New Civilizations

Dolemitetornado

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
33
I know there's already a thread for new civs, but it's gotten a bit unweidly, so I thought I'd start a new one, especially to consolidate the ideas on new civs. From what I've read several names keep coming up, and I hope the Civ4 folks take notice, becuase I believe the following are both supported by suugestions from the community as well as having good historical logic behind them.

1) Ethiopia/Abyssinia- These guys have been around as long as anyone, the Ethiopian highlands have always nutured a distinct civilization that continues right up to the present day. I also think Ethiopia has been the source of several major aspects of world civilization, including the semetic languages, and several agricultural crops, including coffee.

2) West African Songhai/Mali- Given the lack of African civs, I think Ethiopia and one of the above West African kingdoms shouldbe included. I don't think the specific civ is important, but its clear that a rich, heavily populated region in the West African Sahel has been in existence for centuries, and should be represented.

3) South-East Asia is even less represented than Africa despite its large population, importance in the ancient Indian ocean trade etc. Thailand/Siam, Khamers/Cambodia, and Indonesia/Java/Mahapajits would be the top three contenders, and I think if we have so many European civilizations, this area of the world should have much greater recognition.

These 3-5 civs are the ones that I think there is the most agreement on, however, other names have also popped up quite often, so I'd like to look at them as well.

1) Polynesians - This is more of a lingustic group than a centralized political unit, but I think there's room for "fun" civs, and the Polynesians definately qualify, they also have the advantage of being distinct from all the other civs already included in the game, no Byzantium/Greece probelms here.

2) Hebrews/Israelites/Jews - Though the Isreali state has been small during its existence, the Jewish influence on world culture, especially religion make a strong case, as does the extremely long history of the Jewish people.

3) Tibet - Again, somewhat small (in population if not land area), and I'm sure there's some officals in the Chinese Communist Party that would dismiss this, but Tibet would be anothjer really "fun" civ, lots of people would like to see them, and I think considering that Asia makes up about half of the worlds current population, its a bit silly to have the whole area currently only represented by China, India, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia.

4) Poland - though Europe is already overripe with civs, the Poles had a huge empire, the largest population not currently represented in Europe, as well as an amazing ability topersist as a nation through war occupation, dismemberment etc.

Finally there's a few civs that I think would be interesting to see, even if they haven't been mentioned alot.

1) Another Andean/Mesoamerican civ - The Incas and Aztecs were actually fairly short-lived empires, and the cultures that preceeded them should have some recognition, the Chavin culture, and the Olmecs would be two worthy additions.

2) We should be careful withmodern nations, even though I'm a Canadian, it's prettyridiculous to see Canada or Australia as civs, but if there is one modern country that should be represented it should be Brazil, they have the fifth biggest population and land area in the world, as well as being lingustically distinct from Spanish America, as well as a fairly unique Afro-European culture.

3) I know that India and China re already represented, but given the massive influence of these civs (it's like having "Europe" as a single civilization), I'd like to see perhaps some of there earlier incarnation, specifically the Shang and Indus valley empires, these are both old enough to be somewhat distinct from the modern Indian and Chinese nations.

So to sum up, my wish list for Civ4 would be as follows-

1. Ethiopia
2. Songhai
3. Siam
4. Khamer
5. Java
6. Polynesia
7. Tibet
8. Israel
9.Poland
10. Olmecs
11. Chavin
12. Brazil
13. Shang Dynasty
14. Indus Valley Civilization

Well, there you have it, I know that's a long list, but civs don't seem to take up too much memory, I think that it should be easy enough to add the above civs. I hope I get some responses, I think it would be helpful topost some sort of list of civs to more or less demand be included in civ4, so those firaxis bastards don't add Malta instead of Ethiopia or something.
 
Shang is Chinese if we don't get many new ones then I'd prefer not to waste a spot. Also I'd rather have the Toltec than the Olmec and I'd rather have the moundbuilders than Chavin. (They aren't similar at all but come on, Chavin?)
 
For me, it is not so much what civs are in and/or out, its the lack of culture groups in Civ3 that bothers me. For instance, There should be a seperate Central African and Southern African culture group (or possibly an East/West African), a truly distinctive Middle Eastern Culture group, a seperate west and east European culture group, retain the Mediterranean culture group, have an Asian and South East Asian culture group, a Pacific Island culture group and a North, Central and Southern American culture group. Even if some or all of these cultural distinctions are not utilized in the vanilla game, they should be there for modders to assign to new civs they create (along with any specific city and population graphics). Either that, or the ability to add and/or modify culture groups should exist in the game instead-to allow greater flexibility for modders!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
And what is with the Neanderthal man ;) ?
Let's give them their chance!
 
Why not Armenia?

One of the worlds oldest civilizations, 2500 years of history, used to be Urartu, satrapy of the persian empire, buffer state between rome and persia, first country to establish christianity as official religion, they helped in the crusades, they still exist today in spite of a genocide.

If I could pick 4 civs, I would pick

Hebrews

Armenia

Ethiopia

and Brasil

I would add maybe Mali.
 
For myself, I'd like to see the following Civs

1. Isreal- Jesus. Moses. David, with a billion+ christians in the world today, and about the same number of Moslems and millions of Jews themselves it's hard to overestimate the influence this people has on the world. Plus those are just today's numbers not to mention the past thousand(s) years. These people also maintained their own language and culture without a homeland for almost 2000 years.

2. Ethiopia- they had their own written language, used metals and where trading partners with the Romans 2000 years ago. A better choice than the Zulu's.

3.Thailand- There where alot of significant iron age civs in SEA, but I'll go with the Thai's because they held off the more advanced West during the time of colonization with diplomacy.

4.Scotland- Why Scotland? Because when the Chinese where trading silk for glass with the Romans long ago both civilizations where in the middle iron age. Then when steel British (former Roman outpost/colony) warships sailed into Hong Kong ect in the 19th century demanding more trade concessions, the Chinese where still in the iron age - with 100+ years of contact to catch up already. If anything the Europeans deserve more representation not less. Only in Europe did mankind get out of the Iron Age. In a related aside, all the great inventors, composers, explorers of the 14th-17th century give God = Jesus Christ credit for their successes, see my #1 choice. Have you ever walked or driven on a paved road? thank a Scot, played golf? thank a Scot, used a bank? thank a Scot, used a steam engine or one of it's derivatives- a car or train, thank a Scot, ect. The Scottish nation has contributed alot more to the world than many of the civs already included.
 
tig3001 said:
For myself, I'd like to see the following Civs

1. Isreal- Jesus. Moses. David, with a billion+ christians in the world today, and about the same number of Moslems and millions of Jews themselves it's hard to overestimate the influence this people has on the world. Plus those are just today's numbers not to mention the past thousand(s) years. These people also maintained their own language and culture without a homeland for almost 2000 years.

At the risk of being branded anti-semitic (a neat trick to be sure, seeing as I am a semite), Israel should not be included. The dominance of Christianity today is not anything to do with Israel. In fact, Christians in Israel are second class citizens, with the same legal rights as Muslims (I'm considering only those non-Jews who live within Israel proper here). As for 'millions' of Jews, well, if that's all it takes, there are a half-dozen other civs that could be placed based on that criteria.

As for 'maintained' their language, very dubious. The Hebrew language of today was re-constructed; for hundreds of years it was a dead language. Before this century, the last recorded docment in Hebrew was written in 586 BC.

However, I expect in a fully developed religion model which features real world religions, Judaism will be present.
 
2) We should be careful withmodern nations, even though I'm a Canadian, it's prettyridiculous to see Canada or Australia as civs, but if there is one modern country that should be represented it should be Brazil, they have the fifth biggest population and land area in the world, as well as being lingustically distinct from Spanish America, as well as a fairly unique Afro-European culture.

Other than Brazil's large population and land area, (are you sure it is the fifth largest in both? I knew it was large but not large) what has Brazil contributed to the world in general that would merit inclussion in CIV? I am not knocking the choice, just want more information.

The reason Brazil is lingustically distenct from the rest of Spanish American is because it was founded/settled by the Portugese, not Spain.
 
Rhialto, responding with attacks on the Jewish homeland doesn't bring much to the table in terms of reason.

The Jewish Civilization has been left out of many strategy games because of the Jewish diaspora. As for "millions" of Jews, this is because of discouragement for missionaries, which leads to a group of people with a surviving calendar of over 5 1/2 millenia that are able to trace their lineage directly back to the original tribes of Israel who did speak the ancient incarnation of Hebrew.

As for Brazil being included, I assume this means the Brazil that Portugal colonized and brought its language to. But that means this Brazil just didn't exist before then? To deal with these questions, please see my post on the branching off of civs in-game.
 
My pick:

[1] Kurds

[2] Armenians (very good one, never occured to me before this thread)

[3] Hebrews

[4] Scotland (I have wanted this for a long time)
 
Turtleneck said:
Rhialto, responding with attacks on the Jewish homeland doesn't bring much to the table in terms of reason.

This is exactly what I expected. Replace that text and see how it sounds...

"Fred, responding with attacks on the English homeland doesn't bring much to the table in terms of reason. "

Fact is, the only logical counter-arguments to any attempt to praise a nation and suggest it be included as a civ can ALWAYS be construed as an attack on that people's homeland. :rolleyes: Your response doesn't merit serious consideration, unless you can prove my statements as factually incorrect.

The Jewish Civilization has been left out of many strategy games because of the Jewish diaspora.

Actualy, it has been left out of many straegy games for the same reason as other religions; they are usually irrelevant to the strategy game in question.

As for "millions" of Jews, this is because of discouragement for missionaries, which leads to a group of people with a surviving calendar of over 5 1/2 millenia that are able to trace their lineage directly back to the original tribes of Israel who did speak the ancient incarnation of Hebrew.

One could just as easily argue that a religion that can only manage a few million followers after 5000 years isn't exactly a sucessful one, and by that lack of success doesn't merit inclusion. :mischief: An alien observer migt ask why Judaism's missionary-equivalents hadn't been discouraging other religions.

As for being the same language, as I said, it is the old language, reconstructed, and with a huge amont of new vocabulary added. Seriously. An ancient Hebrew speaker wouldn't understand half the stuff spoken by a modern Hebrew speaker. As a very basic example, how do you say "Please turn off the light", in ancient Hebrew?
 
I've said this before. NO ONE will be happy with all of the choices that are made.

Just make the civs easily moddable and everyone can create thier own. Aside from the leaderhead what makes a civ different? Civ name, City list, Skin tone on some units, UU. This would not be hard make so that one could change, create, or mix and match between all of these.
 
who cares?!? this can be so easily done though the editor.

Why not spend the time to request somthing completely new/uneditable in the game.
 
slozenger said:
who cares?!? this can be so easily done though the editor.

Why not spend the time to request somthing completely new/uneditable in the game.
Thats what I mean. For Civ IV they just have to keep it easy.
 
Just thought of another reason not to include Israel/Hebrews, but it is one that others have mentioned before me - non-controversiality. With any civ in the game, people will boast on a forum "I wiped out the X and burned every city!" How do you think that will come across in the press when people start boasting "I wiped out Israel and burned every city"? It would likely kill the franchise. Modders can always add a civ easily enough, but stuff that controversial is probably best not in the default game release.
 
Is it just me, or when I play the Zulus and take a look at my citizens, they don't look African? Those faces should look more African.

About Israel: I've customized Civs playing on multiplayer and I did customize one to be Israel. Alot of people liked me because I play fair, but alot of other players would slam anti-Jewish remarks. I was actually really surprised at how much more of offensive remarks I got playing as "Israel" than I did playing as Ethiopia or Apache.

I'm a fan of all Civs. I would like to see as many as possible, and enjoyed all the ones included in the Civ 3 groups. On the conquests scenarios I was happy to play Prussia, Poland, Austria, Danes, Swedes, and all the other Civs we requested and got.

The ones I heard and suggested myself that are my favorite are:

1. Venetians
2. Minoans (if this is done, don't name cities Agia Triada, because that means Holy Trinity and is a Greek Orthodox city not a Minoan city. People that made the TAM pack did this, grr.)
3. Inuit or Thule
4. Apache
5. Siam
6. Tibetan
7. Abyssinia
8. Ashanti
9. Bantu
10. Polynesian
11. Australian Aborgines
12. Malay
13. Khumer
14. Vietnamese
15. Conferate States of America
16. Israelites (including Judea)

I also like many others:
*Aloquin
*Tonga
*Hawaii
*Afrikaans
*Maori
*Assyrians
*Armenian
*Poles

And always as many Greek civs that you want to put as possible would be awesome.
*Macedonians
*Byzantines
*Trojans
*Minoans
*Philistia

Have all the arguments you want about whether they were Greek or not, the Greeks of today represent these groups and thats all that matters.
 
The Confederate States of America?!!!

They are of the American civilization, no one can argue differently. Their existence was that of less than five years, hardly enough time to develop a different civilization.
 
I'd love to see:

1. Israel
2. Ethiopia
3. Poland
4. Siam
5. Mali

I think Israel's contributions to the cultures of the world, and particularly the Western world where most Civ players live, definitely merit its inclusion. Ethiopia, Siam and Mali would help with under-represented areas of the world. Europe may be over-represented but Poland was once very powerful, still has a dynamic civilization, and most Civ players probably know at least a little bit about it and might be interested in playing it. (I don't think there's anything wrong with Europe being over-represented when most players are primarily familiar with/interested in European history - personally I prefer to play as the Celts or Americans, as being 'my civs,' although of course I vastly prefer the Celt UU.)
 
h4ppy said:
Shang is Chinese if we don't get many new ones then I'd prefer not to waste a spot. Also I'd rather have the Toltec than the Olmec and I'd rather have the moundbuilders than Chavin. (They aren't similar at all but come on, Chavin?)

And if you include Tibet, I'm sure the game will be banned in China. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom