New Civilizations

[Me-262]

put war time civs in it. like Vietman [COLOR=Navy[/SIZE]

 

[Hakim]

I want Sweden in.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

1. Hungary
2. Songhay
3. Poland
4. Macassans
5. Masai
6. Khmer

 

[SwitchbladeNGC]

I don't think that you can really compare the historic contribution of two countries, but you have to agree that russia is more important then serbia.

I can see where Corey is coming from,everyone likes to see things that they know in games (especially historical games like Civ). I make Huntsville my capitol in all my games because that is where I live.

@Jake, I also think that no one can tell you the historical significance of a location better than those that live there. Also, just because Serbia is not as powerful as Russia now dosen't mean that they never were.

 

[phorvath2110]

The one thing that I keep getting annoyed with in Civ is that every time I try to colonize Australia that there's no one there to conquer. How about adding the Autralians aborigines (granted that they weren't exactly the most technoligically advanced bunch of our age) or the Maori of New Zealand?

I think that would add to the game.

 

[-Gladiator-]

I think that Huns would be pretty cool...they did pillage Rome? did sth no1 before them had done, but i think they would be too much like the vikings...

 

[sealman]

Pardon my ignorance but what is CSA? I'm sure I'll smack myself when I get the answer...

The only thing I can think of is the Confederate States of America. And it should NOT be in Civ.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

A city list for Venice?
Just out of my head...Venice, Verona, Zadar, Otranto, Durazzo, couple of cities on Crete, lots of Illyrian Islands.
Venice definitely is a Civ worth to be included in a European/ Middle Ages mod. Without reactivating the flame war, more then Serbia for example.

On topic:
I want Mali/ Songhai. I want a SE Asian Civ, Siam or Indonesia (I think Siam fits better).
I see no need for a Central/ S American Civ, those are just Spanish/Portuguese overlays on Native Americans. Nor do I see any Oceanian Civ important enough to be included in any list smaller then 50. And since I'm incredible tired of all these Celts = Celtic (i.e. Scots/Irish/Britanny) nonsense, please drop them. Hallstadt or La Tene are more important for their history than any city on the Isles.

 

[RoboPig]

Please add a SE Asian culture or a few, no one ever adds nations from that region, and it gets so annoying, since they have lots of decent empires. ie. Indonesia/Mahajaphit/Mataram/Sri Vijaya, Thailand/Siam, Khmer Empire. South Asia is finally gaining more and more recognition in games, and its time for her decendant cultures to gain a little fame too. Okay Thailand isn't from Indian culture, but the other two are.

I agree with civilleader. I think Pakistan should be a civilization too. If there are enough South Asian countries there will probably be a new culture group as well 'cause it looks odd for india to have japanese looking buildings.

THIS IS MY FIRST POST!!!! [dance]

 

[Yom]

There definitely needs to be an Ethiopian/Axumite/Abyssinian civilization. Africa doesn't have nearly as many civs as the rest of the world. A Mali/Songhai/Ghana civ (all empires in the same area, though different times. Ignore the fact that there are countries named after them) and a Nubian civ should be implemented as well.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Just to make sense - what a civilization is.
Argetina, USA and Mexico as a civ??????? It think it is ridiculus. They are not really civilizations in the meaning, as Egypt, Rome or China was/is a civilization. Mexico (Or Brazil)and the USA is becoming a civilization, but we can't see yet, what happens to them. So it is funny, when you play civ3, and in 2500 BC you meet the Americans... and conquer the city of New York The solution is to allow the game that one civ could lose a part of itself in civil war/rebellion AND to allow two civs to merge together.

ABOUT THE BALCANY (BALKÁN) AND MINOR NATIONS Some nowadays small nations ha a great history and played a great role in history for a couple of centuries - such as Holland, Sweden (or rather the Scandinavians together), Poland and Hungary. Some recent small nations never played important role in history - for example, Serbs and Albans. They might play later, but not yet.

Dear Corey, are you eating Hungarians for breakfast, Croats for lunch and Albans for dinner? And in some cases Bosnians? Maybe in Srbrenica?? A few thousands?
In some times, a whole nation has to think twice what enterprises to get in. With killing the Obrenovic a century ago, continued by the Sarayevo plot (1914) and by the massacres by partisans (1941-1945) you chose NOT to be belong to Europe, and taking the path that leading to chaos, agression, blood, national hysteria and lately: DEFEAT. Now, eat what you have cooked! No victims of you feel pitty!

 

[Lieni]

I am sorry to say that, but Canada is not suitable as a Civ in Civ4. Canada is independet since 1867, but there are a lot of countries that were independent hundreds of years before and no one ever mentioned them in this thread (for exemple Switzerland since 1292).
The history shows that the Assyres are a MUST in this game, and even Israel should take place (long history since 1000BC for those of you who want to check it out).
I would also add the Inuit as a Civ, because they had their own culture over hundreds of years.
An Antarctica-Civ sounds a little bit like sience-fiction. There was a time when this continent was very fertile and maybe there existed a Civ, but that thousands of years before the Egyps built the pyramids...

 

[Longasc]

You were probably watching too much Aliens vs Predator. (Antarctica-Civ)

 

[Longasc]

They should incorporate a Civ-Creation Kit and various leaderheads, some generic parts to build a face from, too.

So that every nation can be in the game, and every nationalist would be pleased without having to try showing how superimportant his country was over the course of history.


I just fear that incorporating every Civ would cause many Civs to be nearly identical.

So I say: CUSTOM CIV(s), here we go...

 

[K.F. Huszár]

You are right, Longasc and Lieni. This Civ-Creation kit is a good idea.
of course about nations and civs: sometimes, it is difficult to make difference between a nation and a civilization, but it does not mean that each nation should be incorporated in Civ4 - otherwise, we are not able to count all those nations that existed thru the ages of mankind's history.

something else: i think there is a good mod for Poland.

 

[Matternich]

Civs should have specific traits enhancin or hinder gameplay

One example would be the case of the Jews- which I suppose would be the Hebrew or Israelite civ.
Anyway one aspect of the Jewish people is their cultural identity which remains undiluted even when they have adopted other countries- This could be reflected by the citizens of captured cities never changing to the new nation or even better like the diaspora Jewish citizens might leave the foreign cities by becoming workers and making their way back to home territory.

 

[Dr. Broom]

If I could only pick 1 to add it would have to be Austria. If I could pick more I would add Canada, Mexico, Switzerland and Ukraine.

 

[douche_bag]

heres some cool new civ's to add

Canada(because it's so huge) it may not have a lot of history but oh well. . .
leader-Trudeau

veitnam-Ho chi minh

austrailia-whoever's in charge

Cuba-Fidel Castro

Iraq-Saddam hussien (they need more modern civs anyway)

new leaders:

Britian-Churchill
France-napoleon
russia-stalin

 

[bob rulz]

Okay, I agree with the current list, and here's what I would like to see added.

Israel/Hebrews
Post-Roman Italy (ie Genoa, the Papal States, Naples, Venice, plus others all in one)
Austria
Poland
Thailand
Mali or Songhai Empire
Thailand
Khmer
Srivijaya Empire
Phoenicians

This list would work for me.

This is in response to some of the debate earlier in the topic.

I have been an avid studier of geography since kindergarten I was looking at road atlases when I was five years old. I knew the capital of every country by the time I was ten. I didn't get into the more sophisticated side of geography (you know, culture, history etc) though until entering Middle School. School has taught me absolutely nothing in the aspect of geography. I've even corrected my social studies and history teachers on occasion. And Eddy, where you live, geography not required? That's bad even for an American school.

Sorry, I just had to say something in response to the earlier posts.

 

[RedAlert]

Just to make sense - what a civilization is.
Argetina, USA and Mexico as a civ??????? It think it is ridiculus. They are not really civilizations in the meaning, as Egypt, Rome or China was/is a civilization. Mexico (Or Brazil)and the USA is becoming a civilization, but we can't see yet, what happens to them. So it is funny, when you play civ3, and in 2500 BC you meet the Americans... and conquer the city of New York

I am sorry to say that, but Canada is not suitable as a Civ in Civ4. Canada is independet since 1867, but there are a lot of countries that were independent hundreds of years before and no one ever mentioned them in this thread (for exemple Switzerland since 1292).

I grow tired of these arguments. I think America is always picked on way too much, just because they are the youngest in civ. For one, meeting half the other civs in 2500 BC is not historically acurate either, because they have also not been around that long. So should we take them out too? Of course not! The point of the game is not to be historically acurate, to start in 4000 BC with all the civs from 4000 BC - it's to start in 4000 BC with all the important civilizations between then and now. Who cares how long they've been around, or if they were a colony of someone? That should be way down on the list of 'what to look for when choosing a civ'. What matters is if they've made their mark in the world, and I must say, the Americans have definately done that, in more ways than one.

Lieni, I'm sure you could name thousands of countries that existed before 1867, but only a very small precentage of those were actually important. I think the reason Switzerland has not been mentioned much before is that they have never been a major player. (or correct me if I'm wrong, i'm no expert on the Swiss) Of course, my point is not to detract at all from Switzerland. Canada has been independant since 1867. Ya, so what? It's not like it suddenly appeared. The history of Canada as a nation dates back hundreds of years before then (the same can be said for tons of other former colonies, and even some countries that weren't), and encompases dozens of cultures. And Canada has been an important country in the short time we have been a country. Of course, I must support my country to be in the game . I know that Canada isn't as important to be in the game to some others.

On a different topic, I will show my support for more native american civs being included. There are tons to pick from, there are not nearly enough of them, and although they were not as important as many of the other, eastern nations, they were important in their region - North and South America. And that's important

@ bob rulz : I also love geography

Edit: One more thing. c'mon people, this thread has been taken up enough with eastern european nation bashing.