The Celts.

[plasmacannon]

They could have made Gaul a seperate Empire.
That way the Celts and Gaul would have been 2 different Empires.
Civ could have Boudica of the Celts and Brennus of the Gauls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul

I would have also liked to see Alfred the Great, of England.
Alfred would have traits like [CRE/PRO], for example, for spreading the English language and building walls around cities to make Viking attacks less successful.

 

[revengeofmakno]

Iroquois and/or Sioux should be in at a minimum. Apache, Haida, Seminole, Cherokee, Navajo, Shawnee in at a stretch. Choctaw, Cree, Metis, Eskimo, Aleut, Tlingit not inconceivable. Crow, Inuit, Pequot, Mohegan, Huron pushing it. All the others are beyond Civ terms.

I am all in favour of throwing out the "Native American" mishmash civ and bringing in a selection of distinct NorthAm Civs with their specific traits. Too bad there does not seem to be more constructive discussion about it. Given that, one has to be careful. The line can be meaningfully drawn at those that were extremely small in number and/or did not establish permanent or long standing settlements. Then, with respect to the World map, the choices can be further limited by geography. For example, the Choctaw, Cherokee and Seminole would be very close to each other. Likewise, it would be awkward to take more than one from a particular language family. All due respect to those who are thereby out.

The Iroquois are a very logical choice, easy to move into the game and given that their language is related to the Cherokee and the Hurons, that would push those others out.

The Haida are a very interesting group in game terms but they were and are tiny in number. If we bring them in, then start placing civs on the pacific islands, all over Asia and many other places.

 

[plasmacannon]

You are from Canada, should we bring in the Inuit?
Start them with Fishing and Hunting techs.
Maybe, give them a UU of a workboat that grants +1 food?
Spiritual/Charasmatic traits?

 

[revengeofmakno]

You are from Canada, should we bring in the Inuit?
Start them with Fishing and Hunting techs.
Maybe, give them a UU of a workboat that grants +1 food?
Spiritual/Charasmatic traits?

Well, let's have a go at it.
The challenge with the Inuit in game terms is that we are talking about a people that only recently took up the idea of truly permanent settlements and permanent buildings. Also, they are culturally and technologically focussed on tundra and water areas that give major challenges in terms of game hammers. What kind of a start would that give them there or anywhere else?
It's going to be a stretch but it would fill in a gap on the world map and be interesting to play.

Hunting and Fishing for sure as techs, maybe mysticism. UU as a kayak that fishes (efficient workboat as you suggest) or some kind of warrior or amphibious scout that can cross water tiles, or perhaps a modern UU as the paramilitary rangers that are recruited from them. Infantry with snowmobiles and good in tundra?? Tough call, maybe the kayak or scout is better. Since they will need production, maybe their kayak/workboat yields hammers (in the form of whale and walrus bones with they being allowed early access to the whale resource).

UB? Well, there could be their stone markers/monuments I suppose which would add what useful game bonus exactly? Alternatively and this might go somewhere, they did, at times build large communal igloos to facilitate social activities such as feasts, singing and well, use your imagination... (Inuit humour is really X-rated by many cultural standards.). Since it facilitated procreation, that might give us a granary equivalent that yields happiness as well.

Leaders?? Have to look into that, spiritual seems logical along with charisma or maybe creative.

I guess it is do-able. Sounds like fun.

 

[plasmacannon]

Their UB could be a varient of the Dutch UB, only on Ice tiles and food instead of hammers.
This way a watermilled river/ice tile would produce 1f3h. They could still get hammers from lumbermilled tundra/forest tiles.
A happy Granary sounds good. They wouldn't have to deal with flood plains and jungle, so, more health wouldn't make since.

As the Celts are to hill regions, Aztecs to forest/jungle regions,
Inuit would be to Ice regions.
I like the idea.

Now, is there a desert hunter empire to gain +1 food from desert tiles?
Maybe, an African tribe from the Sahara?
No. Better yet, the Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal) from Australia!
They, could have a spearman UU requiring no resourse and maybe 25% less cost.
and give the Maya back their atl-atl from Civ3, with first strike this time.

Interesting.

The way Civ4 made the Incas so, powerful, these other empires would do well in their part of the world.

 

[Modder_Mode]

They could have made Gaul a seperate Empire.
That way the Celts and Gaul would have been 2 different Empires.
Civ could have Boudica of the Celts and Brennus of the Gauls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul

I would have also liked to see Alfred the Great, of England.
Alfred would have traits like [CRE/PRO], for example, for spreading the English language and building walls around cities to make Viking attacks less successful.

Agreed Celts and Gaul should be seperate, althought they do share simularities it may have been the reason why this was not done.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Can we send U2 back please? The Boomtown Rats were good though.

The Boomtown Rats! Bah I decry (belatedly) your taste in music. Phil Lynnot, Horslips and Christy FTW.

 

[Bowsling]

It's not like the Irish ever did anything particularly noteworthy. It's nice that the Celtic units speak Irish though

Maybe you should read How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill.

Austria: really just part of Germany if you think about it. They speak German there, you know.
Hungary: was part of Austria for most of its existence if I remember correctly
Poland:
Macedonia: Yeah, while we're at it, we should have separate playable civs for ALL of the Greek states! Athens, Sparta, Delphi, Corinth, Thrace...

America: Really just part of England if you think about it. They speak English there, you know.
Evidently you don't remember correctly about Hungary
I don't understand why you laugh at Poland. Have you looked at a map of Europe 1600 AD? Have you read about the Siege of Vienna?

 

[plasmacannon]

Maybe you should read How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill.
America: Really just part of England if you think about it. They speak English there, you know.
Evidently you don't remember correctly about Hungary
I don't understand why you laugh at Poland. Have you looked at a map of Europe 1600 AD? Have you read about the Siege of Vienna?

Yea. I agree, sounds pretty ignorant.
Delphi? Thrace? Who would want to play those? Who would have a clue as to an importantance they would have as seperate "Empires", except, for those residing in that region?

If one is going to do seperate countries as Empires, one could consider Mexico.
America did have a few wars with them.
Under Presidents James Polk (Democrat) and Zachary Taylor (Whig), we annexed Texas, which Mexico didn't take kindly to.
Then, California, and most of the Western States.

Mexico would be different than the Aztecs.
Give them a UB courthouse that costs less but, only provides -30% reduction.
Or connect their coliseum to the futbol fans, and give them +1 happiness, +1 more from hit singles. They do have a famous Announcer, who can say "Goal" and make it last for about a minute or two.

Maybe, IMP/SPI to explain their size, even thought the got that big initially, because, of Spain.
I saw a History Channel Special where they showed Mexican Lancers (basically, knights) charging American troops (basically, musketmen). We lost 6 soldiers do to the slow reload times of those ancient guns.

I can't see every seperate country having an Empire in a Civ game, but, others could be added. I mean America didn't fight an Aztec-American War.
There was a Mexican-American War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

 

[none]

Agreed Celts and Gaul should be seperate, althought they do share simularities it may have been the reason why this was not done.

You realize that Celts and Gauls are roughly the same? Gauls were a Celtic people, the opposition you are underlining is the one between continental Celts and insular Celtic populations (mainly linguistic variations, nothing that can be compared to the differences between Native American cultures). To go around giving them different names for the purpose of a game like Civ 4 would be a bit odd to say the least.

For the record, Celts don't originate from the British Isles or Ireland.

 

[Skwink]

You realize that Celts and Gauls are roughly the same? Gauls were a Celtic people, the opposition you are underlining is the one between continental Celts and insular Celtic populations (mainly linguistic variations, nothing that can be compared to the differences between Native American cultures). To go around giving them different names for the purpose of a game like Civ 4 would be a bit odd to say the least.

For the record, Celts don't originate from the British Isles or Ireland.

So the Irish and Gaul's culture is very similar?

 

[i_imperator]

The Celts originate from the area called La Tene,in Switzerland. they eventually spread out across europe until Julius Ceasar defeated vercingetorix and the celts. The Gauls were from modern day Germany. They were considered as barbs to the romans and they eventually sacked Rome.

And Alexander didn't create the empire of Macedonia. Macedonia and Greece were made up of city states which ruled themselves (such as Athens and Sparta).He was responsible for the conquest of Persia(modern day Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia), Egypt, and even all the way to India. His father King Philip, brought the city states of Greece, and macedonia together to fight off the Persians. Philip was then assassinated by one of his bodygurads. It is thought that alexander payed the bodyguard to assassinate his father so he could take his place and start his conquests.

I used to read the horrible history books as a kid, so that's how i know that (And thanks to wiki). And we had to study the Celts as part of my art history course last year.

 

[none]

@Skwink Caesar: they had much in common (more than most Native American people that have been mentioned in this thread).

@stevoh: let's bear in mind that Gaul was made up of most of France, Northern Italy, Switzerland and a large part of the Netherlands and Germany. Brennus defeated the Romans around 390 BC whereas Julius Caesar defeated Vercingetorix in 52 BC.