post your top 3 fav civs for civ4

Kietharr

Prince
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
366
which 3 civs would you like to see?
personally:

1.Mexico (industrious and some other trait) UU somthing with good attack, in the industrial age, like pancho villa
2.canada (commercial, and some other trait) UU mounty (cavalry with extra defense)
3. maybe australia with steve erwin as UU, or somthing, maybe another native american tribe, like the chinook.
 
ahh mali i forgot about them, they're definatly number 4 for me, but i mean civs that arent in civ 3 and conquests.
 
1) The Klingons
2) The Romulans
3) The Andorians

;) :crazyeye: :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually, I'm not particularly partial. I'm more interested in the civ traits and the game balance.


- Sirian
 
How about using the Civ that arsen jetiwitcz(massive bad spelling on his name) led??? I dunno who but he was an awesome guy. Caesar spared his life cuz he respected his talent on the battlefield. The only person he ever spared of high stature that I heard about. Someone help me out on this as well as his correct name? There was a movie on him too. Darnit what is his correct name and what country did he represent??? Also...they should make the Assyrians!!!!!!!
 
Don't care so long as we have minor and major civs, and so long as the list is editable within the game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I'd like to see:

-Canada
-Sioux (I know we have Iroquois but that would be like having every European civ under 'Europe')
-Metal-Heads: a barbarian civ, leaders Bill S Preston Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan. Go around with loud music, collecting history, UU: telephone booth (0.0.Infinite)

;)
 
Top Three:
-Byzantines
-Babylonians
-Egyptians

Top Ten:
-Rome
-Celts
-Illyria
-Macedonian Greeks
-Ethiopia
-China
-Japan

Top Twenty:
-Hebrews
-Arabs
-Mongols
-Ottoman Turks
-English
-Scandinavians
-Spain
-Persia
-Dutch
-Assyrians

Top 53:
-Portugual
-Zulu
-Iroquis
-Maya
-Inca
-Aztecs
-Apache
-Inuits
-Aborigenes
-Malaysians
-Siamese
-Vietnamese
-Khmer
-India
-Sumer
-Hittite
-Prussia
-Austria
-Poland
-Russia
-Korea
-Ashanti
-Mali
-Minoans
-Nubians
-Polynesians
-Hawaiians
-Indonesian

Modern:
-Afrikans
-Canadians
-America
-Confederate States of America
-Soviet Union
 
Why do we need "Civs" like Afrikans, Aborigines, Confederates, Soviet Union, Illyria, etc. We need great empires, or Civ's that mad e lasting contributions. That's why I think the Portugese should go. I would say the Dutch should go, but they're such a great Civ to play. Add the Hebrews, a Southeast Asian civ, and the Songhai.
 
I don't like the idea of mexico, it's already covered by Aztecs and spain!
Anyhow, hears mine:
1.Aboriginis
2.Canada
3. Maori
 
How can we have the Aborigine and Maori? UU's? Traits? Come on...
 
How about LESS civs, but each far FAR more unique? not just UUs but buildings, more work on traits, religion and internal turmoil ...

Wow, trippy!
 
Yeah, I hear you out Albow. For Canada the traits would be "The best Civ" and "Better than your Civ". I heard earlier that someone posted that Canada's UU the mountie should be unaffected by forests. Damn strait. But they should not be affected by any bad terrain at all. Not mountains or hills or jungles. In history their travel to the west included all of these obstacles. Yes, even jungles. There are many jungles here in the west coast, but we call them rainforests. And it wouldn't make any sense to leave jungles out.
 
Whole new units for each civ? It'ld be murder. I wouldn't mind the same units having slightly different graphics for each culture (eg; skin colour, slightly different dress) but each civ with everything different would be absolutely horrible as you wouldn't be able to tell clearly what each unit does and what their stats would be, and so forth.

PS: I agree that civs like Mexico, the Soviet Union and Cuba are absolutely overkill.
 
Back
Top Bottom