What civilizations do you miss in BTS?

[blacktrance]

I'd like to see Austria, Poland, Portugal, and Israel.

 

[TheLastOne36]

No, it wasn't- Israel was a minor near-Eastern state that spent the vast majority of it's history divided or, more often, under someone else's control, while Ethiopia was the dominant power in East Africa for centuries. The only time Israel even came close to rivaling Ethiopia's importance was the relatively short lived United Monarchy, which lasted from about 1050BC to 930BC. After that, it was divided into Israel and Judea, until the conquest of Israel in 722BC and Judea in 586 BC.
The importance of Israel is not as great is as sometimes percieved in the West, due to their important in the Bible. In reality, they were no more significant than any other small state in the region- Armenia, Elam and Media are just as deserving of inclusion, while the Hitties and Assyrians are far more so. (I'd also throw in the Phoenicians, but Carthage represents the most successful Phoenician state, if not the actual region of Phoenicia.)

Your giving them to much credit comparing them with Armenia. lol.

 

[ComradeGeneral]

Poland Poland Poland Poland
I'm getting tired of hearing it. Just give it to them so they can all just whine about including another civilization.
And Yes, Ethiopia would be more important than Israel as we wouldn't even be talking about it if it wasn't for Judaism and later on Christianity as a result.

 

[picnicboy]

"Canada"? Why?

Israel, yeah... I don't think it would work out, politically.
"Imperialistic, Aggressive" or "Industrious, Protective"?

I think that most of history's great powers should be represented in the game...

I, as a Swede, would love to see more Northern European states. Being able to play games with all the nations you share some history with would be awesome.
If the next expansion would include Imperial Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark-Norway and, to a lesser extent, Prussia, I would surely be happy.

Though it don't have to be all Imperial Sweden. Divide it in three parts.
Imperial Sweden with Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XI or Charles XII as ruler;
The Enlightened Absolute Monarchy with Gustav III, and;
Modern Sweden with Louis De Geer (Representation), Hjalmar Branting (Universal Suffrage), Per Albin Hansson (Protective guy) or Olof Palme (Charismatic fella).

 

[Saim]

I think they should remove England entirely and replace it with Poland.

... Your kidding right?

Wikipictures i believe. I got maps there to. I'll provide links.



Maya is southern mexico, Guatamala, and Honduras. (btw Arronax you forgot to color Belize as maya.



I have a friend from Sri Lanka, He hates being called "an Indian"
And a Pakistani would hate it even more. What I'm saying is that Firaxis seems to be representing the Indian Subcontinent, rather than India as a nation (Lahore is a city).


I don't think there was a Zulu empire... They just call everything "empire" in the game.

(for example Celtic Empire, Viking Empire)
The Zulu did have an empire, but the Celts and Viking examples where good. But there was a Moroccan Empire I think.. I think the Almohads where a Moroccan dynasty, but Wikipedi doesn't seem to tell what certain dynasties are OF. Like they say "x was a dynasty" rather than "x was a dynasty from y state".


1. Arabia is to represent Arabs. For example, Saladin was a Kurd, and he ruled over Egypt. That is what Fireaxis means i believe.
Yeah, but "Arabia" means the Arabian Peninsula, so that's why I would only semi-represent Northern Africa

2. That's just including a Dynasty! That's not including the Moroccan people. That's like adding in Ming, Manchurian, and Qing Dynasty.
K, add Morocco then. I'm just not sure whether that dynasty I was referring to was a Moroccan dynasty.

Was it important enough in world history?
Was 'Poland' important enough in 'world' history? No offense, but while you could argue for it being important in European history, the only thing it has on the world stage was WWII, which wasn't really much. In contrast, Khwarezm was only important in Middle Eastern history.


Then what is important? Adding in the Tui'-tonga or Hawaii is stupid. Polynesia is alot better rep for adding them all in one. That is what Fireaxis did with Native America, Celts etc.
I know. That's why I don't think the Polynesians, Celts or NAs should be in (though the Sioux and Iroquois should be in).


Honestly that is worse then the "repped by Germany" Arguement.
The Celts lived in EE, just like the Arabs lived in Northern Africa.


Venezuela, Brasil and Gran Colombia to name 3.
They're too modern, and when I looked up 'Gran Colombia' on Wikipedia I got barely anything.

[qouote] 1. Um...

Why do you consider Khwarezm and not Poland?
Because Central Asia has NO representation, while EE has one. Seriously, it's not like I want a Central Asian civ beyond Khwarezm, but you want an Eastern European civ beyond Russia. There's a difference.


We agree on this one.



You haven't even heard of them till i told you this morning....
Actually, I did. I just didn't consider them.


Haven't you heard of the Kielbasa-Pho-Biggles law?





Nah it's probably because there so many poles in England and Ireland.



Ethiopia's history is more then 5000 years i believe.[/QUOTE]

No, it wasn't- Israel was a minor near-Eastern state that spent the vast majority of it's history divided or, more often, under someone else's control, while Ethiopia was the dominant power in East Africa for centuries. The only time Israel even came close to rivaling Ethiopia's importance was the relatively short lived United Monarchy, which lasted from about 1050BC to 930BC. After that, it was divided into Israel and Judea, until the conquest of Israel in 722BC and Judea in 586 BC.
The importance of Israel is not as great is as sometimes percieved in the West, due to their important in the Bible. In reality, they were no more significant than any other small state in the region- Armenia, Elam and Media are just as deserving of inclusion, while the Hitties and Assyrians are far more so. (I'd also throw in the Phoenicians, but Carthage represents the most successful Phoenician state, if not the actual region of Phoenicia.)

Carthage doesn't represent Phoenicia. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, was it not?

My next six in the new expansion would be:

1) Poland
2) Hattay
Do you mean Hattusa?
3) Kongo
I just looked up Kongo, and I think it's a good idea.
4) Colombia
Why?
5) Pacific Islanders
Again, why?
6) Khazar
Maybe, but I think we have too many European civs already (I'd be fine with them though).

I'd add Petra and Burj Dubai and the Sydney Opera House as wonders.
I dunno, if you want Burj Dubai, you might as well add a new wonder every time someone starts building something that'll be the biggest building in the world. It's not unique from Taipei 101 or the Petronas Towers. I do agree with The Opera House though, since it's unique. Regarding Petra, I dunno, it's a world heritage site, but there are a LOT of world heritage sites.
I'd add new leaders for Native Americans, Spain, Japan, Byzantines, Arabs and Vikings.
I'd add new leaders for China, India, Rome and Mali as well.
I'd also add a new great person. I'm thinking they should have a diplomacy points system like espionage, and a great diplomat that can build an embassy or grant a number of diplomacy points if the go to the capital of an opposing civs. Diplomatic missions can include contacting other civs through a third party, ending conflicts, etc. Sort of the flip side to espionage.
That sounds interesting...

I'd like to see Austria, Poland, Portugal, and Israel.

Woah. All European, except for Israel, which is kinda European. Also: Portugal's already in, Austria's represented by the HRE.

Your giving them to much credit comparing them with Armenia. lol.

I do actually think Media was more important than Israel, Armenia of equal importance, and Elam of less importance.

"Canada"? Why?

Israel, yeah... I don't think it would work out, politically.
"Imperialistic, Aggressive" or "Industrious, Protective"?
Why? Because there's a war going on there? Why not remove the Arabia and Korea then?

I think that most of history's great powers should be represented in the game...

I, as a Swede, would love to see more Northern European states. Being able to play games with all the nations you share some history with would be awesome.
If the next expansion would include Imperial Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark-Norway and, to a lesser extent, Prussia, I would surely be happy.
Unfortunately, Sweden and Denmark are represented by the Vikings. Prussia = Germany. Why "Imperial Sweden" Why not just "Sweden"? It's not like they have "Imperial Japan" and "Feudal Japan".

Though it don't have to be all Imperial Sweden. Divide it in three parts.
Imperial Sweden with Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XI or Charles XII as ruler;
The Enlightened Absolute Monarchy with Gustav III, and;
Modern Sweden with Louis De Geer (Representation), Hjalmar Branting (Universal Suffrage), Per Albin Hansson (Protective guy) or Olof Palme (Charismatic fella).

 

[Cromat]

I think in terms of cultural influence on the world, Israel/The Jews are one of the most important nations in the world. Not to mention that all of these ancient empires - Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, Rome - are all gone. Their languages and faiths are extinct. The Jews on the other hand are still alive today.
If you judge ancient Israel by how big it's empire was or how strong it's army was then they don't deserve to be in. But the game is called Civilization, not Empire. Besides, modern Israel has one of the 10 top armies in the world, so that must count to something.
Seriously, the Bible is the most influential text in the world. Those who wrote it should be in. I bet half of the people posting in this thread have names originating in Hebrew.

 

[Sultan Al-Malik]

Actually the Area of the Indus valley civilization can be substituted with Pakistan or vice versa. As Pakistan today comprises of the people and land of the old Indus valley civ.

 

[picnicboy]

"Why? Because there's a war going on there? Why not remove the Arabia and Korea then?"

I was thinking about how controversial the conflict is... or at least it is in Sweden, I don't know about the rest of the world.
But some would suggest that Israel should be portrayed as an aggressive and imperialistic apartheid regime, and some would suggest that it should be portrayed as something else. Either way, I think it will be quite controversial.

"Unfortunately, Sweden and Denmark are represented by the Vikings. Prussia = Germany. Why "Imperial Sweden" Why not just "Sweden"? It's not like they have "Imperial Japan" and "Feudal Japan"."

I didn't mean that it should be called "Imperial Sweden", I meant that Sweden should be represented in the game by it's years as a great power.
I don't relate Sweden to the vikings as much as I relate the Danes and Norwegians to it. They were the ones raiding England, exploring the Atlantic and colonizing Iceland. The Swedish vikings were mainly merchants, as I've understood the case, and that's not really the side of the vikings represented in the game.

Really, there isn't much Sweden in the game at all.

 

[NyukXI]

My top ten choices (not in any particular order) for civs I'd like to see are

Austria-Hungary
Assyrians
Berbers
Indonesia
Israel
Italy
Kongo (particularly the kingdom, not so much the post-colonization state)
Nubia
Timurid Empire
Vietnam

 

[zergl]

<--- Votes for Mexico.

But just because I wanna see Desperado as UU (replaces Rifleman).

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yeah, but "Arabia" means the Arabian Peninsula, so that's why I would only semi-represent Northern Africa

Also Arabia could mean lands inhabited by Arabs.

NAs should be in (though the Sioux and Iroquois should be in).

I don't understand.

1+1=2. you only get 1, but if you get NA you get 2. And even more then 2.


how do you want more of something by wanting a fraction of what you got?

The Celts lived in EE, just like the Arabs lived in Northern Africa.

That is where your semi-wrong.

Celts haven't always lived in EE.

Arabs have always lived in Northern africa.

Your should be comparing "celts lived in EE" to "Arabs lived in spain."

And even in that argument, atleast Arabs left a mark on Spain. Celts didn't do anything to Modern EE Culture.

They're too modern, and when I looked up 'Gran Colombia' on Wikipedia I got barely anything.

Look again. Gran Colombia has been very important to Latin American history. And Simon Bolivar is probably the most important figure in Latin American History.

Because Central Asia has NO representation, while EE has one. Seriously, it's not like I want a Central Asian civ beyond Khwarezm, but you want an Eastern European civ beyond Russia. There's a difference.

We have been over this before... Your wasting my presious civ time with these comments.

Carthage doesn't represent Phoenicia. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, was it not?

I agree with you on this one. It's like having America represent Britian.

Mali as well.

Mali? why?

 

[Traitorfish]

[quote="TheLastOne36]Arabs have always lived in Northern africa.[/quote]
Incorrect- until the Islamic expansions, few Arabs lived outside of the Arabian peninsula, let alone in North Africa.
Besides, no-one's "always" lived anywhere (except for a few African tribes, I guess)- all peoples originate somewhere else, "native" is a relative term.

Your should be comparing "celts lived in EE" to "Arabs lived in spain."

Poor comparison- the Celts lived in much of EE for thousands of years, while al-Andalus lasted less than 800 years.

 

[NyukXI]

Arabia specifically is referring to the geographic region of the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs have since expanded out of Arabia and have spread and assimilated other peoples as they've spread. For instance, Egypt saw (and still sees?) itself as part of the Arab world. Egyptians today speak Arabic, but ethnically Egyptians by and large aren't arabic; Egyptians are ethnically... well... Egyptian. Also, many Berbers in N. Africa no longer identify themselves as such. More and more they are beginning to identify themselves as ethnically Arab.

 

[kingkasai]

Andorra!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

It would have a single leader, Albert Pintat Santolària. However I'm not sure what the UU or UB would be...

 

[Kranden]

How about Israel.

also Cuba I mean Castro is still alive! Oldest dictator ever.

 

[Saim]

I think in terms of cultural influence on the world, Israel/The Jews are one of the most important nations in the world. Not to mention that all of these ancient empires - Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, Rome - are all gone. Their languages and faiths are extinct. The Jews on the other hand are still alive today.
Hardly. The Jews where very influenced by Egypt, Sumeria and Babylonia, which actually more stable and powerful states. The Jews still existing is a poor argument: existing for a long time does not make one a greater civilization.
If you judge ancient Israel by how big it's empire was or how strong it's army was then they don't deserve to be in. But the game is called Civilization, not Empire. Besides, modern Israel has one of the 10 top armies in the world, so that must count to something.
And that's exactly why America, the Byzantines, the Babylonians, the French, etc. are in the game, right? While it's called 'Civilization', IMO, a more fitting name WOULD be Empire.
Seriously, the Bible is the most influential text in the world. Those who wrote it should be in. I bet half of the people posting in this thread have names originating in Hebrew.
And that's because of Christianity and Islam, NOT Israel.

"Why? Because there's a war going on there? Why not remove the Arabia and Korea then?"

I was thinking about how controversial the conflict is... or at least it is in Sweden, I don't know about the rest of the world.
But some would suggest that Israel should be portrayed as an aggressive and imperialistic apartheid regime, and some would suggest that it should be portrayed as something else. Either way, I think it will be quite controversial.
The controversy is mostly in the Arab World, European and countries of European descent (America, Australia, Canada), are the game's target audience. If they wanted to release it in the Arab World, they would have to make a separate version anyway, to include Arabic, so they might as well remove Israel in it anyway. Still, I'm not particularly pro-Israel, it's just this isn't a very good argument for it's lack of inclusion.

"Unfortunately, Sweden and Denmark are represented by the Vikings. Prussia = Germany. Why "Imperial Sweden" Why not just "Sweden"? It's not like they have "Imperial Japan" and "Feudal Japan"."

I didn't mean that it should be called "Imperial Sweden", I meant that Sweden should be represented in the game by it's years as a great power.
I don't relate Sweden to the vikings as much as I relate the Danes and Norwegians to it. They were the ones raiding England, exploring the Atlantic and colonizing Iceland. The Swedish vikings were mainly merchants, as I've understood the case, and that's not really the side of the vikings represented in the game.

Really, there isn't much Sweden in the game at all.
It would still be pretty weird. Generally, I'm pro- a Viking Sweden/Denmark split, even though Europe has quite a few civs already.

Also Arabia could mean lands inhabited by Arabs.
Isn't that referred to as the "Arab World"?


I don't understand.

1+1=2. you only get 1, but if you get NA you get 2. And even more then 2.
Yes, but I don't get to play as the Sioux and war against the Iroquois, or have a unique unit that makes sense for Sitting Bull. It's quite on the contrary, in my opinion, as I believe I get 1 instead of two rather than more than 2 instead of 1.

how do you want more of something by wanting a fraction of what you got?



That is where your semi-wrong.

Celts haven't always lived in EE.

Arabs have always lived in Northern africa.

Your should be comparing "celts lived in EE" to "Arabs lived in spain."

And even in that argument, atleast Arabs left a mark on Spain. Celts didn't do anything to Modern EE Culture.
The Arabs emigrated to Northern Europe. And I don't think many Arabs lived in Moorish Iberia (al-Andalus) anyway.


Look again. Gran Colombia has been very important to Latin American history. And Simon Bolivar is probably the most important figure in Latin American History.
Really? "Gran Colombia" only got me three paragraphes in Wiki, although you could be right about Bolivar. But still, Attaturk and Mandela, other great leaders, can't be added because there's no civ to add them to.


We have been over this before... Your wasting my presious civ time with these comments.
That's not considered a rebuttal, so I believe I've won on this subject.


I agree with you on this one. It's like having America represent Britian.



Mali? why?
Why not? Mali was a very powerful nation, and although I wouldn't want one in the next expansion, I would want Sundiata Keita added eventually.

Andorra!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

It would have a single leader, Albert Pintat Santolària. However I'm not sure what the UU or UB would be...

... you're joking, right?

How about Israel.

also Cuba I mean Castro is still alive! Oldest dictator ever.

We've already been over Israel.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Andorra!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

It would have a single leader, Albert Pintat Santolària. However I'm not sure what the UU or UB would be...

Smuggler unit, and the UB would be a Smugglers' Inn.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Incorrect- until the Islamic expansions, few Arabs lived outside of the Arabian peninsula, let alone in North Africa.
Besides, no-one's "always" lived anywhere (except for a few African tribes, I guess)- all peoples originate somewhere else, "native" is a relative term. [/qote]

I think i'm drunk, i knew that so why did i posted that? ....

Isn't that referred to as the "Arab World"?

Maybe...

The Arabs emigrated to Northern Europe. And I don't think many Arabs lived in Moorish Iberia (al-Andalus) anyway.

I belive you meant southern...

Really? "Gran Colombia" only got me three paragraphes in Wiki, although you could be right about Bolivar. But still, Attaturk and Mandela, other great leaders, can't be added because there's no civ to add them to.

True. That is why i think with the new mix and match, you could have some leaders with no civ and some civs with no leaders.

That's not considered a rebuttal, so I believe I've won on this subject.

You've made these comments many times, look at my answer for them.

Andorra!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

It would have a single leader, Albert Pintat Santolària. However I'm not sure what the UU or UB would be...

Monaco would be better.

 

[Traitorfish]

Monaco would be better.

Pfft. San Marino FTW. Old constitutional Republic on the world. (Take that, Iceland!)

 

[ComradeGeneral]

Because Central Asia has NO representation, while EE has one. Seriously, it's not like I want a Central Asian civ beyond Khwarezm, but you want an Eastern European civ beyond Russia. There's a difference.

Just add Kazakhstan and name Borat as its leader.