New Civilizations

[frekk]

There are alot of problems with the inclusion of certain civs in the game, eg native americans are under-represented, SE Asia is under-represented, and so on.

BUT I don't want them spending alot of time adding new civs. I want more than civ3 with some new civs. As long as they include the ability to ADD new civs through modding, everyone can eventually have whatever civs they want in their game, or possibly wait for expansions to include them. I'd be perfectly happy with NO new civs at all in the first release, rather I'd like to see a well-thought out game system, debugged and gametested as much as possible, with lots of cool features. It's difficult to fundamentally change the game with expansions or mods, but it isn't hard to add civs.

 

[Goonie]

why is that, canada didn't get full independance until the 1980's and Australia is still technically ruled by a forgien power. (the queen) I do agree with Argentina and Brasil though.

Treaty of Westminster. 1930's. Thats when we gained control over our own foreign policy : the last thing Britain handed over. In reality however, after The 100 Days of Canada in WWI, Britain had not stepped in our way since then.

True we didn't write our own constitution until the 1980's but we have been completely free in the literal sense for a long time.

Even if Canada hadn't been, that does not undermine their contributions to do the world. pacemaker, peacekeeping, timezones, all sorts of usefull stuff.

 

[Licentia]

What about the Hebrews (Israeli) people? They have had a significant role in history and unlike many of those ancient civs they are still around. I can't believe we have Portugal but not the Jewish people. King David or King Solomon.

I think it would be cool too if each nation had more than one ruler, like the Male/Female thing from Civ2, but without the Female leaders. Just give two or three different Male Leaders, and each leader could have slightly different characteristics to change how that nation plays. Hitler would prefer Fundamentalism/Nazism government, while Frederick would prefer a Monarchy. That's just a pointless suggestion really. But one thing is for sure, make Napoleon leader of the French and not Louis the who-cares.

 

[Licentia]

Firstly, I'd like to see the OPTION to have more civilizations playing in a single game. 2 - 20 at a time. (That's my second wish, to only have one opponent instead of a minimum of 3 or whatever it is in Civ3). I think the ultimate would be to have a giant map with 50 civilizations playing at once. That would be very cool, and it would feel much much more realistic. If Civ can keep coming out with sequels I can imagine this game becoming so amazing, so much more than what it is now.

 

[Boleslav]

I would like to see the Czechs represented. I'm also amenable to Calgacus' suggestion about having the Khazars represented. I think both of these might be unfashionable choices though.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

I would kill to see Israel as a civ. They have outlived all of thier oppressors (Egypt, Babylon, Rome, even Nazi Germany) and can be given credit for christianity which is the reason many other civs are here today (america is the best example). It would be pretty neat to see a unit with the arc of the covenant.

 

[h4ppy]

This might sound a little bad, but do we even know if they are upping the number of civs? Wouldn't it make sense that they'd dropped the number back down to 16.

 

[doc mabuse]

The Belgians, of course, they were the greatest of all, i'm surprised that nobody heard of them.
All the units they produce should be invisible, as the Belgians are today...

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

What about the Walloons... or even Luxembourg. I'm disappointed Doc Mabuse Not giving credit to the truly not-noticed

Is it just me, or are people dying to put the most forgettable civs in?

 

[doc mabuse]

Walloons ARE Belgians and the Luxemburgers, well, I think they meddle too much in world politics
How do you know about the Walloons anyway? Most people still think that Belgium is the capital of Brussels. Well, that is, most Americans and even some English

 

[Scuffer]

This might sound a little bad, but do we even know if they are upping the number of civs? Wouldn't it make sense that they'd dropped the number back down to 16.

It would make a lot of sense if they dropped it back down again, so they could use a few more as selling points for the inevitable expansion packs. After all, the actual work needed to create a new civ is what?

Decide a civ
Assign Traits
Assign a colour & cultural links
Decide a leader & agression rating
Decide a UU and stats (balancing would take a bit of time)
Decide starting tech
Text for diplomacy responses
Graphics for UU
Graphics for leader.

Wouldn't take long to do in the scheme of things.

 

[mitsho]

@scuffer
1. your last two points (you have to add a (s) @ leader) take up much much time. The game has to be done well, and therefore graphic has to be perfect.
2. How do you know that it's like that in civ4? You have summed up the things needed to do when creating a civ in CIV 3! Not 4!

mfG mitsho

 

[Scuffer]

OK, true enough, but like I said, in the scheme of things, like the development time of a game, it would be a small factor.

Once you have the programming set down, adding another civ is entering a new lot of data and variables. Although I expect Civ4 will add a variety of other stuff, I would still imagine you could generate most of a new civ by adding a new line in a dataset. That's the way I would set it up anyway. I'd love it if they wrote civ specific AI routines, but I doubt it.

I guess doing the leader graphics could take a fair while (would take me forever), but a skilled graphic artist or two should be able to do them fairly quickly. A day a leader? If you know what you are doing that sounds reasonable.
Personally speaking, I would prefer it if they spent that bug fixing, but that's just me.

 

[Pangur Bán]

How do you know about the Walloons anyway? Most people still think that Belgium is the capital of Brussels. Well, that is, most Americans and even some English

Well, most people know the Flemings; Romance Belgians pale into historical insignificance by comparsion ... well, that's what most people who think about these things think.

 

[onedreamer]

Serbia =~ Yugoslavia/Croatia/Bosnia/Slovenia/Macedonia

Serbia does not nearly have enough historical significance to be included in Civ 4. Honestly, I think Firaxis did a very good job with choosing civs. Some were blatantly left out, but, with maybe one or two exceptions, only these civs are really missing:

The Hebrews
Mali OR Songhai (The problem with these is that, even more than Babylon and Sumeria, they shared the same cities at different historical points. Ghana falls into the same category, but was less significant.)
Abyssinia/Axum/Ethiopia
Polynesia (Sort of iffy)
Tibet
Khmer

Serbia was, among other things, the cause of the first world war. I find it annoying that people that barely know about Serbia existance can state something like you did and then propose Polynesia and Tibet as important civilizations... actually I am unsure if being annoyed or roll on the floor laughing.

To the topic started, Corey, Byzantium has really little to do with Serbia, and you probably want to call russian/serbian cultural group slavonian not slovenian

 

[onedreamer]

Btw to reply to the topic, you people should not confuse nations with civilizations.

I've read proposals to add Scotland, Brazil, Canada... these are not civilizations but simply nations. Even USA themselves are not a civ.

 

[Jon Shafer]

OK, true enough, but like I said, in the scheme of things, like the development time of a game, it would be a small factor.

Once you have the programming set down, adding another civ is entering a new lot of data and variables. Although I expect Civ4 will add a variety of other stuff, I would still imagine you could generate most of a new civ by adding a new line in a dataset. That's the way I would set it up anyway. I'd love it if they wrote civ specific AI routines, but I doubt it.

I guess doing the leader graphics could take a fair while (would take me forever), but a skilled graphic artist or two should be able to do them fairly quickly. A day a leader? If you know what you are doing that sounds reasonable.
Personally speaking, I would prefer it if they spent that bug fixing, but that's just me.

It takes several weeks to complete a single leader. And no, I'm not making that up, that's straight from the horse's mouth, if you will. Art is the single biggest factor in adding new civs.

 

[Roso]

As some people has proposed there own country (I hope noone take it personally against them or their country, but don't you think anyone won't like his country to be included) I could say Bulgaria to be included and it is older than many others (681 AD) and it was one of the greatest nations in south-east Europe (Sorry I can't tell years) but bulgarians were several times just to the gates of Konstantinopol. But I think others should suggest it if you think it deserves. As other nation I think Turkey should be included (Don't forget Turkey was an empire and it was feared by all of its naighbour nations)

 

[h4ppy]

There is a problem with the whole Serbia caused WW1 arguement. That being that they did little fighting. (compared with the important nations) Starting the war was the only important thing they did and even then it was a Serbian, not Serbia that did it. Not to mention the fact that they would have had to have had more than one important event if they'd want to be considered one of the most important civs on the planet.

 

[rbis4rbb]

Btw to reply to the topic, you people should not confuse nations with civilizations.

I've read proposals to add Scotland, Brazil, Canada... these are not civilizations but simply nations. Even USA themselves are not a civ.

America has had an undeniable effect on the world since 1700's-present. They are one of the most important Civ's.

There is no way Serbia should be included.