No I know they're not game-killing; none of the things I listed are except possibly the corporations (and espionage if like me you like Marathon), but my point is, what's the point in official expansions if the quality isn't superior to that of the fan-made mods? OK, mostly, it is, but still, Firaxis were just lazy with many aspects of BtS.
The nations civs that you want for the next expansion of civ4
- Thread starter silvio82
- Start date
No I know they're not game-killing; none of the things I listed are except possibly the corporations (and espionage if like me you like Marathon), but my point is, what's the point in official expansions if the quality isn't superior to that of the fan-made mods? OK, mostly, it is, but still, Firaxis were just lazy with many aspects of BtS.
Oh, come on, it's pretty good, though, isn't it?
I know I don't regret a single cent I spent on it
azzaman333
meh
There is so much in the expansion that any minor shortcomings graphics and bugs wise I don't really care about.
Oh, come on, it's pretty good, though, isn't it?
I know I don't regret a single cent I spent on it
Well I do think it's good, I just think Firaxis should have put as much effort as we know they could have done.
LAnkou
Breizh A Tao
Vatican, Andorre, Micronesia and Pitcairns Island are must have for the next Expansion
another choice could be Penguin from antartica, but that's too controversial because of USA (come on, how could you let seals attack poor pingus)
another choice could be Penguin from antartica, but that's too controversial because of USA (come on, how could you let seals attack poor pingus)
What's the point? If there's nothing left to add why revamp the series yet again? Civilization IV is the only Civilization game I've played, so I'm not familiar with the changes made between Civ III and Civ IV first hand, but I've read some of them, and I can't see what's left to improve upon so drastically that a Civ 5 is in order anytime soon. But I really hope that they take the game in a new direction. Otherwise all the game will be is Civilization IV with enhanced graphics, but otherwise we'll be seeing, Spain, England, France, China, India, Japan, Persia, Egypt... again and again and again with leaders such as Catherine, Elizabeth, Julius Caesar, and Isabella, again, with perhaps only some of the more obscure civs being changed (Austria instead of the Holy Roman Empire, Songhai instead of Mali, Iroquois instead of "Native Americans," etc.)
seasnake
Conquistador
Moors
Khazars
Israelis
Hittites
Pacific Islanders
Gran Colombia
Kongo
Lithuania-Poland
I can't think of anything else, really. I'm already pretty satisfied, but I would like more obviously. More content generally makes replay a lot of fun.
I believe the first four on the list would be the "vital" civs in any new expansion pack. However, I wouldn't buy an XP with four civs and nothing else, so they'll probably have to get it up to at least six (like warlords).
Khazars
Israelis
Hittites
Pacific Islanders
Gran Colombia
Kongo
Lithuania-Poland
I can't think of anything else, really. I'm already pretty satisfied, but I would like more obviously. More content generally makes replay a lot of fun.
I believe the first four on the list would be the "vital" civs in any new expansion pack. However, I wouldn't buy an XP with four civs and nothing else, so they'll probably have to get it up to at least six (like warlords).
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Venezuela
Italy
Nubia
Maasai
Hittites
Assyria
Vietnam
Italy
Nubia
Maasai
Hittites
Assyria
Vietnam
AlessioCerci
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 416
^^thats a bit harsh. And this thread is so pointless for two reasons. 1. theres already about 9463496876365764357 ones like it and 2.theres unlikely 2 b another Xpansion.
NecroAngel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 47
You win this thread.
Anyway, yes, they shouldn't include too many countries... but if they do, meh, who cares. Not like adding them really harms anyone. In any case, Israel. I'd rather not have them include the Israelites and whatnot, just modern Israel. And their UU would be a modern thing, like a Merkava tank, or some special kind of missile.
As for all the controversy issues. I really wish they'd not worry about that and just go for it and add Hitler and such. As for Israel being classed as 'aggressive,' I think that'd be good. They are indeed aggressive... but that's not bad, at all. They act in self-defence aggressively instead of being all politically correct and actually listening to the UN.
Israel = Aggressive and Militaristic
Finland = Militaristic (they have mandatory military service OMGWTF) and Creative (Nokia, Linux!)
Or maybe they could have more than one leader, one Militaristic and Protective, and one Militaristic and Creative...
Finland = Militaristic (they have mandatory military service OMGWTF) and Creative (Nokia, Linux!)
Or maybe they could have more than one leader, one Militaristic and Protective, and one Militaristic and Creative...
There is no such thing as a Militaristic trait. Do you mean aggressive? Finland isn't aggressive AFAIK.
hdezcanton
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3
Don't we have enough already?
Then there always will be people miffed because their country/heritage isn't represented. I guess next Expansion/Mod/Civ Game should let player customize their own civ... Make everyone happy
This actually might not be a bad idea.
However, I hate the fact that only one spanish speaking civilization exists, therefore I nominate:
Latin America w/ 2 possible leaders
* Simon Bolivar - Charismatic and Expansive. Special Unit: Llanero (Mounted Musketman w/ +1 movement)
* Che Guevara - Charismatic and Aggressive. Special Unit: Guerillero (+2 Marine w/ automatic woodsman promotion)
I also think the following additions might be interesting: Israel (w/ Solomon), Papal States (special unit: Swiss Guards), and Berbers (special units : Marmalukes and Corsairs),
on a side note: why couldnt Paganism/Animism be added as the earliest religious option?
At the risk of sounding controversial... why do so many people insist on Israel being in the game? Sure, they're a focus of a lot of media attention these days, but that's only because of the vested interest the West has in them. Population wise, they have 7 million (acc. to Wikipedia), which is roughly equal to Scotland, and nowhere near other nations which aren't in the game (Poland, Ukraine, Mexico, Pakistan, Brazil etc.). Sure, they stand out in the middle east as being non-islamic but as there are no modern islamic nations in the game either its not as if that's actually differentiating themselves from anything. The only reason I can think of is it would actually allow a historically accurrate Jewish state to exist.
azzaman333
meh
Which is technically represented by the Judaism religion.
Similar threads
