What additional civilizations do you want in Civilization 5? [Post-BNW Edition]

[JeszKar]

Even Byzantium isn't like Rome. Of course they called themselves romans but they had different culture, art, language and even religion.
Meanwhile the different Chinese dynasties ruled the same region, spoke the same or similar language also they had the old Chinese (confucianist/taoist) culture.

If they would split they should split up India.

 

[daft]

good to see some feedback on this topic. China would be with the other 3 tribes (the 3 were given as examples only) because there's no nation currently, and possibly in their plans to add to China as ancestors, sharing the same landmass and history. In case like the Chinese I grouped them with Incas, Morocco and Sumeria because when playing as one of them during a particular game you would miss the other ones, the other tribes never came into contact with the Chines(as far as I know), so grouping them together makes sense only because of Historical reasons as there are no nations closely correlating to them in the game, or planned to be added, as far as I know.
Of course China would deserve to have more than one participant in the game, due to it's complicated and very long history, but Im not sure it's feasible.
Was Charlemagne a German?
I
Yes, the Byzantines and Romans are closely related but:
Byzantines were a separate nation for close to a millennia, they did not occupy exactly the same territory, so no overlapping on Earth map, separate Unique units, a lot of separate city names, including the capital. Also Byzantium shared culture and language with the Greeks, later on in their history, to the point where it was Greek language that was the commonly used language in the country, though Latin was the official one only the nobility spoke it.
Besides Greeks and Byzantines share close geographical relation as well.
India was made up of several empires as well in history, will that be recognize? perhaps.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS TRIBE GROUPING IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THE IMPORTANT NATIONS FROM IN THE GAME NO MATTER IF THEIR TERRITORIES OVERLAPPED EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THEIR HISTORY, OR IF ONE IS THE ANCESTOR OF THE OTHER. IT SIMPLY WOULD PREVENT ANY HISTORICAL PARADOX BY HAVING BASICALLY THE SAME CIVILIZATION CO EXIST IN ANY SINGLE GAME

 

[daft]

you might be right about the Franks, not sure anymore, thought the Franks originated in France, I know that later on, practically whole Germany was called Holy Roman Empire. Got to read more about this topic.
In that case the groups would look like this:
French group- FRANCE, GALLS, NORMANDY and perhaps Burgundy
German group - GRMANY, HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, PRUSSIA and Visigoths.Is that better?
Admit, I'm a bit Eurocentric and do not know a whole lot about the history of China and India, but hey! there's always WIKIPEDIA!
So, once again, group them together if they share same land/cities and ancestry, if there are no or not enough nations to form a group this way then make sure you do not group together for example: SPAIN WITH AZTECS! I'd like to be able to to a point recreate the conflict between the 2 nations, or ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND- having them together in the same group would prevent us from squaring off Scottish Highlanders against English Heavy Horses, as only one of each nations in a group would be available to be entered in each game.
Hope somebody influential reads this stuff, might really work well.

 

[andreafin]

i wouldnt object to the tribes idea if it was an option you could uncheck. i am about to try and pick a civ to play as, and also as all of the allowable opponents; with the grouping of tribes not able to be on the map together wouldnt this disable my attempt to make a 'france' world? more than 20 napoleons about to square off!
england v scotland illustrates the point that close neighbours doesnt always mean friends lol. i would love to be able to play a game where scotland beat england, just to see how it might have been.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

ollowing that, if I wanted to recreate a historical scenario like you seem to think this would help, how can I have the 100 years war if Burgundy and France are the mutually exclusive?

Even Byzantium isn't like Rome. Of course they called themselves romans but they had different culture, art, language and even religion.
Meanwhile the different Chinese dynasties ruled the same region, spoke the same or similar language also they had the old Chinese (confucianist/taoist) culture.


If they would split they should split up India.

If this your argument, Great Britain and England rule the same region (to the same extenet Chinese dynasties changed the shape of Chine), they spoke the same language and had exectly the same culture. See also- Germany/Prussia.

And I think Mauryans/Mughals deserve to be in separately more than many of the civs we have while other Indian civs could be added as long as they provided something new (eg Venice).


I'm just opposed to the idea of having mutually exclusive civs.

 

[JeszKar]

ollowing that, if I wanted to recreate a historical scenario like you seem to think this would help, how can I have the 100 years war if Burgundy and France are the mutually exclusive?



If this your argument, Great Britain and England rule the same region (to the same extenet Chinese dynasties changed the shape of Chine), they spoke the same language and had exectly the same culture. See also- Germany/Prussia.

And I think Mauryans/Mughals deserve to be in separately more than many of the civs we have while other Indian civs could be added as long as they provided something new (eg Venice).


I'm just opposed to the idea of having mutually exclusive civs.

You see it right. I wouldn't split up Germany or England either.
For England they should have a Civ which represent the ancient Indus peoples and the modern India (this 2 can be the same CIV) and one to represent the Dravidians (Tamils for example)
I'm not sure about the Mughals. They are basicly the succesors of the Timurid who were Mongols.

 

[Krajzen]

In that case the groups would look like this:
French group- FRANCE, GALLS, NORMANDY and perhaps Burgundy
German group - GRMANY, HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, PRUSSIA and Visigoths.Is that better?

I don't think it would work - I mean, it would make sense only if we had such nitpicky division as France - Gallia - Burgundy for each civilisation. To be honest I don't see the PURPOSE of creating groups like these wait, people, really wanna see Burgundy/Prussia/south - eastern Poland/Pomerania so much, instead of many various civilisations or many interesting leaders?

Each civ game introduced something more complex with 'playable factions':

- CivI had no differences beyond purely cosmetic ones
- CivII had something more, don't remember what
- CivIII had leader personalities and unique units
- CivIV: various leaders/combinations of traits/unique buildings and techs for each nation
- CivV: custom Unique Abilities

So instead of 'simply more civs' in C6 I expect some kind of extension to this aspect of franchise.

I would love seeing something like 'Cultural Groups' - all civilisations are more or less historically divided between 'cultural groups' like Subsaharan Africa, American Indians, Orient, Western Europe and so on. Differences between civilisations in the same group are similar to these in Civ5, differences between cultural groups are much bigger.

Check Work In Progress thread of this awesome mod: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=521664

THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS TRIBE GROUPING IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THE IMPORTANT NATIONS FROM IN THE GAME NO MATTER IF THEIR TERRITORIES OVERLAPPED EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THEIR HISTORY, OR IF ONE IS THE ANCESTOR OF THE OTHER. IT SIMPLY WOULD PREVENT ANY HISTORICAL PARADOX BY HAVING BASICALLY THE SAME CIVILIZATION CO EXIST IN ANY SINGLE GAME

I don't care about that. The only purpose of group divisions like this should be more interesting gameplay. They should be based at least loosely on history/realism but this is game, not scientific paper. And I say that as usually obsessive perfectionist

Not to mention one thing - division like this cannot be 'perfectly realistic'. If you wanna to fit all civilisations (...while the term 'civilisation' is still unclear ) under one label, you will always have inaccuracies.

Yeah, you can put Rome/Byzantium or Germany/Prussia in the same 'groups'. Now, what are you going to do with Aztec and Maya/Spain and Portugal/Abbasid Caliphate and Ayyubids? They are not the same nations and all Spaniards/Portuguese would agree with this statement


Also, your whole idea is based on something similar to straw hat fallacy - you take minor paradox of few nations which interrupt each other (Rome and Byzantium, I don't even have an idea of more) and basing on this very minor thing you create whole inefficient system only to 'systematize' all civs, and you end with system which has 'Rome and Byzantium Paradox' solved but instead creates many more problems. And as I said, 99% of people - even me, and I am perfectionist who loves to analyse everything - don't care about minor paradoxes like that

 

[daft]

The whole idea's purpose is to increase the number of playable nations in the game, while excluding the paradox of closely related by ancestry, centuries of history, cultural background and close/same geography nations facing off against each other. Quite a few people would like to see Italy included, but their capital shares the same name with the Romans. Wouldn't make much sense to have 2 tribes in the same game with the same capital city name. There are 2 ways they could make it work, though, I guess.
Have one city named Rome and the other Roma, or include some sort of automatic exclusion rule, in which if Rome is included in a game then the Italians are automatically made unavailable for that game, guess this could work.
You asked what would I do with Aztecs and Maya, and others, you failed to understand the concept completely then. Nations which do not have any closely related civ included (although they could add nations like the Toltecs, Olmecs, Nazca, Moche or Tiwanaku, and others, to group with them) as in the game would be divided into groups according to the following rules:
1. no close geographical or historical relation- no contact between nations throughout history
2. nations cannot be from the same cultural group
so, in case of the Maya and Inca they would be included in SEPARATE groups, because they share the same cultural background(Mesoamerica). They would not be grouped together to make sure they can be available in every game. Same with Spain and Portugal, close geographical and historical and cultural contact between the two nations, would be in separate groups and available to face each other in the game.
I thought I was making myself clear about this in previous posts.
this would allow, 60-75 nations in(60 nations divided in 20 groups of 3, or 25 groups of 3 nations per each) and if of all those, you would not be able to play against 2 or 3 only, is that the end of the world?

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Is it the end of the world if you Italy and Rome are in the same game? Rome and Roma like you said because everything else is different. If you are playing a map with true start locations for cubs then is it really that hard to use the advanced start option to choose the civilisations you face?

 

[Krajzen]

The whole idea's purpose is to increase the number of playable nations in the game, while excluding the paradox of closely related by ancestry, centuries of history, cultural background and close/same geography nations facing off against each other.

Quite a few people would like to see Italy included, but their capital shares the same name with the Romans.

Really such a big deal? Florence was the capital of Italy for 7 years (and the symbol of Italian city states). Simply make Florence Italian capital.

I see also no problem with Constantinople/Istanbul as they are separate cities with separate history in Civ universe. Prussia can be easily made along united Germany, mod team has recently released the Indian Civs Mod which features: remade India, Maurya, Mughals, Maratha and Chola. Nobody complains. Civ4 even had Germany and Holy Roman Empire in the same time.

You asked what would I do with Aztecs and Maya, and others, you failed to understand the concept completely then. Nations which do not have any closely related civ included (although they could add nations like the Toltecs, Olmecs, Nazca, Moche or Tiwanaku, and others, to group with them) as in the game would be divided into groups according to the following rules:
1. no close geographical or historical relation- no contact between nations throughout history
2. nations cannot be from the same cultural group
so, in case of the Maya and Inca they would be included in SEPARATE groups, because they share the same cultural background(Mesoamerica). They would not be grouped together to make sure they can be available in every game. Same with Spain and Portugal, close geographical and historical and cultural contact between the two nations, would be in separate groups and available to face each other in the game.
I thought I was making myself clear about this in previous posts.
this would allow, 60-75 nations in(60 nations divided in 20 groups of 3, or 25 groups of 3 nations per each) and if of all those, you would not be able to play against 2 or 3 only, is that the end of the world?

Well, for me it seems to be ridiculously complicated and hell for modders

I wouldn't play against 2 or 3 civs - so to sum up... You invent the entire sophisticated civ grouping system basing on historiosophy and ethnic/cultural divisions only to make 2 civs NOT showing up?

The only problem I see is Rome/Italy which can be solved by Florence as Italian capital (which was historical fact in 1864 - 1871). The end. No need for creating TWENTY FIVE GRUPS and inventing countless new rules of dividing and distributing civilisations

You know what would be happen after the release of Civ game with such mechanism? Immediately someone would create a mod 'No Group Restrictions' which would allow on wars between Rome and Italy and so on. I have seen countless mods created only to get rid of arbitrary restrictions.


Gameplay>Historic realism. Simplicity>Needless complications.

The only grouping system which IMHO makes sense and actually enhances gameplay is diving all civs by 'Cultural Groups' - Western, Oriental, African and so on.

 

[daft]

well, I wrote about dividing nations into cultural groups a long time ago, in a different ideas thread.
Here are the groupings I came up with, 29 groups of 3 tribes each for a total of 87 nations, with a total limit of 29 nations in play at the start of each game. Nations with 1 in front of them would have 3 great leaders available, 3 unique units, 3 unique buildings and 3 own wonders, number 2 nations 2 of each and third ranked nations 1 of each only- this due to their significance in history.
This totals up: 87 nations, 174 leaders, 174 unique units, 174 unique buildings, 174 unique wonders, not too shabby.
Here it is, think of it what you will:
Groups:
ONE: 1 ROME 2 ITALY 3 VENICE
TWO: 1 GREECE 2 MACEDONIA 3 MINOANS
THREE: 1 CHINA 2 ? 3?- the other 2 nations-like Han, or Ming, or Qing, or Tang-would be China based
FOUR: 1. INDIA 2 MAURYANS 3 MUGHAL(or Harsha, or other Indian empire of the past)
FIVE: 1.EGYPT 2 SIAM 3 SHAWNEE- chose Shawnee here, instead of Cherokee, or other native north American tribe because of their great chief-Tecumseh.
SIX 1. GREAT BRITAIN 2 ENGLAND 3 TIBET
SEVEN 1FRANCE 2 GAUL 3 NORMANDY
EIGHT: 1 GERMANY 2 HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE 3 GOTHS
NINE: 1. RUSSIA 2 KIYEVAN RUS 3 BULGARIA- I know, all of them might be in together, but is it realistic?
TEN: 1 BYZANTIUM 2 PRUSSIA 3 IROQUOIS
ELEVEN: 1 ARABIA 2 ? 3? - two other Arabic nations, after the collapse of their empire, there were several to choose from, like the Mamluks
TWELVE: 1 TURKEY(Ottomans) 2 ZULU 3 POLYNESIA.
THIRTEEN: 1 BABYLON 2 SUMERIA 3 SIOUX- Babylon and sumeria together, reason? more cities available to each( sharing of city names)
FOURTEEN: 1 AUSTRIA or AUSTRO-HUNGARY 2 HUNGARY 3 AVARS- the barbarian Avars inhabited the lands of modern day Hungary(among others)- and I know, Austria and Hungary together? well, they were a single nation for quite a while
FIFTEEN: 1 USA 2 PHOENICIA 3 KHAZARS- us never met any of these, different eras
SIXTEEN: 1 NETHERLANDS 2 HITTITES 3 BELGIUM
SEVENTEEN: 1 VIKINGS 2 DENMARK 3 NORWAY- I know, Norway and Denmark, why? common ancestry with Vikings
EIGHTEEN: 1 ETHIOPIA 2 SCOTLAND 3 NUBIA
NINETEEN: 1 MOROCCO 2 KOREA 3 SONGHAI- korea could be number one here, not sure
TWENTY: 1 MONGOLIA 2 TATARS 3 HUNS
TWENTY ONE: 1 PERSIA 2 IRAN 3 ? perhaps one of: Medeans, Parthia or Elam
TWENTY TWO: 1 JAPAN 2 CELTS 3 IRELAND(or Wales)
TWENTY THREE: 1 SPAIN 2 SCYTHIANS 3 AUSTRALIA
TWENTY FOUR: 1 INCA 2 ISRAEL 3 CONGO
TWENTY FIVE: 1 AZTECA 2 MEXICO 3 SWITZERLAND
TWENTY SIX: 1 MAYA 2 POLAND 3 MALI
TWENTY SEVEN: 1 ASSYRIA 2 BRAZIL 3 INDONESIA
TWENTY EIGHT: 1 PORTUGAL 2 ARMENIA 3 APACHE
TWENTY NINE: 1 SWEDEN 2 THRACIANS(or LITHUANIA) 3 CANADA
there you go, ancestry or descendants included in same group, non historical contact also inclusive, no cultural or historical connection allowed in same group, well, with exceptions.
If I omitted any nations, which might have happened, accept my apologies.
Furthermore on this idea, number one nations in their group would have a higher chance of being chosen as your opponent then the second or third seed, ratio: rank 1:43%, 2: 33%, 3rd:23%.
nations with 3 leaders- Leader number one: 4 traits, second leader: 3 traits, 3rd with 2 traits only.
nations with 2 leaders(ranked second in their respective group), leader 1-3 traits, leader 2- 2 traits
nations with only 1 leader- 2 traits for the leader, also these leaders would be selected upon the same system as the nations: top leader with 43% chance of being chosen by AI, second with 33% and so on.
This is just a draft plan, nations and ranking might get re-worked.
Again, PLAYERS WANT MORE TRIBES INCLUDED! this plan allows nations like for example: ancient Persia and contemporary Iran to be included in the game, doing it any other way, to me, is anti historical.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

You want this system because you think it will help the historical aspect?

1, Italy representing Florence/Tuscany/whatever in a Renaissance Med game will also feature Venice.
2, The rise of Philip and Alexander will feature Greece and Macedonia
3, I'd need examples
6, Colonial period Asia will have 2 of those.
7, Europe just before Norman conquest would have Normandy/France separate.
9, Bulgaria could be in a scenario with either of those.
11, see 3.
13, Any ancient scenario needs Babylon and Sumeria regardless of city lists.
14, Before the austrian empire/after Austro-Hungary.
16, Belgiuma and Netherlands are quite different and have been for a long time. Ask anyone.
17, Why bother having Norway and Denmark separate if they can't play together? You may as well just make one civ ratehr than 3.
18, Don't try and pretend Ethiopia and Nubia are the same.
19, Read up on history. Morocco invaded the Songhai.
20, Mongolia and the Tatars were different people of the same period.
27, My personal choice for a modern world scenario would have Brazil and Indonesia.

If players want more civs included as you say, why can't more civs simply be included? Civ isn't supposed to be historical. And if it was, see above for reasons your system fails.

 

[Krajzen]

well, I wrote about dividing nations into cultural groups a long time ago, in a different ideas thread.
Here are the groupings I came up with, 29 groups of 3 tribes each for a total of 87 nations, with a total limit of 29 nations in play at the start of each game. Nations with 1 in front of them would have 3 great leaders available, 3 unique units, 3 unique buildings and 3 own wonders, number 2 nations 2 of each and third ranked nations 1 of each only- this due to their significance in history.
This totals up: 87 nations, 174 leaders, 174 unique units, 174 unique buildings, 174 unique wonders, not too shabby.

Currently it took few years to release 43 civilisations with 43 leaders and 86 unique units. Best mod team need something like few weeks to release high quality civilisation (without animated leaderscreen and voice ). Good luck with creating for 2x number of nations, 4x number of (animated, right?) leaders and 6x number of unique interesting features (with 3d models and so on, right?). One of the most awesome features of modding experience is that it allows on better understanding how games and their design works. Your demand is completely and entirely unrealistic, and even if it would be done I am pretty sure players would prefer to have few times less features - but these features being truly truly high quality and unique. No, resources of designers are not infinite. Firaxis, big rich professional team, makes one leaderscreen in 4 weeks and I am currently observing the amateur process of creation of animated leaderscreen which is such a sophisticated process that it takes weeks and only ONE single person in our communiy [Ekmek] has the ability to do that.

And if you wanna to sacrifice animated leaderscreen and truly unique civilisations mechanics introduced by Civ5, why do we need all these boring low quality civilisations? Because doing all of that in time frame shorter than 5 years alone would require great sacrifice of quality.

There is a mod project in C&C in which I am helping, which aims at adding new unique feature to each original civ. HIGH QUALITY feature, not some crap as 'this unit will have recycled art and reused trait' - high quality art, 3d models and unique abilities. It has been taking something like half of a year and is close to finish but not completed yet.

Realism, my friend, realism.

Here it is, think of it what you will:
Groups:
ONE: 1 ROME 2 ITALY 3 VENICE
TWO: 1 GREECE 2 MACEDONIA 3 MINOANS

You have just made 'ancient scenario' with Rome, Greece, Macedonia and Minoans impossible

FOUR: 1. INDIA 2 MAURYANS 3 MUGHAL(or Harsha, or other Indian empire of the past)

Currently More Civs team has released India Civilisations Pack with India, Maurya, Mughals, Chola and Maratha. Creating this one took them a lot of time but the result is awesome - do I have to mention that nobody has a problem with all these civs being in the same game and many people love playing 'full India' games? You restrict mods and players' freedom, and these guys don't like that. The first thing to appear for this game would be a mod which removes all group restrictions.

FIVE: 1.EGYPT 2 SIAM 3 SHAWNEE- chose Shawnee here, instead of Cherokee, or other native north American tribe because of their great chief-Tecumseh.

Wait. What Egypt, Siam and Shawnee have in common? Oh and I wanna to play with Egypt and Siam in the same game

SIX 1. GREAT BRITAIN 2 ENGLAND 3 TIBET

Who in Eath needs both UK and England in civ game at all, instead of for example England and exotic interesting nation as Srivivaya Empire?

NINE: 1. RUSSIA 2 KIYEVAN RUS 3 BULGARIA- I know, all of them might be in together, but is it realistic?

You have just killed my medieval scenario with Kievan Rus and Bulgaria.

TEN: 1 BYZANTIUM 2 PRUSSIA 3 IROQUOIS

People wanna to have Byzantium, Prussia and Iroquis in the same game (what these all nations have in common???)

TWELVE: 1 TURKEY(Ottomans) 2 ZULU 3 POLYNESIA.

People wanna to have Ottomans, Zulu and Polynesia in the same game. You destroy their freedom.

THIRTEEN: 1 BABYLON 2 SUMERIA 3 SIOUX- Babylon and sumeria together, reason? more cities available to each( sharing of city names)

You have just killed Mesopotamia scenario. Oh, and cities are absolutely no problem.

FOURTEEN: 1 AUSTRIA or AUSTRO-HUNGARY 2 HUNGARY 3 AVARS- the barbarian Avars inhabited the lands of modern day Hungary(among others)- and I know, Austria and Hungary together? well, they were a single nation for quite a while

You have just killed medieval scenario with Austria and Hungary/Avars, and annoyed the entire Hungarian nation which fought for centuries to release from Austrian regime and now falls into the same 'cultural group'

FIFTEEN: 1 USA 2 PHOENICIA 3 KHAZARS- us never met any of these, different eras

People wanna to have USA, Phoenicia and Khazars in the same game. And I still don't understand whether your division tries to group civs with different or similar history. For me it seems that it randomly mixes everything

SIXTEEN: 1 NETHERLANDS 2 HITTITES 3 BELGIUM

You have just murdered European scenario with both Netherlands and Belgium.

SEVENTEEN: 1 VIKINGS 2 DENMARK 3 NORWAY- I know, Norway and Denmark, why? common ancestry with Vikings

Who in Earth needs all these three Viking nations in the same Civ game, instead of Viking Naval Superpower, Kilwa Loose Trading Confederation and Golden Orde Steppe Empire?

EIGHTEEN: 1 ETHIOPIA 2 SCOTLAND 3 NUBIA

Oh, you have just killed my African mod with both Nubia and Ethiopia.

NINETEEN: 1 MOROCCO 2 KOREA 3 SONGHAI- korea could be number one here, not sure

The same thing with Morocco and Songhai - people wanna to have both these nations.

TWENTY: 1 MONGOLIA 2 TATARS 3 HUNS

Asian scenario...

TWENTY ONE: 1 PERSIA 2 IRAN 3 ? perhaps one of: Medeans, Parthia or Elam

Asian/ancient scenario...

TWENTY FOUR: 1 INCA 2 ISRAEL 3 CONGO

Very popular nations. Congratulations, you have just forbidden players from playing all of them in the single game

TWENTY SIX: 1 MAYA 2 POLAND 3 MALI

Again, very popular nations. I am Polish and I love my civ being in game. Also I am the fan of Mali and Maya. Oh, and these nations have absolutely nothing in common.

there you go, ancestry or descendants included in same group, non historical contact also inclusive, no cultural or historical connection allowed in same group, well, with exceptions.

Read it slowly. To sum up, you randomly mixed all civilisations - some of them are ancestors, some have merely cultural links, some have 'historical connection', some are forbidden from having cultural links, some are randomly mixed based on 'non historical contact' (???), and there are also exceptions! You have just basically proven that this entire system cannot be applied universally to the game, it has some exceptions and ridiculous rules, is counterintuitive and apparently understood and liked only by you

Furthermore on this idea, number one nations in their group would have a higher chance of being chosen as your opponent then the second or third seed, ratio: rank 1:43%, 2: 33%, 3rd:23%.
nations with 3 leaders- Leader number one: 4 traits, second leader: 3 traits, 3rd with 2 traits only.
nations with 2 leaders(ranked second in their respective group), leader 1-3 traits, leader 2- 2 traits
nations with only 1 leader- 2 traits for the leader, also these leaders would be selected upon the same system as the nations: top leader with 43% chance of being chosen by AI, second with 33% and so on.

Ridiculous complications, hell for modders and scenarios, great potential of programming bugs and glitches, annoying fanbase by supporting some civs while penalizing others.

Again, PLAYERS WANT MORE TRIBES INCLUDED! this plan allows nations like for example: ancient Persia and contemporary Iran to be included in the game, doing it any other way, to me, is anti historical.

Players want more diverse set of civs and better gameplay. They don't wanna Lesser Poland, Greater Poland, Masovia, Pomerania, Silesia, Roztocze, Belarus, the Empire of Lublin, Polish People's Republic, Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth and pre - Polish ancient Slavic culture of Biskupin being in the same game. They wanna Persia, Kongo, Vietnam, Cahokia and Tibet. Each of these civs - as diverse and interesting as possible. And they want simple yet deep mechanisms, not ridiculously convoluted rankings, divisions, groupings, percentage chances, unclear categories and quantity over quality.


And above all, people wanna fun and freedom while playing 'empire simulator' - your division takes part of this freedom away. Oh, and believe me, mod community would hate this entire system

 

[JeszKar]

Here is two question for you. I'd like to know what you think about it.
1. In a next CIV game which civs should represent the Native Americans?
The Iroquies is a clear chose. They were kinda important, they had cities and I can image them as a nation. But what about the other civs? A lot of them were nomadic tribes and it's making them not suitable for a CIV game as a playable civilization even if they were important (Sioux, Comanches, Apaches).

2. Are they should split up Polynesia?
I realized Polynesia is an unique civ had an impressive navigation system and they should be in the game. But how? There wasn’t an united Polynesian empire or even a confederation but the people of Polynesia have similar language and culture. The most important Polynesian cultures were the Hawaii and the Tonga but they are historically not very significant in their own right.

 

[phaethon16]

I could see them going with the Iroquois or the Cherokee as their first choice. They were both settled, sophisticated, and had achievements that didn't just revolve around fighting off the encroaching waves of settlers. I think that the more nomadic types come second or third. As for Polynesia, it doesn't make sense to split them up. Personally, I think they did a good job in bringing together elements from all parts of Polynesia in one comprehensive civ. (Hawaiian leader, New Zealand UU, universal UA, and Easter Island UI.) I think it would be hard to represent just one individual part of Polynesia, and since even though they were never technically unified they still had strong cultural bonds, I think the civ works as it is.

 

[awesome]

i like the idea of grouping and how it allows you to have italy in the game as a modern rome, but it needs to be polished a lot more. as it stands now, you can imagine that venetia decided to break away from rome or something like that, so it works, even if it might not have worked out like that in real life if rome had still existed. however, that's all part of the what if that is great about this series. what if carthage was able to hold off rome and survive, but rome still reached the british isles and england still became a thing? england might not have had contact with carthage, but they definitely had contact with tunisia, which is where carthage was. that tells me that if carthage were somehow able to survive, the two would've had contact.

 

[JeszKar]

I could see them going with the Iroquois or the Cherokee as their first choice. They were both settled, sophisticated, and had achievements that didn't just revolve around fighting off the encroaching waves of settlers. I think that the more nomadic types come second or third. As for Polynesia, it doesn't make sense to split them up. Personally, I think they did a good job in bringing together elements from all parts of Polynesia in one comprehensive civ. (Hawaiian leader, New Zealand UU, universal UA, and Easter Island UI.) I think it would be hard to represent just one individual part of Polynesia, and since even though they were never technically unified they still had strong cultural bonds, I think the civ works as it is.

But how would you include nomadic tribe into game which based around city buildings. I mean they can come up with a "Hunnic solution" but come on. The nomadic civs should work differently and I don't think they would fit in a CIV game as a main playable civilization.

And for Polynesia I suggested the split because I read a few complaint about the civ. I even heard at some point it's bascily the Native American Empire all over again.

 

[phaethon16]

There are a few ways that nomadic civs could be included. First of all, many nomadic civs could be given cities, because some nomadic peoples have various outposts, gathering points, or even established towns that could serve as cities. The second way is that if it's a civ like the Sioux, which has several tribal branches on its inside, you could have a capital like "The Council Fire," and then the cities would be names of the various Sioux factions. Another option is that you could have a system where a nomadic civ wouldn't necessarily found cities like most, but instead have one permanent capital and the rest of their cities would disband after a certain amount of turns. There would be some sort of benefit gained upon the disbanding of a city, and the tiles would stay owned by your civ, but something along those lines could become a really unique and strange civ. Lastly, you could have a system like the Mongols had in a civ 4 scenario, where you have a camp style unit which would occasionally give you free units and other bonuses, and you use those units to conquer a CS or something as your capital. I'm sure there are other ideas, but those are a few I had.

As for Polynesia, it's a little blobby, but no more than the Celts really. I think that so long as a blob civ pays tribute to each of the three or so civs it represents and those civs wouldn't be included individually, then it's ok. For example, I wouldn't mind it if they made a Kongo civ that combined Kongo, Matamba, and Ngola. You could have Kongo on its own, but since all three civs were reasonably close in location and culture, you could take what you wanted from each, combine them, and have one cohesive civ that's fair in representing all of them. Polynesia is no where near as bad as Native America, because Native America can legitimately be split up into several civs. Polynesia brings to the table cultures that would otherwise go unrepresented.

 

[outlaw22]

Israel and Iran. it would make an awesome scenario with Iran building nukes and Israel trying to stop them but must gain the support of the un to declare war. it might be controversial but it's just a game get over it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daft]

all right, a response to post by; Krajzen
first of all, like I mentioned, all groupings and nations are just a proposal, not saying all these nations are in, and all in specific groups, as suggested.
My friend, wanna to have is not proper English.
You must be the only one out there who still doesn't get why non related nations find themselves in the same groups. This happens when there are no significant nations to add to an existing number 1 nation in it's group. Only the historically significant nations in history of civilization get to have 1 or 2 culturally and by ascendancy/descendancy closely related additional nations in their group, this includes great nations of history like: Greece, Rome(Italy), France, Germany, Great Britain, China, India and Scandinavia, your Poland is not divided up because in historically they do not deserve to! YOU MENTION SCENARIOS? GROUPINGS WOULD NOT APPLY TO SCENARIOS! ONLY TO THE MAIN GAME. SCENARIOS WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN TIME PERIOD AND GEOGRAPHICALLY CORRECT TRIBES INCLUDED, RIGHT? so your argument about this affecting scenarios in any way, shape or form is quite senseless. Did I divide your Poland into subgroups? I do not think so, so your text there makes little sense, why would I add Pomerania or Silesia in, like you jokingly suggested? they are historically quite insignificant.
why group nations which have nothing in common together you ask? so that when you play them you would not cry over the fact that these in reality fought a large scale war in real history but you can't face off against them in the game because they are in the same group. simply put, as Poland you would not be able to play only against Maya and Mali, with whom Poland never had any or very little contact historically, at the same time you could square off your beloved Poland against all other all other 83 nations available. You'd also get 2 great leaders and 2 unique units, buildings, and wonders because your nation's second in their group, there ain't no way Poland deserves to be number one in a group, or would you also demand that being changed?
Why assign some nations 3 leaders and uniques each, while others get 2 or 1 of each only? First reason is that for some tribes it could be difficult to come up with 3 of each of these. Second reason is simply: Due to their historical significance! so that, for example, the Zulu would have a lot more trouble trying to conquer the historically far more advanced, both culturally and militarily, Rome! or other nonsense like that.
All other arguments are viable, make good sense.
I know this is basically unrealistic, 87 nations and all that, just a proposal, that's all,
I know the plan will more than likely fail, it's only a concept.
Ps. I do read about history, am I Eurocentric? definitely. The previous post mentions Songhai vs Morocco, and to read up on history, after that you typed that CIV game is not supposed to be historical, you are contradicting yourself, dude.