New Civs [Suggestion/Request]

[Leoreth]

I'm a bit baffled why it's so horrible to refer to Enrico Dandolo as Henry when nobody bats an eye when people are talking about Catherine of Russia and Charles V of Spain the HRE.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I'm a bit baffled why it's so horrible to refer to Enrico Dandolo as Henry when nobody bats an eye when people are talking about Catherine of Russia and Charles V of Spain the HRE without batting an eye.

Me too. Also, why do Dutch people not care when English speakers refer to "The Hague" (instead of Den Haag), but some Indians get mad about "Bombay" and "Calcutta"?

PS: Henry is the proper English form of Enrico

Enrico Dandolo (1107? – 21 June 1205) — anglicised as Henry Dandolo and Latinized as Henricus Dandulus — was the 42nd Doge of Venice from 1192 until his death.

 

[Leoreth]

Me too. Also, why do Dutch people not care when English speakers refer to "The Hague" (instead of Den Haag), but some Indians get mad about "Bombay" and "Calcutta"?

I would assume it's because the latter carries colonial connotations while the former doesn't.

 

[Krulltak]

^ What Leo said.

I get the feeling people want Zulu so much for their cool factor. Cool as they were however, they weren't too prominent before Shaka came around and they didn't last long after that. There were other Southern African groups that resisted the Brits and the Boers for longer and were a greater threat overall. The Xhosa, for example.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Honestly, outside of a DoC-centric view, the Zulu suggestion makes sense.
Because it's never really been a Civ game without the Zulu.
I mean personally, starting out with Civ2, (although I'm pretty sure the Zulu were in Civ1), dealing with Shaka was something as classic as bloodthristy Gandhi or Monty.
I think this was one of the myriad of reasons why Civ5 was loathed on arrival (it cut out Zulus and Spain, Mongolia being given the DLC treatment; three civs that were always considered to be series staples)
Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Persia, Greece, Rome, Japan, France, Germany, England, Spain, Zulu, Arabs, America, Mongolia, & Aztecs are imo, civs the series could not do without.
Just for reference, look at how the roster has developed over time; you can clearly pick out which civs are de facto inclusions and which ones aren't:
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_civilizations_in_Civ1
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Civilizations_in_Civ2
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_civilizations_in_Civ3
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_civilizations_in_Civ4
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Civilization_Revolution
I'm not going to list V mainly because:
1) It breaks from the established tradition.
2) I'd argue that it breaks the series definition of civilization by including polities (like Venice) or groups that were poorly researched (the Huns) in the game.

So nostalgia is actually a very strong factor with the Zulus.
And I'm very inclined to want them, but if you ask me?
I just want South Africa to be empty so I can use it for Domination victories if I need it.
So I would not like Zulus.

 

[Krulltak]

A post-colonial South Africa would probably work better, perhaps, if we are to have any civ there at all.

 

[Lennon789]

Yeah, I vaguely recall reading through a thread which proposed the inclusion of a Boer civ a while back, who would be located inland in order to not cause issues with coastal European colonies.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

I'm a bit baffled why it's so horrible to refer to Enrico Dandolo as Henry when nobody bats an eye when people are talking about Catherine of Russia and Charles V of Spain the HRE without batting an eye.

Well, I am a Veniceophile, Italian dual citizen, and have family from the Venice area, so that's my only reason. Also, Charles V is sometimes referred to as Carlos V, but Enrico Dandolo is always referred to as Enrico Dandolo when he is mentioned.

Also, Venice was a very important trading power and maritime empire in Europe until the Portuguese took away Egypt's trade routes to India. I'm still in support of an Italy overhaul where Venice is added as a playable civ and Italy's spawn date gets pushed back to 1415 at Turin.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

Yeah, I vaguely recall reading through a thread which proposed the inclusion of a Boer civ a while back, who would be located inland in order to not cause issues with coastal European colonies.

I thought the Boer idea was very well thought out and is a much better idea than a Zulu civ.

 

[civ_king]

Well, I am a Veniceophile, Italian dual citizen, and have family from the Venice area, so that's my only reason. Also, Charles V is sometimes referred to as Carlos V, but Enrico Dandolo is always referred to as Enrico Dandolo when he is mentioned.

Also, Venice was a very important trading power and maritime empire in Europe until the Portuguese took away Egypt's trade routes to India. I'm still in support of an Italy overhaul where Venice is added as a playable civ and Italy's spawn date gets pushed back to 1415 at Turin.

Enrico Dandolo really had an eye for pulling for crazy stuff.

I thought the Boer idea was very well thought out and is a much better idea than a Zulu civ.

Yes it was, also Leoreth definitely considered it and didn't say no.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

I would assume it's because the latter carries colonial connotations while the former doesn't.

It's not just colonial, you can take basically any City, person, province, food, drink or even domestic cat and have peoples bitterly fighting over it. I once even got arrested for 'insulting x-ishness' because I unthinkingly used the wrong terminology.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I'm a bit baffled why it's so horrible to refer to Enrico Dandolo as Henry when nobody bats an eye when people are talking about Catherine of Russia and Charles V of Spain the HRE without batting an eye.

I think it's because unlike the other two, Enrico Dandolo never had any political dealings with England or English speaking countries during his lifetime. He is mostly known by his Italian or Latin names because those are the languages spoken by his contemporary associates and acquaintances.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Jurchens should be represented as Seljuk style Barbarians to weaken China before the Mongol spawn. They deserve that representation as much as the Seljuks do.

Otherwise the Mongols never stand a chance unless we make it ridiculously OP in Human hands.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

In fact, Leoreth, maybe the Seljuk "Unique Barbarian" concept can be generalized even more to represent various unplayable but important civilizations. You could reuse only a few (I'd say 2 is enough) player slots to represent a series of different civilizations (using your respawn mechanism to give them different colors if you wish).

== Slot 1 ==
Ancient: Hitties (1500 BC - 1100 BC)
Classical: Scythia (600 BC - 400 AD)
Medieval: Seljuks (1000 AD - 1300 AD)

== Slot 2 ==
Classical: Xiongnu (200 BC - 400 AD)
Medieval: Jurchens (1000 AD - 1200 AD)
Renaissance: Manchus (1600 AD - 1800 AD)

The difference between these and regular barbs is the same as the Seljuks's case

(1) You can give them UUs and UPs (and even UBs) to let them have a bigger impact on the course of the game, like they did in history.

(2) You can give them proper tech levels so that the cities they conquer don't fall into complete ruin like with regular Barbs, which makes reconquering those cities more worthwhile.

(3) Players at war with these special Barbs will actually gain GG points from combat, which rewards the player more for engaging them.

In SoI there are tons of civs like this, unplayable, but detailed. They add a lot of fun without slowing down the game too much, IMO.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

this is best solution imo, too
and may be a timurids civilization in seljuk's slot

 

[mrrandomplayer]

In fact, Leoreth, maybe the Seljuk "Unique Barbarian" concept can be generalized even more to represent various unplayable but important civilizations. You could reuse only a few (I'd say 2 is enough) player slots to represent a series of different civilizations (using your respawn mechanism to give them different colors if you wish).

== Slot 1 ==
Ancient: Hitties (1500 BC - 1100 BC)
Classical: Scythia (600 BC - 400 AD)
Medieval: Seljuks (1000 AD - 1300 AD)

== Slot 2 ==
Classical: Xiongnu (200 BC - 400 AD)
Medieval: Jurchens (1000 AD - 1200 AD)
Renaissance: Manchus (1600 AD - 1800 AD)

The difference between these and regular barbs is the same as the Seljuks's case

(1) You can give them UUs and UPs (and even UBs) to let them have a bigger impact on the course of the game, like they did in history.

(2) You can give them proper tech levels so that the cities they conquer don't fall into complete ruin like with regular Barbs, which makes reconquering those cities more worthwhile.

(3) Players at war with these special Barbs will actually gain GG points from combat, which rewards the player more for engaging them.

In SoI there are tons of civs like this, unplayable, but detailed. They add a lot of fun without slowing down the game too much, IMO.

Facing the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Seljuks, Arabs, and Turks already is a nightmare. We don't need more in the Mediterranean. The Jurchen/Manchu civ does seem like a pretty good idea. I'm still in support of a Barbary Pirates civ, they would get Tripoli and Tunis and would churn out Privateers until someone goes after them.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

barbary pirates is already in as the Moors, could be in as a UHV rather than the megalopolis of Corboda goal, which is completely unsupported by archeological evidence by the way. Morocco would be ino much more fun as the ultimate pirate civ, with 4-10 immediate neighbors to blockade and pillage, think an AI naval Poland. Vikings already in the north, but mediterranean was subject to piracy about 1000 years after viking raids ended.

Why Scythia rather than Huns? Only game purpose of Scythia would be to stop human Greece taking Ukraine, which hasn't been doable since barbarian update (dammit).
Jurchens actually sounds like a really good idea now the reasoning is explained.

yeah, timurids could easily be a seljuk 'respawn' with a simple name-change, both were turkic nomadic invaders 'who wiped the slate clean' and quickly disappeared to leave a massive power vacuum.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

Hasn't there been a ton of threads exactly like this? Whatever, I'll throw something not so new into the hat:

Kingdom of Madagascar
Sultanate of Zanzibar
Confederation of Swahili States (Just to represent the important cities of Mombasa, Kilwa, Quelimane, etc.)
Sultanate of Oman (would have capital in Oman (Muscat) and own much of the coast down East Africa, where the Portuguese would conquer.

Just giving East Africa some rep, it was a major centre for the Arab Slave Trade.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Representing a brutal chattel slavery not really a good primary reason to include a civ, the Confederacy included.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

I don't agree with what they did, it's more for gameplay reasons really. They overthrew the Portuguese in those regions as well. I'm not making a very convincing argument, woosh. I don't know, South America is getting all the post-colonial love, it's all I'm saying. I think the Confederacy would work, and once out of Slavery, they could become the Kingdom of Tanzania or something.