New Civilizations

[Pangur Bán]

and so on... cant be bothered making a huge list right now

I've already made several ... check my sig!

John Baliol (Stood againt the English puppeteers amd was imprisoned in the tower of London for his actions)

LOL ... he was a puppet and failure. He stood against "English puppeteers" because his vassals would have cut his head off otherwise.

 

[Smidgey]

LOL ... he was a puppet and failure. He stood against "English puppeteers" because his vassals would have cut his head off otherwise.

yes...

but he was still a puppet who was imprisoned in the tower for his actions... as I said...

The reason i chose him was because i couldnt really think of any other military leaders at that time, perhaps a WWII general or something?

 

[Pangur Bán]

NO ... Scotland has loads of great leaders ... Balliol wouldn't get anywhere up there.

Calgacus
Bridei
Ungus
Cináed mac Alpín
Causantin
Máel Coluim II
Alexander III
Robert de Brus
James Stewart

Those are just royals; William Wallace, Andrew de Moray, Black Douglas, Alexander Leslie, James Graham, George Murray, were great non-royal military leaders.

 

[Princeps]

When choosing civilizations, CIV4 developers should consider civilizations that had/have impact on the developmet of the world in various aspects such as culture, religion, military, commerce etc. The civs we have so far in CIV3 and addons have been picked well, and all of them left some trace on this world. The guy who insists on Serbs and Albanians or whatever slavic or non-slavic tribe inhabiting the Balkan must know that those little nations cannot be considered as particular civilizations, because they are only fragments of overall Slav population in Europe, which in this game is well represented by the Russian civilization; apart of murdering the Austrian prince, and mass murders in Balkan wars throughout 20th century, Serbs haven't made anything that would qualify them as a civilization - they are only a part of wider Slavic Orthodox Christian civilization. Similar applies to Albanians, except that they could be categorized (mainly) as part of Ottoman Islamic Civilization.

Here is my proposal for the civs, and there should not be too many:

Europe:
England (Anglo-Saxons), Germany (Germany and Austria), Russia (Slavs), France (Franks), Italy (Rome), Hispania (Spain, Portugal), Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Danemark, Finland {terve }), Ottomans (Turkey and turcophonic countries in the Caucassus), Greece and Netherlands. (11)
Asia:
China, Japan, Arabia, Hebrew, India (India, Bangladesh,Pakistan), Indochina (SE Asian countries and cultures), perhaps Korea (although I don't know much about their culture and achievements), Babylon and Persia (8 or 9)
Africa
Egypt, Carthagene, Zulu, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Subsaharan Africans (somebody listed names of all those small nations and cultures in that region) (5)
Americas:
Maya, Inca, Aztec, Sioux, Iroquois, North Americans (US and Canada) (6)

Australia/Oceania:

Poor guys didn't even had chance against the White Men, but frankly they haven't left much behind them except the big heads on Easter Island.

As for small nations and native tribes world wide, their names should not be left out. Perhaps it would be good idea to have them not only as barbarians in those small sheds but also that they have their own cities (one or two) without possibility to expand (that they cannot produce settlers) or develop technology. In fact, that is main reason why they haven't made it to become big nations.

PS. My intention was not to offend anyone when I said "small nations".

no terve, terve! tervetuloa CFC:hen

Russians are not entaerly made of slavs. there is lot nordic blood in russians.
Romans and italians are not the same people. oh, and hispanic and iberians should be their own civ. Spanish and italians are gothic origin... mostly.

 

[Furius]

But Franks are Germanic (Or Germans are Frankic) as are anglo-saxons, dutch can't be that different from Germans, why should they get seperate civs? And why do the Iroquois or Zulu merit a civ, they didn't stand a chance when the white man moved in but frankly they haven't left much behind them.
So my proposal,
Europe: Germany (Franks, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, Scandanavia), Mediterrania (Italy, Iberian peninsula, Greece, North Africa: they all have similar climate and a close linked history and were occupied by the same invaders), Russia (Slavs, Serbs, Albanians, Central Asians) (3)
Asia: China (China, Tibet, Mongolia, SE Asia, Japan, Korea: They all were within China's influence for most of their history anyway), India (Afghanistan, Pakistan Bangledesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives), Arabs (Gulf States, North Africa (?), Middle East, Iran) (3)
Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa (What it says) (1)
Americas: Aztecs (All of Meso-America), United States (North America), Inca/Brazilians (All of South America) (3)
Oceania: Australia?Indonesia? (0)
For a total of 10.
This is much more extreme than your version but it is a similar idea and is very offensive to those who happen to be Serbian for example (Russia has built Belgrade?) and also is quite racist, why are there 11 groups in Europe and so much fewer elsewhere? I think it is following the wrong line of thought. No nation should be thought of as representing a greater ethnic group especially as that nation may in fact be home to many ethnic groups or people who consider themselves of a different ethnic group, after all, what is slav, or germanic, or anglo-saxon (75 % of English are descended from French Hugenots after all)?

 

[drina_light]

Originally Franks split into three groups, but in time the three groups developed compeletely different cultures, languages, life styles, and eventually they even got divided on the issue of the faith. One can't say now that French and German civilization is the same. Oh no. And about English, I would disagree that 75% are of the Hugenot descent! Perhaps of Norman descent? Hispanian and Italian cultures are totally different - they may have same base for the language and religion, but these cultures are quite distinct. Then again you mention Arabs (Gulf States, North Africa (?), Middle East, Iran). It would be very wrong to put Iran in this group - the only thing Persians have in common with Arabs is Islam and script, which is Persian (Farsi) version of Arabic. The language, customs, and culture overall is pretty different to Arabian. Egyptians on the other hand are even of different race, not to mention their long and rich pre-Arabic history, so they definetly deserve to be regarde as separate civ. Hebrew civilization must not be neglected. After all, many of great historic persons were Hebrews (or Jews if you please), such as Moses, Solomon and Jesus. They have distinct culture, language and had many influence on the course of human history and it should be included in the CIV4.

Russia has built Belgrade?

Absolutely not! Belgrade was not even the place when Serbians had their "Great State", but at that time it was not even called Serbia but Raska, and that state at the time covered areas that are now Kosovo, Macedonia (FYRO) and part of Greek Macedonia. But that kingdom didn't last too long... For the most of time South Slavs (including Serbs) were under foreign rule (Byzantine, Ottoman, Hungarian). Back to Belgrade - I think that Ottomans built a fort on the border with Hungaria (Danube) to protect thier border and then a settlement arose around the fort, but I may be wrong. It is also possible that Hungarians built that fort to protect the border from Ottomans. That period is bit murky because that was the age of the Ottoman penetration to the Central Europe.
Anyway, South Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Slovenians) have always been under foreign occupation, and they haven't contributed much to the human race to call them a distinct civ. Ah yes, Albanians havenothing to do with Slavs, they are totally different people in all senses ( I don't mean anything bad when saying this). All who want to know something more about the Balkan peoples (South Slavs) could read Noel Malcom's Brief Histories of Bosnia and Kosovo just to get an idea what was going on there. I read many books on this topic, and I must say that this guy was totally unbiased in his writing. Well, some may disagree with me especially the guy who raised the issue of Serbians in CIV 4, but that very guy has a WW2 war criminal Draza Mihailovic as his avatar

.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

But Franks are Germanic (Or Germans are Frankic) as are anglo-saxons, dutch can't be that different from Germans, why should they get seperate civs? And why do the Iroquois or Zulu merit a civ, they didn't stand a chance when the white man moved in but frankly they haven't left much behind them.
So my proposal,
Europe: Germany (Franks, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, Scandanavia), Mediterrania (Italy, Iberian peninsula, Greece, North Africa: they all have similar climate and a close linked history and were occupied by the same invaders), Russia (Slavs, Serbs, Albanians, Central Asians) (3)
Asia: China (China, Tibet, Mongolia, SE Asia, Japan, Korea: They all were within China's influence for most of their history anyway), India (Afghanistan, Pakistan Bangledesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives), Arabs (Gulf States, North Africa (?), Middle East, Iran) (3)
Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa (What it says) (1)
Americas: Aztecs (All of Meso-America), United States (North America), Inca/Brazilians (All of South America) (3)
Oceania: Australia?Indonesia? (0)
For a total of 10.
This is much more extreme than your version but it is a similar idea and is very offensive to those who happen to be Serbian for example (Russia has built Belgrade?) and also is quite racist, why are there 11 groups in Europe and so much fewer elsewhere? I think it is following the wrong line of thought. No nation should be thought of as representing a greater ethnic group especially as that nation may in fact be home to many ethnic groups or people who consider themselves of a different ethnic group, after all, what is slav, or germanic, or anglo-saxon (75 % of English are descended from French Hugenots after all)?

There was so much crap in there that I was writing a response, but I cut it out and left it like this when I realised I might breach the character limit. Though I do agree that Europe has always been far too overdone in respect to the rest of the world (since the days of Civ 1 IMO).

Edit: To avoid trolling, I'll be terse:
- Mediterranea (spelt that way) is completely baseless. Civs here have surprisingly little in common.
- Russia has very little to do with the Slavs.
- The Albanians are descended from Illyrians, not Slavs.
- Central Asia has nothing to do with Russia, except for that 140 year period of Russian and Soviet rule.
- Your statement of China is completely crap. China has never had a strong influence on Tibet, Mongolia, or S E Asia, and Japan and Korea have worked hard to keep Chinese influence out.
- Iran has nothing to do with the Arabs. They are completely different, even religion (Shia as opposed to Sunniism)

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

When choosing civilizations, CIV4 developers should consider civilizations that had/have impact on the developmet of the world in various aspects such as culture, religion, military, commerce etc. The civs we have so far in CIV3 and addons have been picked well, and all of them left some trace on this world. The guy who insists on Serbs and Albanians or whatever slavic or non-slavic tribe inhabiting the Balkan must know that those little nations cannot be considered as particular civilizations, because they are only fragments of overall Slav population in Europe, which in this game is well represented by the Russian civilization; apart of murdering the Austrian prince, and mass murders in Balkan wars throughout 20th century, Serbs haven't made anything that would qualify them as a civilization - they are only a part of wider Slavic Orthodox Christian civilization. Similar applies to Albanians, except that they could be categorized (mainly) as part of Ottoman Islamic Civilization.

Here is my proposal for the civs, and there should not be too many:

Europe:
England (Anglo-Saxons), Germany (Germany and Austria), Russia (Slavs), France (Franks), Italy (Rome), Hispania (Spain, Portugal), Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Danemark, Finland {terve }), Ottomans (Turkey and turcophonic countries in the Caucassus), Greece and Netherlands. (11)
Asia:
China, Japan, Arabia, Hebrew, India (India, Bangladesh,Pakistan), Indochina (SE Asian countries and cultures), perhaps Korea (although I don't know much about their culture and achievements), Babylon and Persia (8 or 9)
Africa
Egypt, Carthagene, Zulu, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Subsaharan Africans (somebody listed names of all those small nations and cultures in that region) (5)
Americas:
Maya, Inca, Aztec, Sioux, Iroquois, North Americans (US and Canada) (6)

Australia/Oceania:

Poor guys didn't even had chance against the White Men, but frankly they haven't left much behind them except the big heads on Easter Island.

As for small nations and native tribes world wide, their names should not be left out. Perhaps it would be good idea to have them not only as barbarians in those small sheds but also that they have their own cities (one or two) without possibility to expand (that they cannot produce settlers) or develop technology. In fact, that is main reason why they haven't made it to become big nations.

PS. My intention was not to offend anyone when I said "small nations".

I have one mayor question are you american than that would explain all why you have written this stuff.
As for none mentioned things:
>Finish aren't part of Scandinavs they are ugres completeley diffrent cultural group.
>About that crap about small countrys. Did you know that many small countrys in begining was big Finugres, Balts they just weren't militaristic thats why they shrinked in size.

 

[vikingsjoe]

I would like to see civ 4 map developers design maps for all 7 continents and a map that would include Asia and Europe and Africa if possible.In a perfect world(pardon the pun) A large fast playing world map the map could expand so you can look at it by an arrow to the right,left up and down excetra. Also a version where leaders would die( and be replaced historically where possible)and new leaders would take their place.This would facilitate the need to conquer when you had a strong leader and to prepare your people to defend under weaker leaders. A spy like the old civ and a unit to finsh improvements like caravan.A assassin unit to try to kill your scientists, generals, leaders ect,this unit would be expensive and would have limited chance of success but would keep the dominate civ on its toes.Als ability would have to be toned down on this because he would abuse this.

 

[Furius]

I wasen't serious!! My point was that if you start consolidating civs you are going to make a whole heap of people very angry by your lumping them in with somebody else. And while you may be able to do it in such a way that it is relitavly accurate to history (but even drina_light's version offended Latvian Hound) civ IV developer people who are primarly graphic artists or programmers or sound-makers or whatever else is done in the making of a computer game are more likely to come up with something with glaring errors of the type that mine contained.
And even yours showed preferential treatment, Polynesians were dismissed out of hand but iroquois were included? This consolidating treatment can quickly get rather racist (I am not saying that you are, I am just saying that continuing that tack could become racist).
And it is interesting that there were objections to a consolidation of most of Northern Europe into a Germainic civ and all of East Asia into a China civ but no objection to a consolidation of all of Sub-Saharan Africa which is at least as diverse as Europe.

 

[Kayak]

It would be much easier to make the civs easily modable so that any could change them to meet their own preferences. No one will be happy with all of the choices included or left out, so why try? If I could easily change the Civ name, city list, traits, and maybe the UU I'd have few complaints (I woun't say none). Picking your own color would be nice too.

 

[Rod]

Hello,

as I understand, there will be scripted events be possible in CIV IV. And maybe it will be possible that some civilizations at some points of their development just split into new states.

I mean that would be a completely new feeling of Civ.

Lets imagine there are 8 basic cultural groups at the beginning. Like Asians, Africans, Indo-Europeans and so on.

When a civ is rising and after you reach a special number of cities (or technology) you have to divide the civ into 2 new states and you choose which one to run further. But you still get some points for the other nation of your culture group and it is more easy to deal with them. The same will happen to the other cultural groups and even to the new states that come out. So maybe during a long game you will 3 or 4 times divide your actual civ into 2 new ones. And also the other civs and states will do so, depended on their own success.
So the game starts with 8 civs but finishes maybe with 40 or 50..

So in this way there is no need to create an extra civ for every tiny nations of the actual world, but just to make sure that the right names appear at the right cultural groups.

Asians divide into East and West-Asian, East Asian divide into Chinese and South Asian. South Asian divide into Siam and Indonesian. Siam divide into ...

 

[Kayak]

That would be very interesting. It would be hell to chose. think if to vital resources were in different parts of the new nations. On a side note, thinking of all of the wars throughout history maybe it should not be easer to deal with a civ in your own culture group.

 

[Rod]

Hello,

maybe it would be like this that the divided civs would be instantly in war - civil war , if you want.That would fit history.
So at the end of the war there could be 2 results. There will be 2 new nations, one bigger, one smaller or nearly the same, like e.g. the independence war of Great Britain and the New England Colonies, later know as United States of America.
On the other hand, it could happen that one party( the more developed part) will entirely win this civil war and will form again one nation (like the American Civil War in 1861-65), instead of leaving 2 nations like the Union and the Confederation of America.
But even when the 2 new nations of one culture group stay separated, they still should have advantages in diplomatic negotiation. Like Great Britain and USA are in Alliance today, even when they fought in the independence war against each other.

At least such separations should only happen when special events occur, lets say, when you develop the Government technologies like Monarchy, Democracy and so on. So it would not be like this that you entirely win the civil war, but then 5 years later, there again will be some separation and civil war.

Certainly the whole concept should be thought of more longer, but as a idea I would think of it, as of something fascinating and challenging.

 

[Furius]

But if one is chosing, surely they will divide it unfairly, it should be automatated, perhaps based around minorities (The more religious groups or different religions would seperate) or those in civil unrest. Seperation would be less likely in a golden age and more likely during Anarchy between governments, perhaps war weariness would exasperate it too?

 

[danegeld]

what about Sheba? it was important enough to be mentioned in the bible as a large and powerful nation

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Danegeld, no one is entirely sure of where Sheba was. Though it does seem now that Sheba may in fact have been Thebes (She-wa in ancient Egyptian), and the Queen of Sheba was actually Queen Hatshepsut who did in fact go to modern Palestine area and meet local kings.

 

[rhialto]

mongoloid cow, archeologists are pretty certain that Sheba was in what is now Yemen.

I wouldnt let a matching city name throw you. Check how many places there are called Medina. Rabat and Selima (with various vowel variations) are other common city names.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Posted in the history forum several links back, there was a thread which had links to sites about the whole Sheba debate. Things that far back are always going to be murky and never certain, although the evidence in favour of Egypt is more convincing IMO compared to the evidence of Yemen.

 

[danegeld]

im not informed but last i heard they thought it was out of where the curennt sahra is. but never the less i jsut tossed that in there where ever it was or whoe ever it was it was fairly important in acinet times

there are a few med civs like the ionians? the crete some other that got destroyed by volcanos or other natural disaters.

memeroy is foggy about it


could always have a easy create a civ tool where you simply say hey the civ X was here and it was X and X and put it into the game after you select some stock flavors or randomly genrated ones