New Civs VOTE

[Pangur Bán]

Well, now we know that 4 of the new covs will be:

The Hittites
Sumer
Inca
Maya

Well, I suppose that choosing the 2 most popular is good.

 

[Tarwoch]

Hittites, because they were an important part of Copper Age (UU - Hittite Chariot).
Poles (UU -- Polish Hussar).
Assyrians (UU -- Maceman).
Scots (UU -- Scottish Knight).
Jews (UU -- Merkavah tank).

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by calgacus
Apparently, the Hittites will be there.

I hope the Poles aren't there. They don't merit either it on historical value, commercial value or world map function. Sorry Poland.

Commercial value or world map function - true, although East Europe doesn't have many civs compared to the West (in Civ3 + PTW of course). However, Poland has enough historical value to qualify. I don't think there will be Poland in expansion, though. Not a big deal as one can add any civ in editor easily enough.

 

[Alone]

There's my opinion to this subject:

1.Maya
2.Inca
It's for sure.

Don't like ideas of Sumerians n Hittites.
Insted:

3.Brasil (much better than Portugal and it's simular)
4.Hebrew(i agree,as mediterenian)
5.Tartars(asian)
6.Abisinian(MEast or african)

+
AustroHungarians7.
Serbs8.
as europeans nations


I was thinkin' about CANADIANS whit Royal Moutie (6.3.4.) asUU insted Cavaliry ,but i don,t know...

 

[Blasphemous]

Since the Incans, Mayans, Hittites, and the Sumerians* are gonna be in C3C, then I'll only select four civs, since any more would be futile.
I already voted, don't remember what exactly, but I'd probably change my vote if it were possible, after being enlightened by reading this thread.

1. Sub-Saharan african civ - For world map reasons and for making more sense.
2. Polynesia - Really awesome expansion they did. UU should definately be superior, early Galley, most importantly doesn't sink at sea.
3. Hebrews, Judea, or Israelites - I'm truly not being biased about this. These ancient peoples were very influential, and were probably only left out of Civ3 and PtW because if might upset someone because of the tension here. Because of this, I will add another third choice:
3a. Yet another Sub-Saharan civ - not too inconcieveable, as they will be adding both the Inca and the Maya.
4. Portugal - Awesome feats of navigation and expansion. Only reason not to put them in would be the fact that Europe is over represented. Becuase of this I will add another fourth choice:
4a. Thai - I don't know very much about the Thai, but I do know that Thailand was the only country in southeast asia to never be conquered by Europeans [or never conquered at all? I can't remember.] And the Thai are very culturaly distinctive.


I'm supposing... I'm a bit ignorant of ancient history, but could someone please explain what civ this is with the leader being Gilgamesh and the UU being the Enkidu Warrior? Or perhaps I've confused thigs here?

 

[dguichar]

Originally posted by Tarwoch
Hittites, because they were an important part of Copper Age (UU - Hittite Chariot).

¿chariot +1 to defense? for a (1/2/2) at the same cost

Poles (UU -- Polish Hussar).

¿infantry +1 attack, +1 defense? for a (7/11/1) at the same cost

Assyrians (UU -- Maceman).

¿med. infantry +1 attack? for a (5/2/1) at the same cost

Scots (UU -- Scottish Knight).

¿knight +1 movement -1 attack +1 defense? for a (3/4/3) at the same cost

Jews (UU -- Merkavah tank).

¿tank +2 attack? for a (18/8/2) at the same cost

Keep civilized

David

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by dguichar

Polish hussar
¿infantry +1 attack, +1 defense? for a (7/11/1) at the same cost

Hussars were heavy cavalry with amazing attack power. If there were no Sipahis in the game, their stats (8/3/3) would suit Hussars very well.

 

[Arbustro]

Although Europe is over represented this should not be a matter of continent, but how much was the civ importance in mankind's history.

Is extremely unfair that a civ, is in the game just because the continent needs more representation...

I'm Portuguese and if we look with an impartial vision to the world history, Portugal with only 15% of the Iberian territory done as much or more than Spain and yet it is not represented...

Then you can place all the civs you want

 

[ivory]

Originally posted by Arbustro
Although Europe is over represented this should not be a matter of continent, but how much was the civ importance in mankind's history. Is extremely unfair that a civ, is in the game just because the continent needs more representation...

In principle I agree, but then subsaharan Africa and Meso- and South America would be empty. Also, the general perception of a civ's importance seems to be a factor. One could even say the American perception overrules others more often than not.

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by Gen

Hussars were heavy cavalry with amazing attack power. If there were no Sipahis in the game, their stats (8/3/3) would suit Hussars very well.

Polish winged hussar with lance : yes.

Napoleon era hussar : definitely not : they were the bulk of the light cavalry

 

[aaminion00]

Incas
Mayas
Sumers
Hitties
Portugeese
Dutch
Mali
Khmers

 

[Arbustro]

can someone tell me who the Khmers were plz??

 

[ivory]

The Khmer (without -s) are a people in what is now Cambodja.
See www.khmer.org.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by LouLong


Polish winged hussar with lance : yes.

Napoleon era hussar : definitely not : they were the bulk of the light cavalry

You're of course right (not to mention hungarian hussars and later variations). I was rather referring to classification of polish hussars (hypothetical UU) as infantry. See previous dguichar's post.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The Khmer aren't merely a people of Cambodia - they make up most of the population (~80% I think), and are the carriers of the place's ancient civilization. For a few centuries in the middle ages, their kingdom, often known as Angkor after the capital, was the regional superpower, covering roughly modern Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and South Vietnam.

Assyria's UU shouldn't be a Medieval Infantry replacement - before such came along, Assyria was long gone. They were among the first civilizations to use cavalry, so perhaps a Horseman replacement. 2/2/2 Horse Archer, perhaps? I'd be scared of those!

Another sub-Saharan civ/people I don't think anyone has suggested yet is the Congolese/Bakongo. The Kingdom of Kongo is the earliest known state in central Africa. The king and much of the population was christianized by Portuguese missionaries in the 16th, but managed to retain national sovereignty for quite a while. The capital was Mbanza Kongo, in present-day Angola. This part of the world map is jolly empty, and could do certainly do with a civ!

Edit: The Scots are in origin a mix of Celtic, pre-Celtic "Pictish" and Germanic elements. The name "Scot" refered originally to Celtic inhabitants of Ireland - some such emigrated to Scotland in the early middle ages and brought the names with them. Most inhabitants of modern Scotland speak English or Scots - that is, Germanic languages. Scottish Gaelic is, of course, Celtic.

 

[Norlamand]

So many civs and so few spaces.......
For balance I'd like to see at least one african and one south american civ. Adding another asian civ and/or a south pacific/austalian one would be nice too. I prefer the balance not for some politically correct "representation" but because on a huge earth map it is nice to be able to relatively evenly distribute civs around the globe and "replay" history. As it stands now Europe is crowded like the mens room at a Stones concert and the americas and south pacific are virtually empty. I tried placing the French in the pacific as a punative measure but it just didn't seem right.

 

[Lord Wyvernil]

I'd guess that the addition of extra ancient Middle Eastern nations is mainly for scenario purposes. Previously most of these were lumped together with the Babylonians.

As for additional civs...

Inca will be added to the next expansion, and I think this is the right choice, since previously South America was rather empty on a world map (I'm guessing the Inca will be Industrious/Religious for traits). Maya are a good pick too. If there's a willingness to edit existing civs, maybe add the Sioux as well (give them the current Iroquois UU and make a new UU for the existing civ, maybe a archer or warrior that can move easily through forests).

Another African civilization (Congo/Ghana/Songhai, or Ethopia/Nubia), to give some extra competition to the Zulus and Egyptians for the continent on world maps.

Maybe add Siam and Polynesia to round out Southeast Asia (the Polynesians would probably get an enhanced galley as an UU, and I'm not sure what the Siamese would get).

Finally, for the crowded areas of Europe/Middle East, additions would be mainly for historical significance. With this in mind, the Portuguese, Dutch, and Austrians would probably be the most logicial choices (The Austrians or the Hungarians would also round out Central/Eastern Europe). With the Assyrians and Hittites added to the roster, no further Middle Eastern nations should be required.

 

[oldmanrupert]

I don't want to start this bunfight about polenesia and aboriginal Australia again, I will say however, that they (AbAust) were a civilisation, a collection of tribes with their own languages, their own religion, their own trade systems.

(yes, they traded)

They unfortunately suffered for the fact that they weren't attached, via trade, to the resources, culture and invention of Asia/Europe. For 40,000 years they made the best living they could, a nomadic one, because one part of the land is fertile one season, another is the next. Until white settlement arrived, killed off the majority of the comparativly advanced tribes of the eastern seaboard. If only they'd built some intricate mountain cities and gotten their arses kicked by the Spanish for their gold, maybe we'd be more sympathetic.

I'm not asking for anyone to agree, or disagree, with me, and I'm not saying they should be a civ in the game... I'm just saying they were behind the eight ball from the begining. A gigantic continent, poil soil, dryest (sic) continent on earth, no external trade system. So go easy kids, Aboriginal Australia is with me.

I like the idea of Polynesia being in, but why? If someone can give me an answer of why they are comparable to any of the influential Euro/Asian/African tribes already included, I'll stand corrected, happily, truely, there is a lot to respect about them!

Now, wait, in terms of modern civs, America aint that much old than Modern Australia! (oh, controversial!) I mean, I know we don't habour they same blood thirsty desire to start wars for our own economic good (strangely like Japan did in China hey!) but I think we're an inventive, individual, and unique *winces* nation A predominatly European nation at the foot of Asia!

Before anyone starts, I dont' subscribe to the idea eaither Australian nation should be in. But I'd sooner see us in before the Dutch! They wear so much orange, it's not healthy!

 

[Novaya Havoc]

I like the TEST OF TIME mod that came with PTW, and I voted for Civs mostly found in there:

1. Inca
2. Khmer
3. Yugo-Slavic Civ (Hungary, although the Magyars are Asian, not Slavic, but I digress)
4. The Netherlands
5. Nubia (Ethiopia)
6. Mali (Timbouctu)
7. Israel
8. Throw-up between modern Australia or Srivijaya/Indonesia

Since 4 have been named, I've changed them to this:

1. Sumer
2. Inca
3. Maya
4. Hittites
---
5. Khmer
6. The Netherlands
7. Ethiopia/Mali
8. Modern Australia/Indonesia

7 and 8 are either/or. It really pisses me off that they ate up two civ spots on yet MORE Mesopotamian/fertile crescent civs. I don't mind "What If?" scenarios with these ancient civs becoming modern powers, or with the modern America being shut out in the iron age, but COME ON.

If I wanted ancient civs, I would much rather select some from other areas of the world. The general Arabic civ, the Turkic civ, and Babylon are more than representative of the region. Boo to Firaxis.

Given that, I give my vote for the Low Countries as the ONLY Euro civ to break into the expansion, and make them a naval power. Give them a super-movement ship -- say an 8-movement Galleon... I think that's fair for the largest naval power (until Britain took over). This way, the Man O War will have to shut down Dutch trading/expansion by blasting their ships. Bring naval power to the forefront. The other Euro civs will have to take a back-seat, and I much prefer the Dutch over the Portuguese.

I want another Asian Civ -- we have Korea, China, and Japan, (and, if you'd like, India and the Mongols, but those I consider different from ASIAN) and all three have been closely related. I want a SE Asian civ, and the Khmers had a very developed civilization, an impressive culture, and were more independent than the others.

Africa needs another civ; my vote is either to the more ancient Mali (Empire) or to the ever-independent Ethiopia. If I had my way, I would have had Mali over Carthage, and, in truth, I would rather there be an Ethiopian civ than a Mali civ. So either works.

My last (contrtoversial) Civ is either an Indonesian civ, either as Indonesia, or the Malayan Srivijaya Kingdom (yay Hindu) or a modern-day Australian civ.

Everyone is debating some Aboriginal culture -- why? If we have a modern-day American civ, why can't there be a modern-day pacific Australian civ? It serves a regional purpose, and can also add more to maritime influence, giving CONQUESTS an added sea emphasis.

So yeah: the Khmer, Australia, Ethiopia, and the Netherlands. Israel, while fun, definately gets shafted with TWO new Middle-east civs. And Hungary and the second African civ get voted out thanks to the Maya and the Hittites.

-Ben

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Zouave
Oh, the CARTHAGINIANS should have been on the list. They almost beat Rome, which would have been a major change in History.

they didnt have a chance, after all, they could never have taken the city of Rome itself, as they lacked siege equipment,not to mention troop strength