New Civilizations

[deo]

No i said that our people exist since 3000-2000 bc and the were called the illyrians.During the byzant period at VII century we were called albanians but our anceators were called Illyrians and a province named Dardania of the illyrians is now Kosovo.

P.S - Albania Existed erlier
Albania was formed in 1280 i think i can't remember very good and falled in ottoman rule in 1388 but in 1444 Skenderbeg(our greatest hero)formed again the indipendet albania and in 29 battles he losed only one agasing the turks.A few yars after his death (1468) albania was conquered be the ottomans.

 

[denyd]

Just a quick reminder that this thread is the discussion thread for possible new Tribes in the Civ 4 game. We seem to have gotten off course.

Back on course, I'd like to see a couple of new conquests (new factions needed) added that have more nationalistic flavor like the Samurai one.

Maybe an English War of the Roses, Russian Revolution and American Civil War could be set up each requiring 2-3 new tribes. I'm sure there are other (Mexican-American War, Boer War, Crimean War...) that would fit well into the Conquests Mini-Game Theme. The unique flavor units and tech tree are what makes each game so interesting.

 

[Ribannah]

The Albanians may have the Illyrians among their ancestors, but they are a different civilization (if one can call the Illyrians a civilization at all), much like the English are not the same as the Saxons.
I have two Albanian friends, but neither the Albanians nor the Illyrians strike me as so important that they should be chosen for Civ4.

 

[deo]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Albanians may have the Illyrians among their ancestors, but they are a different civilization (if one can call the Illyrians a civilization at all), much like the English are not the same as the Saxons.
I have two Albanian friends, but neither the Albanians nor the Illyrians strike me as so important that they should be chosen for Civ4.

I don't said to set the albanians or illyrians a a tribe as a Civ in C4

 

[scoutsout]

This thread is an absolute hoot! Some thoughts:

There were a lot of nation-states that got displaced or absorbed in the wake of the 2 world wars, some are already represented in Civ (Ottomans, for example...) others could certainly be added. Those of you who haven't heard of Serbia need to read up on the origins of the first World War... the Serbs were players on the world stage at the time.

While some people think a given region is poorly represented (N. Africa) look beyond modern and recent history...(where was Carthage?)

Also note that some of the Civs are intented to be "amalgams" among the limited choices in the first version of CivIII (example: Iroquios is supposed to be the "representative" for all native North American Cultures... so in a way we already have the Sioux, Cherokee, Creek, etc....though Iroquois has a decidedly Eastern flavor...)

Somebody suggested Libya... what about the Moors?

Canada... if we can have Byzantium when we already have Rome, then we should certainly have Canada. Give 'em a "Special Service Force" trooper as a UU... a high-attack para or something... (I know, the SSF was a joint US-Canada outfit... but I want a high-attack Para in this game...)

Something Latin American...with maybe Simon Bolivar as the leaderhead... maybe a couple of Latin American Civs... Santa Ana might be another leader candidate... I know we've got the Maya, Inca, and Aztecs... but something with a little more modern flavor...

Agree we need SE Asia and Oceana represented better. I think some sort of "down under" civ to represent Australia and New Zealand would be good... with maybe a "Lighthorseman" for a UU (mounted infantry...) They could pick from several worthy cultures in SE Asia and Oceana to add 3 or 4 civs in addition to "Austrailia"...

Gotta have Scotland in there too... "Highlander" just sounds too cool for a UU name to leave 'em out...

I don't know that I'd immediately dismiss anyone's suggestions from this thread... though some of them would be close "either-or" propositions (like Libya or Moors...).

 

[Shevchenko]

I have some options Brazil,Argentina maybe even Mexico, I think Mexico should be in Civ4 (not just because I live there)Brasil also deserves it, because Mexico already has Aztec and Maya, but as I said Mexico should be in Civ4, Argentina is also important but not that much

 

[EddyG17]

Mexico is already in. The best nation(in south america) rigth now(economically) i think is Chile.

 

[Mistfit]

Canada... if we can have Byzantium when we already have Rome, then we should certainly have Canada. Give 'em a "Special Service Force" trooper as a UU... a high-attack para or something... (I know, the SSF was a joint US-Canada outfit... but I want a high-attack Para in this game...)

I think that the Canadian Mountie is a better choice for the UU

HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!!!
I would also like the Moor's to be added in as well

 

[masterofdragons]

Some sort of Polynesian culture should most definitely be included, they populated most of the South Pacific including Easter Island and Hawaii. There is even speculation about their interactions with South and Central America. When a civilization spreads that vast of a region, it should really be included.

 

[jaap_jan]

Really, how many civs does everybody want out here?
I beleive the amount of 16 was quite enough, although I miss a few from the civ II games, but this was fixed in the newer versions of the game.

And Corey, because you are a Serb doens't mean Serbia should be a civ. I am Dutch, and I don't even believe that the Netherlands should be in the game, really, they didn't "rule" a part of the world, or made a big part in world history, same goes for Serbia, so leave them out.

O yeah, one last thing, what jackass made the Americans a Civ????
They aren't.
I did like the "civilization rupment" in Civ II, making 2 civ's out of 1, but it should be triggered a bit different. This would make the game much more realistic, many more civs, our modern world isn't ruled eather by one civ...a well...not totally

 

[Ribannah]

I don't even believe that the Netherlands should be in the game, really, they didn't "rule" a part of the world, or made a big part in world history

Don't they teach history in The Netherlands anymore?

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I would like to see a historian's point of view on what criteria a society should have to meet in order to be included in a videogame.
Oceania as a civ? Nice idea but are we not trying to maintain *some* semblence to historical accuracy? There is no civilization of Oceania unless you're thinking of George Orwell's book '1984' in which the capitol was London.
Jaap_jan: The Dutch "rule" a part of the world known to us as The Netherlands.

 

[jaap_jan]

don't they teach history in the Netherlands anymore?

Yes, they still do, but I know what a puny country we are, I have played Colonization 1000 times, but who was kicked off the new world (in real history, not the game where we rule)?
WE, because we didn't have the population to actually populate the country we took, nor did we have the weapons to defend the land, that's why we were kicked off.
We can only colonize populated countries, surpressing the local pop. (a bit like the USA nowadays, , no offence)
There are so much more civ's in this world that actually took a far greater part in history.
e.g. did you know the Russians are actually Vikings?/That most of the Roman culture was Greek?
The Netherlands aren't that interesting, we only know how to sail with big ships to foreign countries, take some slaves from Africa on the way, start trading with the natives and getting a final whoopass in the end,
mintyfreshdeath: we don't rule, we are being ruled, by the UN, the EU, NATO etc.
-end of post-

 

[deo]

Ok. You say that the Dutch didn't rule a part of the world and should be removed, why?
This is only a game and must not be as realistic as possible, but it will be great to add some ancient.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

They should had as many civs as possible, but I'd like to play the following ones :
Europe : Scotland, Flanders, Etruscan, Minoan, Hungary, Occitania, Austria
Africa : Mali, Ghana, Amazigh ( berbers ), Nubia, Ethiopia, San, Madagascar, Morocco,
America : créoles, Québecois, Inuits
Asia : Phenicia, Viets, Thaïs, Malaisia, Tibet
Oceania : aboriginals, papouasia, maoris, rapa nui

and of course Walloons

 

[Ribannah]

who was kicked off the new world (in real history, not the game where we rule)?

Everyone, jaap_jan.
(And to be totally correct: the Dutch are still there!)

e.g. did you know the Russians are actually Vikings?

That is incorrect.

That most of the Roman culture was Greek?

That, too, is incorrect.

The Dutch started the Mercantile Revolution, were the number one power in the world for a century, and invented many new things.
There are only a few nations with as good a track record as that.
I am ashamed for your lack of knowledge and pride.

 

[NinjaGnu]

I'd like to see more civz, you have some good ones listed here and I'm sure the designers will pick the best!

I would also like to see some mystical civz added with an ability to play with or without them .. atlantis etc.

And lastly I prefer that the civz do not have the name of current countries .. no offence meant to anyone but I associate way to many things with countries to really enjoy it in a game, I'd much rather see 'proisers' (mis spelling I guess) instead of germans and so on.

 

[jaap_jan]

Ok, this post is getting a bit flung off subject...
Please read the Russian info in Civ, take a encyclopedia or whatever, the Vikings colonized the European part of Russia (where the Russians live, not the Tjetiens or Ukrains)
I do not have a lack of pride, I am a world citizen and beleive we can make a better world if we work together instead of looking at our sole best interest.

were the number one power in the world for a century

on sea, on land we never had a real army, we perhaps were leading the "tech race, and were the first with a stockexchange", still we weren't the no.1 leading power

 

[Ribannah]

on sea, on land we never had a real army, we perhaps were leading the "tech race, and were the first with a stockexchange", still we weren't the no.1 leading power

I give up.

 

[Diogenes183]

They should had as many civs as possible, but I'd like to play the following ones :
Europe : Scotland, Flanders, Etruscan, Minoan, Hungary, Occitania, Austria
Africa : Mali, Ghana, Amazigh ( berbers ), Nubia, Ethiopia, San, Madagascar, Morocco,
America : créoles, Québecois, Inuits
Asia : Phenicia, Viets, Thaïs, Malaisia, Tibet
Oceania : aboriginals, papouasia, maoris, rapa nui
and of course Walloons

Austria, Scotland, and Québecois are redundant: Austria is already included as Germany, Scotland is already included as Celt, Québecois are included as France. Arguably, the Phoenecians are already in the game in the form of the Carthagians, but maybe they should be included anyways (great explorers, first true alphabet). There is also some overlap between the Minoans and the Greeks, I'm on the fence for the Minoans. Then again, I thought Sumer and Babylon were redundant, and that turned out fine.

Ethiopia definitely ought to be in the next game. So should the Hebrews/Isrealis. Maoris, Inuits, Thais, Khemer should be given serious consideration. Game needs more African civs.

Keep in mind that each civ needs its own art treatment, UU, playtesting, etc. We want lots of civs, but we don't want the developers to become overburdened such that they do a poor job or skimp on civ uniqueness.