New Civilizations

[Alafin]

Since the name of the game is Civilization (a condition of human society marked by an advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences and by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity) or the cultures of city-life, I would like to see the choice of new civs to be guided by that general stricture; add only those civs that have developed a vibrant/distinctive city-based culture. This will eliminate some civs that never developed beyond the tribal stage (Masai and Aborigine, for example) and suggest some others that made significant progress towards complex city-based living.

My choices for addition, in relative importance to world history, are:
FROM AFRICA:
Yoruba/Nigerian (Sub-Saharan Africa's greatest city-based culture, well over 2000 years old. Given enough time, there is no reason this culture could not have developed into a truly advanced culture on its own)
Axum/Ethiopian (A unique Christian-based African civilization; also recommend the Stone Churches of Lalibela as a possible Wonder)
Songhai/Mali/Ghana (Great trading empires of West Africa)
FROM ASIA:
Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines (almost 1/4th of the human population of the planet were born into these three, interrelated cultures; maybe names of cities could be from a combo of city and island names (Komodo, Celebes, Bali, Mindanao, for island examples; the Temple of Borobudur for a Wonder. These peoples were great borrowers of culture from their neighbors, hence the Indo- part of Indonesia (literally translated: Hindu-islands).)
Khmer/Thai (Yes, I know they are different cultures; but to some extent the Thai culture is an extension/continuation of the earlier Khmer culture)
Tibet (It is just too cool to ignore; plus they actually went through an expansionist phase around 700AD when they conquered parts of China and ruled there for a couple hundred years)
FROM EUROPE:
Here the problem is that the differences between cultures are greatly exaggerated in the minds of most. The differences between French and English are really not as great as between Ottoman and French, not to mention Chinese or Egyptian, for example, so get over it. The game does not need more of these hair-splitting "civs"; it needs less. In fact, merging them into a generic West-European culture would be more accurate from the global perspective of world history.
FROM THE AMERICAS:
Incan/Moche (over 2000 years of city-living before Pizarro, with many unique solutions to living complex city living; Machu Picchu as a Wonder anyone?)
Mayan (not really peaceful space-aliens from the Pleiades after all; civil war did them in)
Mound Builders (extended over most of Eastern North America, though never really advanced beyond the earliest stages of city-living)

Just some ideas from Alafin Bahahotep

 

[RedAlert]

Here the problem is that the differences between cultures are greatly exaggerated in the minds of most. The differences between French and English are really not as great as between Ottoman and French, not to mention Chinese or Egyptian, for example, so get over it. The game does not need more of these hair-splitting "civs"; it needs less. In fact, merging them into a generic West-European culture would be more accurate from the global perspective of world history.

You make a good point there. I often find myself combining similar civs to make room for others (because of the 31 civ limit). Even still, I cannot get all the ones I want in there, but although combining nations into a west europe civ becomes tempting, I just cannot bring myself to do it. Hopefully, when the maximum amount of nations allowed is increased in civ4 (that's right when !), that will not be necessary.

Mound Builders (extended over most of Eastern North America, though never really advanced beyond the earliest stages of city-living)

These guys definately get my vote. Although they are more often referred to as the Mississippian civilization or Cahokian civilization, after their greatest city. (Just across the Mississippi from modern St. Louis, Missouri). At their height, some of the Mississippian cities were larger than European cities at the time such as London and Paris.

 

[bob rulz]

Okay, let me give an extended list of civilizations that I think could or should be in the game.

America

Mississippi

Europe

Poland
Austria
Minoa
Italy (post-Roman, ie Venice, Genoa, Papal States, Naples all rolled into one)

Mid-East

Phoenicia
Israel

Africa

Songhai
Ethiopia

Asia

Siam
Khmer
Srivijaya

Just my two cents.

 

[RedAlert]

Swahili would be good for another African civ too.

 

[Coorae]

I would just like to add my vote.
From most wanted to least.

Canadians
Irish
Austrailians
Isrealites
Mexicans
Polish
Huns

That would make me play.
I so don't care about historic contribution or how many civs of the same area there are.
I would like to have heard of them a lot, unlike inca/maya/hittites

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Dear RedAlert
What's that:

c'mon people, this thread has been taken up enough with eastern european nation bashing.

This thread was opened on the basement of some kind of eastern-european nation-glorifying. Thus, the logic of europe dictates, that some kind of nation-bashing is to follow. so, it was inevitable.
Anyway, nation bashing goes everywhere, not only here and not only in eastern Europe.
And what I said is that America is turning to be a new civilization.
But I would more gladly see that there are certain civil wars in Civ4 and thru civil wars new civs arise. E.g. from the English - America.

 

[RedAlert]

Yes, I see. You are right, there is bashing of a lot of nations going on, not just east european. It's just a big part of the thread was being taken up by it, and it was getting a little out of hand.

I do like the civil war idea, would be interesting, but of course, what if you wanted to play as the Americans? I wouldn't want to have to break away from England sometime mid-game.

 

[Reprisal]

Re: Maori

This is a good idea! What would their Civ3 aspects be? I'm thinking Agricultural and Militaristic... as the North Island Maori were some of the first of the New Zealand natuves to develop agriculture, I think... (source: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond).

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).

Switzerland has been a cohesive entity since the time of Caesar, actually, since it was his defeat of the Swiss tribes that basically forged the isolationism/neutralism of that area for the coming centuries.

I agree that Canada mightn't be a good choice for a Civilization, but as a result, I don't think that the United States is a good choice either... Still, if the United States is an official Civilization in Civ4, then I see no reason why Canada couldn't be its own Civ -- though perhaps only in scenarios?

I just read a book about the Civilization of the Angkor, and I have question:

"Is the Angkor another name for the Khmer civilization?"

Also, the Khmer and Angkor (if they're different) seem to be very close in terms of culture to the Indians, perhaps they should not be included then?

I'm not sure, it became apparent that there were a few significant differences in terms of the specific aspects of Angkor culture... but not so much that I would change their Civilization attributes from Commercial and Religious.

*shrug*

- Rep.

 

[Manverulin]

I just read a book about the Civilization of the Angkor, and I have question:

"Is the Angkor another name for the Khmer civilization?"

Also, the Khmer and Angkor (if they're different) seem to be very close in terms of culture to the Indians, perhaps they should not be included then?

IIRC, Angkor was an important Khmer city. And I'd say that the British and the Americans are about as close culturally as the Khmer and the Indians are, if not more so.

 

[Captain]

Naturally I would want Canada to be in the game since I am Canadian.

Defaut Colour: Red
Leader: Sir John Eh MacDonald.
Scientific, Industrious

Special Unit: Avro Arrow

 

[RedAlert]

Naturally I would want Canada to be in the game since I am Canadian.

Defaut Colour: Red
Leader: Sir John Eh MacDonald.
Scientific, Industrious

Special Unit: Avro Arrow

Of course, that is what Canada would be in Civ3 format. We're talking about civ4, and since we don't know exactly what the features of civ4 are, we should list alot more things Canadian:

Colour: some sort of Red, light or dark, just make it red. OR what would be even cooler if each civ got two colours at the same time. Then we could have red+white.

Leader - Sir John 'eh' Macdonald would probably be the leader we can all agree apon most. (Although I have heard support for Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson, and Trudeau).

Traits - I have no idea what the traits are going to be in civ4, how many, if they will be the same or not, or even if there will be any! But I see Canada as Industrious and Scientific too, but most definately Expansionist - we've been that way since New France times. We are a very large nation, we became that way quite quickly, and do not forget about the explorers and fur traders.

UU(s?) - I think the biggest statements could be made for not only the Avro Arrow, which unfortunately never became reality, but civilization is about rewriting history, eh? Definately the Mountie should be considerd. No, they are/were not just a police force, and has been important historically and today in our culture. It is also very well known. Maybe a CEF (Canadian Expeditionary Force) Infantry from WWI and WWII era. Even another idea, which I haven't heard expressed before but I thought would be neat: A voyageur for a UU. It would replace the explorer.

And of course, we would have to think of Military and Scientific leaders too, although I think there should be 'great leaders' for every civ trait (Although it might be hard to find 'agricultural great leaders')

Hmmm... yep, I think that's all I wanted to say

 

[Captain]

I like your idea of a two colour scheme for some countries. I can invision a Canadian border this is Red and White which would be really nice. Your also right about the different shades of colours since it would be easier to fit in more Civilizations that way and you wouldn't run out of colours. *I think they should loose the pink and purple tones though but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[RedAlert]

I'm pretty sure there could be a two-colour scheme for every civ. That way, we could definately loose those pinks and purples. Of course, which two colours each civ gets would have to be decided, and hopefully there will be no doubles. (Canada vs England for red and white comes to mind, perhaps one would have one of those different shades of red with the white)

 

[Ribannah]

These guys definately get my vote. Although they are more often referred to as the Mississippian civilization or Cahokian civilization, after their greatest city. (Just across the Mississippi from modern St. Louis, Missouri). At their height, some of the Mississippian cities were larger than European cities at the time such as London and Paris.

Their original name is the Adena.

 

[Immortal]

Israel
Magyar
Frankish
Poland are a few I can think of that would fit in nicely offhand.

If canada were to be in the game their UU should be the peacekeeper to replace infantry. no attack power but incredible defense..

I think it would be Commercial expansionist because of the wide spaces.

Ummm... I do believe Canada has been independent since 1867.

I know we only cut our final political ties with Britain in the 80's, but up till then, Britain's job was merely to rubber stamp whatever we came up with, they had no real power.

HA! before the statute of Westminster Canada had no control over its foreign policy.

 

[RedAlert]

Their original name is the Adena.

Thank you, Ribannah. Try as I might, I have only been able to find a limited amount of information on their civilization.

If canada were to be in the game their UU should be the peacekeeper to replace infantry. no attack power but incredible defense...

Actually, A peacekeeper wouldn't be a bad idea for all civs. I always hate it when one AI civ invades a smaller AI civ that I support, and even though I want the second one to survive, I wouldn't dare declare war on the first. Therefore, the peacekeeper should also have 'hidden nationality' as well as being strong defensively. It should also be able to 'airdrop' to get into the warzone quickly. Then, the peacekeepers could blockade the agressor's advance.

 

[Immortal]

yeah, not a bad idea....

 

[RedAlert]

HA! before the statute of Westminster Canada had no control over its foreign policy.

Yes, you are right. I forgot that part. Unfortunately, Britain didn't always do a great job with our foreign policy (The alaska conflict comes to mind). But still, that was just about one of the only things they had control over by the time of the statute of Westminister.

 

[h4ppy]

Thank you, Ribannah. Try as I might, I have only been able to find a limited amount of information on their civilization.



Actually, A peacekeeper wouldn't be a bad idea for all civs. I always hate it when one AI civ invades a smaller AI civ that I support, and even though I want the second one to survive, I wouldn't dare declare war on the first. Therefore, the peacekeeper should also have 'hidden nationality' as well as being strong defensively. It should also be able to 'airdrop' to get into the warzone quickly. Then, the peacekeepers could blockade the agressor's advance.

NO thanks, if only because peace keepers are rarely if ever used against a major nation. Also peace keepers aren't stronger than real troops in real life.

 

[Immortal]

Originally Posted by 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).

Irrelevent, Germany as a cohesive political entity (COnservative Empire) is YOUNGER than canada.