on all of those countries that you mentioned. Ethiopia can't be represented by anyone else other then Ethiopia.

Also on the fun part, Poland's uu the Winged Hussars would be the funnest uu in the game! (come on, a knight with wings that's stronger then a cossack!)

but you could hardly due the same with some of the civs being suggested.

READ HISTORY. In Poland, The battle of Vienna, being the biggest nation in Europe for some time, Being stinking rich for some time ring the bell? As for Israel, I find there history very interesting. The Israelites have been migrating, fighting wars etc. That's interesting history in my opinion.

As for the Hittites, how could you not include the first people to smelt Iron. (that's what they did right?) They fought of the Egyptians, and many Mesopotamian civs. I find the Byzantines boring, there romans, they considered themselves Roman and they called themselves roman. The fought for the sake of Rome, They lived in what the called the Roman Empire and they Slept in what they called the Roman Empire. Hardly what i call civilization worthy.

Why do you find Poland, Israel, Hittites boring?

 

[Onagan]

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

We have the Greeks and the Byzantine, Germany & Holy Romans, England & Celts, America & Native American, Sumer & Babylon. So why not Vikings & Sweden.

 

[Basilisk1]

"C'mon, Poland? Israel? What if you were in a game with the Ethiopians, Poles, Hittites and the Israelites, while you played the Byzantines. Doesn't strike me as the original epicness that originally was intended."

See, the problem I have with this comment is that you're biased towards civs because of an (understandably) contemporary perspective.

But the historical impact of civilizations shouldn't be judged just based on whether they've survived to the present day and how well known they are to "modern" people.

For HUNDREDS OF YEARS, Poland-Lithuania was one of the mightiest military powers in Europe, period. Its empire stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea. It was bigger than Russia, France or England. It was also the most progressive; because the nobility were particularly independent, the monarchs were always more limited in their power. It could be argued that Poland-Lithuania was one of Europe's real representative governments.

But nobody thinks about Poland like that today. Today, we think of it based on what we know from contemporary times; Lech Walesa, kielbasa, coal mining. A small state unfortunately stuck between Germany and Russia, arguably THE worst place to be in the last 200 years.

The Byzantines; well, I've talked about them alot before on these boards. But suffice it to say, they were NOT Greeks; they spoke Greek and worshipped the Greek Orthodox religion, but they were a unique civilization. They were also, FOR A THOUSAND YEARS, the epicenter of Western civilization, that all the piss-ant states like England and France would look towards as the epitome of "civilization."

The Hittites? Well, they suffer in contemporary eyes because they died out long ago and faded away into obscurity. But in their day, they were THE pre-eminant military power. They were one of the first states to enter the Iron Age, and their chariots were feared even by the Assyrians. I believe they were actually foremost military innovators. (In my Civ game though, the Assyrians would be included instead. Their epic empire and innovative use of chariots and siege weapons more than earns them a spot.)

 

[Margim]

Poland is by no way represented yet. unless your one of the really ignorant people who think Poles are the same thing as germans.

To be honest, the only thing I ever learnt about Poland in my secondary and tertiary education was that it got a good chunk of Germany in between wars, and got spanked through World War 2 in revenge.

edit: Obviously, there is more to Poland than that, as I'm discovering in wonderful educational threads like this. If I, as an individual with a history degree, can miss out on a chunk of world history related to one of the dozens of European nations that have existed over time, then so can anybody... no one should be belittled for not knowing everything about every european power.

 

[TheLastOne36]

As long as you can recognize Poles are different from Russians and Germans your fine with me.

 

[uppi]

I think nearly all of the important civs have already been included, and with the current system adding more would mainly just clutter up the game. Imagine you wanted to play an epic game about world history and you feel like you are just battling for the british isles, as you are fighting the English, Scots, Irish and Celts...

If more civs would be added i would like an option to put civs in different groups like ancient/modern, major/minor, geographic location, civs I like/dislike and so on. Then you set up the game by telling it: Pick one out of these groups. You could have your epic worldwide battle with the major civs, make ancient starts only with ancient civs, advanced starts with advanced civs or regional battles. All that without having to handpick every civ yourself.

 

[TheLastOne36]

It's called Custom game.

And you shouldn't say all the important ones are in already, another word would be better, but i get your meaning.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I like this poll because it clearly shows which civs should be in the next expansion.

1. Israel
2. Poland
3. Polynesia
4. Austria
5. Hittites

not much extra civs. a patch could fill in the remainder.

 

[PW90]

I like this poll because it clearly shows which civs should be in the next expansion.

1. Israel
2. Poland
3. Polynesia
4. Austria
5. Hittites

not much extra civs. a patch could fill in the remainder.

Yes, these five civs are still missing.
Maybe Hungary would be also a good addition

 

[Da q]

Only the Principality of Sealand could represent Sealand

 

[TheLastOne36]

no England can.