TheBB
Prince
"Medieval Poland"? Is this Preussen? I'd love to see Preussen in Civ 4, but what the hell is "Medieval Poland"? Never heard of it. Preussen, on the other hand, seems to me to be a better representative for Poland.
What Civs Would You Like Added for Civ 4?
- Thread starter NankingDan
- Start date
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
I'd dearly love to see the Australians added as a civ in civ4. They (and by They I mean We - I'm Aussie) occupy one entire continent and have achieved alot in their (our) short history.
I'm thinking the Sydney Opera House would be an interesting small wonder addition... perhaps it could act as an instant tourist income generator.. maybe building it could add something like 25% to your existing tourism income... I don't know.
As for a UU.. well, most of Australila's military activity of any significance has occurred in recent times... WW1 onwards to the East Timor intervention and participation in both Gulf Wars. Also, in the past year, Australian armed and police forces have performed peacekeeping activities in the Soloman Islands and will shortly undergo similar services in Papua New Guinea.
I propose an Aussie UU to be some sort of modern infantry unit with police capabilities al la the police modification in SMAC. Perhaps they'd would be cheaper than average to build or would have extra defense.
Oh, and to those who might suggest that Australia does not deserve to be included as a legit civ due to the fact that it was colonized by Britain... well you know the answer to that. I want you to close your eyes and imagine Abe Lincoln dressed up in what seems to be buffalo hide....
I'm thinking the Sydney Opera House would be an interesting small wonder addition... perhaps it could act as an instant tourist income generator.. maybe building it could add something like 25% to your existing tourism income... I don't know.
As for a UU.. well, most of Australila's military activity of any significance has occurred in recent times... WW1 onwards to the East Timor intervention and participation in both Gulf Wars. Also, in the past year, Australian armed and police forces have performed peacekeeping activities in the Soloman Islands and will shortly undergo similar services in Papua New Guinea.
I propose an Aussie UU to be some sort of modern infantry unit with police capabilities al la the police modification in SMAC. Perhaps they'd would be cheaper than average to build or would have extra defense.
Oh, and to those who might suggest that Australia does not deserve to be included as a legit civ due to the fact that it was colonized by Britain... well you know the answer to that. I want you to close your eyes and imagine Abe Lincoln dressed up in what seems to be buffalo hide....
Hey, we all know what the Aussie UU would be... the Barbie! Enemy units stop in their tracks and then take steady damage over the next few terms, from the effects of overeating and too much Castelmaine XXXX.
But Australia and Canada alike aren't Civs, because they're not independent countries - you're still governed by the Queen! That's the difference from the USA. *ducks to avoid barrage of beer cans* When I think about how the real world would be simulated in CivIII terms, I think of countries like that as part of the English civilisation, but they are so far-flung that they do no good to the home nation - too much corruption (see, Civ "corruption" needn't just be unscrupulous local governors hiving off the funds - it could also simulate a semi-autonomous area, just like the modern Commonwealth).
Seriously, I think the biggest omissions are the African civilisations. Ethiopia should be there, as should Ghana, or Mali, or Songhai - three nations that succeeded each other in the same location and were larger and massively richer than any European contemporaries. Apart from that, Tibet and Assyria get my vote - although we really have enough civilisations from the ancient Near East as it is.
Plus, why does no-one ever mention Latin America? If the US is a civ, then what about Argentina or Brazil? The biggest city in the world today is owned by a non-CivIII civilisation - Mexico.
But Australia and Canada alike aren't Civs, because they're not independent countries - you're still governed by the Queen! That's the difference from the USA. *ducks to avoid barrage of beer cans* When I think about how the real world would be simulated in CivIII terms, I think of countries like that as part of the English civilisation, but they are so far-flung that they do no good to the home nation - too much corruption (see, Civ "corruption" needn't just be unscrupulous local governors hiving off the funds - it could also simulate a semi-autonomous area, just like the modern Commonwealth).
Seriously, I think the biggest omissions are the African civilisations. Ethiopia should be there, as should Ghana, or Mali, or Songhai - three nations that succeeded each other in the same location and were larger and massively richer than any European contemporaries. Apart from that, Tibet and Assyria get my vote - although we really have enough civilisations from the ancient Near East as it is.
Plus, why does no-one ever mention Latin America? If the US is a civ, then what about Argentina or Brazil? The biggest city in the world today is owned by a non-CivIII civilisation - Mexico.
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
I think the ancient South American civs are supposed to represent Mexico, Chile and what not... in a way. No matter what, I think you're right since they are nations of their own right and have their own part in history.
OH... by the way! Australia isn't governed by the Queen. It's governed by our elected representatives in Canberra (notice how the name of our capitol is different from London.... not our capitol)......
Australia once was a province of the British Empire... so were alot of places. We are now, but in formality only.
Bah! It's just a game though... besides which, I think I'd like to go live in Cuba
I agree about adding African civilizations. They were indeed mighty in their time with thriving economies and vital cultures. It was the slave trade that destroyed them. The middle east city style does them no justice...
OH... by the way! Australia isn't governed by the Queen. It's governed by our elected representatives in Canberra (notice how the name of our capitol is different from London.... not our capitol)......
Australia once was a province of the British Empire... so were alot of places. We are now, but in formality only.
Bah! It's just a game though... besides which, I think I'd like to go live in Cuba
I agree about adding African civilizations. They were indeed mighty in their time with thriving economies and vital cultures. It was the slave trade that destroyed them. The middle east city style does them no justice...
Lumin
Niman of Draconis
CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA. Need I say more. 
sav
King
Gotta have NEW ZEALAND! You guys owe us soooo much - Universal Suffrage, Splitting the atom, climbing Mt Everest, Popstars, Lord of the Rings movies...
Cuivienen
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 8,011
Must make Great Wonder "The Lord of the Rings"... ... ...
Anyway, frankly, Australia, New Zealand and Canada simply aren't unique enough to be separate civilizations. Sure, they have their own (brief) histories, but they are still today "satellites" of the UK. Not entirely, certainly, and a few Quebecans might be annoyed at me for suggesting it, but they still *are* British. Australia, Canada and New Zealand would have to do something defining before they merit being in Civ4.
Goober
Turning Right ...
Hey, I like it. We should include some more "modern" Civs, like Australia (UU the Kangaroo!!), and New Zealand, as well as Canada. I mean, obviously these countries are worthy of becoming a Civ, not really any need to give details, just look at the History Books!!
And please let us not debate why certain Civs should or should not be added. EVERY nation deserves to be added.
And please let us not debate why certain Civs should or should not be added. EVERY nation deserves to be added.
Ukraineboy
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 244
Maybe we should have the ability to create "colonies".... like, if your britain, you could colonize Canada, and let them be independant.. they join the commenwealth and boom ,there you go.
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
Hey, include Australia for the addition of the Sydney Opera house alone.... surely it has it's place?
You know, the Byzantines were a civilization in their own right, but were essentially the east wing of a broken Roman empire. It was a good idea to include them since they represent a chapter in the book of history.
You know, the Byzantines were a civilization in their own right, but were essentially the east wing of a broken Roman empire. It was a good idea to include them since they represent a chapter in the book of history.
AngryGerbil
A gerbil that is angry
Attilla and his Huns would own all these other wussy Civs =)
Tharak
Chieftain
[rant]
*sigh*. You know, it gets tiresome, time and again reading this kind of stuff from people who don't seem to have a clue. Exactly HOW are any of these countries British? Is it because thay are all Commonwealth nations (so India is British?). Or is it because they were settled (in part) by Britain (so the US is British?). Or is it because you don't truly know enough about any of those countries to actually realize none of them are. They all have unique societies and attributes which set them apart from the rest of the world.
Nearly 40% of Canada is comprised of people who's native tongue is NOT English (only 23% of that is French) Over 15% of Austrialians also don't speak English as a primary language. Really, I could go on, and on (and will be happy to, should you want me to).
Suffice it to say, that any of these countries as diverse enough in both origin and current culture to differentiate them from anyo other country in the world sufficiently to be included on those grounds. Given that the game designers thought to include the US ( a very young nation on the wolrd history scheme of things...largely due to marketing reasons..) you'd be hard pressed to cite "national youth" as an exclusion criteria.
I (and I'm sure many others) would really appreciate people not rejecting countries out of hand simply because THEY don't know enough about them to have a desire to include them (this does, however, open the door wide to those who do know about the culture of these, or other, countries to slag them at their leisure...I've seen more than one Canadian on these boards state why they feel Canada shouldn't be included...however British rule wasn't one of them...)
Thanks
[/rant]
Vancouver 2010
Getting Paid to Code
Personally, I'd like to see Canada in Civ4. (OK, it helps that I'm Canadian...)
Either way, please don't debate why Canada and other former British colonies should/shouldn't be in Civ4. We already had a highly unsuccessful, highly flamey thread about the prospect of Canada as a Civ. I'm pretty sure that no one would like to see this thread/poll go the same way.
Either way, please don't debate why Canada and other former British colonies should/shouldn't be in Civ4. We already had a highly unsuccessful, highly flamey thread about the prospect of Canada as a Civ. I'm pretty sure that no one would like to see this thread/poll go the same way.
Scratcher
Emperor
What about Thailand, or the Siam civilization? If I remember correctly they have never been entirely conquered in their history, which is considerably longer than some of the more modern suggestions. It is just a thought....to be honest I am quite happy with the number of civs available now.
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
Well, presuming that civs in civ4 use a similar combination of traits and a UU I'd say the more the merrier. The more the people and history of our world is represented the better. And the more realistic.
Hopefully Fireaxis will make threads such as this redundant by including all civilizations no matter how small or large. I'm quite sure that the definition and concept of what makes a group of people a civilization is far broader than represented in the civ series so far.
That, and I hope that civ4 is a different game... not just an expansion pack with better graphics.
Hopefully Fireaxis will make threads such as this redundant by including all civilizations no matter how small or large. I'm quite sure that the definition and concept of what makes a group of people a civilization is far broader than represented in the civ series so far.
That, and I hope that civ4 is a different game... not just an expansion pack with better graphics.
If Civ4 rediscovers nation-splitting (maybe a solution out of corruption and culture), then we might realistically add modern countries like Canada as potential civs for later in the game. Come to think of it, nation-splitting could be as integral to play as revolution, so that you'd always start with genuinely ancient civs, then face an epic sequence of widely-spaced schisms (mass culture flip to independence), each one offering a choice of paths, and fresh identity. One might, by strange and mistaken paths, end up playing Guam in 2010.
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
Sean,
I'm drooling at the prospect... To start playing one civ and end up as an entirely different civ could make for a hugely varied and interesting game.
I posted a similar idea here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74188
Could be real sweet
I'm drooling at the prospect...
To start playing one civ and end up as an entirely different civ could make for a hugely varied and interesting game.I posted a similar idea here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74188
Could be real sweet
Hell. . . why leave civs out? There are a bunch of civs that could be added. Why limit it? Give us unlimited (or if that's not realistic, 128 or 256) civs that we can customize to our hearts desire.
Really, I couldn't care less what civs are/aren't added. It's not that I don't care, but more like any civ added could end up being redundant. I mean, there are only 7 civ traits. We'd need more civ traits to help keep the monotony out of it.
Any civ added would be cool. And I'd like to see nation spliting come back, too. That was always fun, rushing to the capital to split the country. And it's not like there's not historical precident for it.
Really, I couldn't care less what civs are/aren't added. It's not that I don't care, but more like any civ added could end up being redundant. I mean, there are only 7 civ traits. We'd need more civ traits to help keep the monotony out of it.
Any civ added would be cool. And I'd like to see nation spliting come back, too. That was always fun, rushing to the capital to split the country. And it's not like there's not historical precident for it.
Similar threads
