What civs do you want in Civ 5 - Updated list

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the first half is a possibility. Certainly, they'll have Budapest (they did hold it for centuries). I doubt they'd add more Canadian and Australian cities, though. Why not add New Zealand and South African cities instead :p

I was half-joking about the second half :mischief:
 
lol, hence the :p

Although, seriously, I wouldn't mind Pretoria (the Boer capitol). Although we already have Cape Town, so I guess it's doubtful.
 
Australia is a whole friggin' continent, and I think that merits more than a city-state.
Spoiler :
Australia's leader would either be the Sniper from TF2 or Steve Irwin.
 
I think the first half is a possibility. Certainly, they'll have Budapest (they did hold it for centuries). I doubt they'd add more Canadian and Australian cities, though. Why not add New Zealand and South African cities instead :p

I'm hoping you didn't call Wellington an Australian city.
 
lol, hence the :p

Although, seriously, I wouldn't mind Pretoria (the Boer capitol). Although we already have Cape Town, so I guess it's doubtful.

Once Cape Town was capture by the British wasn't the Cape colony and the Boers at war? A little rusty on my history here but it could work.
 
I'm hoping you didn't call Wellington an Australian city.

Ah crap, I did. My bad. That kinda undercut my joke too. To be fair, I was thinking of parallelism where Vancouver mirrored Quebec City, so I didn't think it through.
 
Anyway, Wellington would be good, because it could be either Maritime or Cultured. (Don't believe me? Google any of the following, 'Fat Freddies Drop, the Black Seeds, Wellington Sevens, Wellywood, Weta Workshops, Cuba Street')
 
:lol:
I honestly have no I idea, I guess it's a New Zealand thing:D

Aucklander's don't care about anything South of Taupo. The country has a name for them - JAFAs, but I can't explain the acronym here (HINT: Just Another F... Aucklander)

And Wellington has such a better vibe about it
 
Moderator Action: Please try and keep to the topic; a discussion of what civs you'd like in Civ5. That means that your posts need to have something to do with Civ, specifically Civ5. We have an OT forum to post in, and you're more than welcome to do so, but please avoid straying from the topic in such a way here.
 
If we're getting back on topic, I could see an NZ civ:
Leader: New Zealand's "National Magician" (it actually has one)
UA: +4 gold on one-tile cities
UI: Super-pasture, counts sheep as a luxury item
UU: Gandalf, replaces archer, shoots magic spells instead of arrows (+2 damage) (Lord of the Rings was filmed there)
 
Australia is a whole friggin' continent, and I think that merits more than a city-state.

Then, so is Antarctica. Which Magellan expedition missed by about 500+ Nautical miles - only.

And i know *exactly* which civ & leader would be necessary to justify such a choice; Humanity.
Now, you might also want to insist that Chile & Argentina (Tierra Del Fuego archipelago) is nearby. But that's the kind of stuff for *modern* scenarios, right? Just as much, Russia & Canada have silly disputes over the Arctic continental shelves or the North-West passage.

Yep, waaaaayyyyy off-topic ---- too.

So, Inuits live in Nunavut (already listed in this Pouakai's thread, btw)... and their islands are as important as Greenland itself (which is another continental size bunch of glaciers instead of a gigantic Desert colonized by Brits.)

There's more to distance or territorial grasp(s) than meets the flag wavers on top of any frigates. Cuz, the empty continents of Earth are as precious to us all without political agendas.
 
I would like to see Queen Dido (Elissa) as the leader of Carthage, there just aren't enough female leaders. I think she was in Civilization II.

How about if Celtic UB Dun would be a unique improvement? Just like Inca terrace farm and Polynesian Moai statue. It would replace fort. Perhaps unit in it would heal more quickly, gain experience faster and/or units around 1 hex away would heal faster.

I think Dacia would be exciting new civilization. Dacians
Capital: Bucharest
Leader: Vlad Tepes
UA: Order of the Dragon Perhaps some kind of combat bonus for coop wars and defensive pacts give more benefits/bonuses; military unit production/maintenance bonus.
UU: Peltast replaces Spearman. Both melee and ranged unit. Range 1 hex. Starts with Charge promotion. Cost 60. Combat 8. Ranged Combat 4. Movement 2.
UB: Sanctuary replaces Temple. No maintenance. Culture 2, Happiness 2, Gold +10%. Cost 120.
 
Celtics
Leader: Vercingetorix
Unique Ability: Wild Beasts - No defined ranks confuse enemies in Combat leading to a bonus for the initial attack.
Unique Building: Fortification (replaces wall) - Cities gain +2 defense. (Celtics loved building walls)
Unique Unit: Mercenaries (Replaces swordsman) - Can be "Auctioned" to other nations giving you a lot of gold.
Scenario: War of the Gauls.

Gaelics
Leader: William Wallace
Unique Ability: Wickerman - see Unique unit.
Unique Building: ???, possibly a Braveheart type unique unit in it's place.
Unique Unit: Druid - (Replaces warrior, erects a wickerman after his last kill which keeps barbarians from spawning in a certain distance and demoralizes, read: lowers stats slightly, of the next enemy you fight. Upon the next death the wickerman is moved to wear the last kill was.
Scenario: War of Scottish independance.

Canada
Leader: John A. McDonald
Unique Ability: Peacekeeper - Can move through other Civs territory without open borders.
Unique Building: Parlament - Culture bonus.
Unique Unit: Mountie - Replaces Cavalry, suffers no penalty to other mounted units.
Scenario: War of 1812.
 
i think the fortification building needs a little bit of work. it should be able to compete with the walls of babylon, which gets a little more defense (+2.5 as opposed to +2) and a pretty deep discount, unless they nerfed that or something. obvious solutions to this are even more extra defense or, like the dun in civilization 4, granting a promotion, most likely drill i. i think the more interesting of these 2 alternatives is the second, since it would probably make an often ignored building more likely to be built, but like i already said, they did that last game. also, dun is a little more exotic of a name so i think it sounds a little better, but what the building is called is less important than what it does.
 
I'd make it the Dunn and make it work essentially like the fort and moat in the 1066 scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom