Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by regalman, Aug 26, 2013.
What civs would you like?
We already have like a billion threads about this. And all caps was not necessary. But I would choose Sumer
In my opinion, Israel and Tibet will be the most interesting one. Israel can have an espionage-related UA, a religion-related UB (priest specialists at last?), and maybe a modern UU (an anti-artillery maybe?). Tibet can have a mountain-related UA - not just Carhtage's "units can cross mountains", something like "settlers can found cities on mountains"! and perhaps a mountain-related UB - I'm thinking about "Stupa - replaces temple. 5+ culture, +2 tourism, +4 faith, can only be built in cities on mountains" (I know stupas are not just on mountains but I couldn't find a better name). And a UU that will get big bonuses on mountains.
I think Tibet and Israel will be the nost interesting civs because no other civ have an espionage-related UA (and England's "+1 spy" is... meh) and no other civ can found cities on mountains. I like civilizations that are unique and have an interesting playstyle. Not civs that just providea bonus to something.
thats what I want as well, cities on mountains would have an added defensive bonus
and i think every civ should be allowed to cross mountains and roads should also be able to be built across mountains as tunnels and canals at place like suez and panama
Although this thread will certainly be closed shortly, I'll still express that I truly hope Australia and Canada will never be in civ. Nothing against Aussies and canadians, but having a post colonial civ which is still so much to Britain, sorry but no. Brazil at least is truly independant, and not tributary of any other nation. The first two even recognize the British queen as their own ! Sorry, but of all civs, for me, Sumeria is a must, simply because a game called "civilization", should have the first considered civilization in its roster !
Would've been better if the poll was multiple choice, which would let me pick the Sumer and Kongo.
I would like to see Israel (voted for it) and Tibet.
Israel should be the ancient Israel, as the modern state's controversy wouldn't be good to represent.
I'd never realized until now how much potential Israel have. They resemble Germany in that they're really two distinct entities with a single continuity, for instance - they have one incarnation as a Classical civ, (UU - Zealot) then get strong again in the modern era (UB - Iron Dome - replaces Bomb Shelter and has an Intercept chance for nuke strikes).
But then someone would actually compete with me to form Judaism, so no.
Voted for Sumer.
If they ever put Israel, Australia or Canada into Civ, I will be very disappointed. Israel was never really very powerful, Australia and Canada would make the game pointlessly Western-centric by adding civs without nearly enough historical achievement. Not that they haven't achieved anything, but to add to an already Eurocentric game when there are so many more deserving non-European civs? I don't think so. Australia and Canada are young, and haven't got the vast history to warrant their inclusion over others. The only reason to include them is "Americans know where they are", which is not a valid reason whatsoever.
Merciorum, Australia and Canada almost made it into the game but were scrapped for Brazil.
Khmer, Sumeria, Gran Colombia, Romania (As long as its Vlad the Impaler-based, just 'cause), Timurid, Congo, Hittites. Those are the ones that, IMO, are still truly missing.
While I'd like Israel and Tibet as well, the controversy would, sadly, be too much.
Tibet was added in Civ 3 as part of the RAR mod and it was one of my favorite to play.
I understand not including Israel for political reasons but who in the west doesn't want to see an independent Tibet? I think they would be one of the greatest editions.
There's this tiny country, you may heard of it, it's called China. Supposedly it has more inhabitants then the USA and the EU combined, and some say that a few folks over there MIGHT be ever so slightly miffled if Tibet makes it. Just a tad.
Point is, there'd be more people upset about Tibet then about Israel. But before we let this spiral into a political discussion, let's just face the facts: As long as LARGE groups of people have a problem with the portrayal of a specific civ, then that civ probably isn't going to make it.
Hence why you won't ever see Hitler as the leader of Germany either.
Can't tell if you're serious or not? If you are, source please?
http://civcomm.civfanatics.com/polycast/polycast/season7/episode178.mp3 <- Poly cast, pretty sure Dennis and Ed said that Australia and Canada (or some other Post-Colonization nation) were considered, but were ultimately scarpped and left Brazil as it suited the gameplay style more of BNW.
HRE is my choice. Because of lack of it as an option I didn't vote, although my second choice would be Romania for Vlad the Impaler or Sumers, or Congo.
Ukraine is a beyond horrible idea though and I can't comprehend why it's on the list while HRE is absent.
Romania... Just so we can have Vlad the Impaler threaten to put us on a stick when he declares war.
Separate names with a comma.