New Warlords civs

[dh_epic]

I think the Celts hold a weird enough place in history that if they aren't removed, they should be changed... with Barbarians representing the early Celts, and the Celts being changed to be some kind of inheritor of their legacy (since many other civilizations arguably inherit a Celtic legacy as well).

 

[mitsho]

Damn, it really shows doesn't it?

Ever thought why Switzerland has CH on its cars? We don't call ourselves Allamans, we think we are Helvetes... Seriously, ok, it doesn't show that well, but that's not important.

 

[Vishaing]

I agree that the celts should be a minor civ, not a playable one.

Also, I know it would mean some heavy work, but I think we simply need to have Austria in the game. Right now, if either Rome or Greece falls, Germany can jus swell to fill up the space, and then further cut off France and Spain from the rest of the world while easily reaching over twice the size of them. I na recent game My German Empire went all the way to Panormus and Byzantion while still filling the Poland Germany and Denmark area. I was also starting to expand into Scandinavia (I know it won't be a problem with the Vikings in Warlords) and all of this was fueled by the Vatican in Mailand giving me massive research. While sort of historically accurate (I certainly attained the old German Holy Roman Empire area) it got a little bit extreme. I think an Austria would expand to fill a fallen Greece nicely and restrict Germany so it can't become a super monster.

Of course it could be I just got luck or am that good and the AI would never make use of this, but I doubt it.

I also think there is plenty of room for a Korea, Behold:
View attachment 131714

I don't lie, it would be an extremely tough game, but considering every 1.00 game I have played China has always been dead by at least the time the French spawn, I think Korea will have plenty of space to expand into.

I would also like to see the dutch in the game, and I don't think they have much less space than the Dutch did in Rhye's of Civilisation, proportionately at least. Also I have seen 1 city civs triumph pretty well, and the Dutch were always a big collonial power. They were also the only civ I honestly regret never playing from Rhye's of Civ 3.

 

[Rhye]

I agree that the celts should be a minor civ, not a playable one.

Also, I know it would mean some heavy work, but I think we simply need to have Austria in the game. Right now, if either Rome or Greece falls, Germany can jus swell to fill up the space, and then further cut off France and Spain from the rest of the world while easily reaching over twice the size of them. I na recent game My German Empire went all the way to Panormus and Byzantion while still filling the Poland Germany and Denmark area. I was also starting to expand into Scandinavia (I know it won't be a problem with the Vikings in Warlords) and all of this was fueled by the Vatican in Mailand giving me massive research. While sort of historically accurate (I certainly attained the old German Holy Roman Empire area) it got a little bit extreme. I think an Austria would expand to fill a fallen Greece nicely and restrict Germany so it can't become a super monster.

Turkey will do the job

 

[Elhoim]

I also agree that Korea should be in.

 

[McA123]

I agree with the post about the Dutch (and the portugese), even though I know that they won't be in now matter how much I say I would like it. IF they were somehow, some way included though, wouldn't it be possible to direct the AI away from Europe so that they don't choke out the Civs they're nearby? (France, Germany and Spain) Anyways, I am no modder and have only the most basic understanding of how it's done. I'm not saying that the Dutch/Portugese NEED to be included, I'm just saying that I think they're more important then say, the Aztecs or the Incans, or the Carthaginians even. They were both Colonial powers. I haven't got high hopes for their inclusion, I'm just making a bit of an argument for them.

 

[dh_epic]

(Semii-OT Rant...)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Dutch and Portugese are more important than the Aztecs or the Incans. To me, you have to look at the big picture. It's not just about who had the impact on the most people... but, with the current civilizations in the list, what elements of history have not been accounted for?

Let's say you had zero civilizations to start. Then the major civilizations to add are definitely Rome, China, and Egypt. You can argue that all of European history was impacted heavily by Rome, all Asian history was impacted heavily by China, and all African AND near Eastern history was impacted by Egypt. You could account for pretty much all history as some kind of descendent of all 3... except that you haven't accounted for a good 15% of the world's population in Mesoamerica, so you have to add the Aztecs.

From there, you might recognize how powerful Greece had an impact on western thinking, and how much India had an impact on Eastern thinking. But then you'd realize you need a distinctly Middle Eastern Civilization, like the Arabs. Then you'd recognize that northern Europe in the post-middle ages would be the next highest priority, and England would probably come up. Then you'd find yourself looking at the industrial and modern powers for WW2, and grab Japan, Germany, America, Russia and France in one fell swoop... with Germany standing in for Austria and Rome standing in for Italy.

It's all about priorities. You DO need to cover all the parts of history, and sometimes that means letting civilizations standing in for each other. (e.g.: the Arabs stand in for the Turks AND Babylonians, Egypt stands in for Ethiopia, China stands in for Korea, Greece stands in for the Byzantines)... but as you recognize that important events that impacted large numbers of people are left out, you add a civilization that uniquely satisfies that important region/era in history. By the time you've reached your 40th or 50th civ, you might go for the detail of the Kurds or the Swiss (rather than leaving them as standins by other Near-Eastern and European Civs).

(Semi-OT rant over.)

Right now there's a healthy amount of colonization going on. But it's obvious the buffer between East and West is a little underrepresented. For that reason, it makes sense that we add Turkey first, then look at other colonial powers later.

 

[McA123]

Well there goes my argument out the window. I still think that the Dutch and Portugese were important nations and had a big impact on history, (if not near so big as some other nations such as Rome, China or Egypt, to use your first 3 civs, but I still think that they're more important then the mesoamerican nations) but the real reason I would like to see them in is because I like to play as the Colonial Nations the most, and if there were more in there, I'd be even happier. I can live with England, France and Spain, I was just saying.

 

[Crayton]

Turks are a definite.

Babylon next, although the Mideast currently seems to function alright (unless you wanted to play as Mesopotamia).

I'd pick the Celts before the Vikings but I know there is always the question... where do they go? If Rome never conquered Gaul would it be more applicable to have the Celts or French in that region??? They are a few solutions I can think of, none of which are perfect.

I see the same question for a native civ in North America... albiet the vestiges of civilization in the region were slim, I'd rather see America (USA version) be a rebirth of a conquered civ, throwing off the shackles of English rule.

I like the idea of Carthage, the Barbarians in the region are isolated from the others so it would be nice to play them as a seperate civ.

The Viking presence is missed, no raiding parties from Scandinavia, yet what role would the civ assume if intended to live on until the Modern Age.

Korea would be tough to put in. They would need a lot of influences to keep them bottled up in their pennisula. I'd rather view the Mongols or Japanese as representing the Koreans. Of course, I'd rather view the Mongols as "China, North".

Dutch and Portuguese. I would love to see the varied colors of territories grabbed by the Europeans other than Red, Blue, and Gold. On the other hand, I'll side with the fact that "Spain" can easily act as both Iberian countries, etc. Of course, I would like to see more German/Deutsch/Dutch colonization, Indian Ocean stuff.

 

[Crayton]

Idea!

The Celts are centered in Gaul and start 1000BC (or so, could be 2000BC or 100BC, whatever).

As it stands now, after Constitution is discovered old civs have a chance of reviving. How about, a similar chance once Monarchy (or Feudalism or Divine Right) is discovered. This way if the Celts are conquered they have a chance of returning in, say, 770AD. Viola, France.

Then again, there is always the problem of naming the civilization. Can it be both? Which name to choose?

 

[Prestidigitator]

Babylon next, although the Mideast currently seems to function alright (unless you wanted to play as Mesopotamia).

The Babylonians are a MUST, I can't believe Firaxis left them out not once, but TWICE (in the expansion). I think it goes under their insolense towards realistic history.
Mesopotamia cannot go unrepresented, especially when they were known to have contributed many great things to human civilization, most importantly were of Writing, the wheel and civil law. Civilization without Mesopotamia, it's just wrong.

I am nearly done on my Mesopotamian project. I have all the graphic assets for them (animated LH, UB, UU), I just have to write-up the XML, and wait for Rhye to create the UP. You would probably see Babylon in the first RFC: Warlords.

 

[Crayton]

Banking on the Babylonians to sell a second expansion pack. They need something to sell before Civ5.

Great work on getting the civ ready for the Warlords version, Prestidigitator.

 

[Leif]

I agree with the current idea of inclusion, except I also believe that the Celts and the Zulu should be represented.

 

[Willowmound]

The Viking presence is missed, no raiding parties from Scandinavia, yet what role would the civ assume if intended to live on until the Modern Age.

The role of making Volvos, IKEA (Sweden), and exporting oil (Norway).

I'm only half-joking. I don't see the problem. You do realise Scandinavia is still there, IRL, in our Modern Age?

 

[McA123]

Of course, there's no problem. It's just that they (Sweden, Norway, Finland) aren't all that important these days. But then, look at Rome (Italy). Sure, it's still a major nation but it's nothig compared to the Roman Empire. Spain? No territories left in South America. The UK ain't quite what she used to be. All I'm saying is that just because a country isn't that important NOW shouldn't affect how important it WAS in any way. The Vikes raided and pillaged for over 100 years (I think). The glory days of the vikings may be long gone, but they still happened.

 

[dh_epic]

It's about priorities. We obviously ought to include as many as possible. That's the short answer, but also in the long run.

In the short run, we need to throw in as many nations as it takes to simulate the accuracies of history. I can't say that Europe expands too fast or far -- which would be the main reason to *demand* the Vikings, as a check on their power.

 

[Arkaeyn]

The Germans, English and Russians also spend a lot of time expanding into Scandanavia, which obviously they wouldn't if the Vikings were there.

 

[Willowmound]

The Vikes raided and pillaged for over 100 years (I think). The glory days of the vikings may be long gone, but they still happened.

Well over 200 years actually.

(Usually the Viking Age is considered to be 790 - 1066, although raids were undertaken in England before 790, and in Ireland continued long after 1066 (more like 1100). So you could argue 300 years.)

 

[Crayton]

For gameplay purposes they would prevent England from settling the pennisula, but where would they expand? Iceland, Greenland, and Labrodor, I guess. Maybe they would do more (post-1066) than just fill space. I'd welcome the Vikings, they just aren't on the tippy-top of priorities (from my point of view).

 

[dh_epic]

To me, the Vikings are about important as the Portugese and the Dutch and the Ethiopians. They would control areas that do get covered by neighbors already . (France Spain and England do some colonization, Russia Germany and England settle up north, and Egypt Mali and Zulu cover Africa). Nothing terrible about the current state of affairs, but the game could always use more detail.