What Civs Would You Like Added for Civ 4?

[Illustrious]

Bah, Humbug! Get rid of all the Civilizations, say I.

Why do we need to attach spurious "historical" national characteristics to these proto-empires of ours anyway? It's not as though in-game civs behave like, look like or prosper like the ones they're named after (the classic examples, what's America doing in 3000 BC? What's Babylon doing in 2000 AD?)

It's pure emotionalism. Why not bite the bullet and make all civs fully user-definable from day one? That way, if someone wants to have a civ called America, or Canada, or the United Arab Emirates or whatever, they can. But don't make any of them default choices. That way no-one can get all hissy because their favourite nation was left out of the canon.

In my view, the game and modding go the wrong way. Firaxis served up a set of (arguably ill-thought-out) choices of civs, and the game includes modding tools which then let us change them. Wouldn't it be better if the game came with a dozen "generic" empires, alongside modding tools that let us - if we wished - personalise one or more into the nations of our loyalties..?

At least then we'd be spared the endless rants about how Eurocentric/NATOcentric the basic choices are.....

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by TheBB
"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.

That's true, y'know. And let's replace America with Ontario too!

The original Prussians (as they're properly known in English; their land is Prussia) were a Baltic people, related to the Lithuanians and Latvians.

The name, quite naturally, came to refer also to the Germans who settled the area in High Medieval times, and went unambiguous a few centuries later when the Old Prussian language died out and the people became assimilated.

The Poles did their best to gain control of Prussia, but only in the 15th C did they manage to conquer West Prussia and reduce East Prussia to vassal status.

This lasted a few centuries, till East Prussia was united with Brandenburg - the new Kingdom assumed the name 'Prussia', but the centre was and remained Brandenburg. Eventually, Poland also lost West Prussia to the Brandenburgers.

West Prussia proper returned to Polish rule after WWI, and the suddern half of East Prussia became Polish after WWII (with concomitant massive ethnic cleansing).

Now, that was a long excursus. The point is, Prussia's always been a peripheral bit of Poland, when under Polish rule at all, and only became demographically dominated by Poles in the 20th C. In Medieval times, the Polish Kingdom, BTW, was generally a much more impressive thing than the Teutonic Knights' Prussian dominion.

What you've heard of Prussia probably refers to the German state (18th-20th centuries), and that you've never heard of medieval Poland does fairly strongy suggest that you've got very limited knowledge of medieval Europe. At its peak, the old Polish realm included roughly modern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and a chunk of Russia. Biggest country in Europe at the time.

 

[fififan]

i dont want them to add anymore nations butn i would like it if they changed the leader heads Germany to Hitler Russia to Stalin Britian to Queen Victoria Rename Rome Italy and Make Mussolini its leader. And make Teddy Roosevelt leader of America.

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by fififan
i dont want them to add anymore nations butn i would like it if they changed the leader heads Germany to Hitler Russia to Stalin Rename Rome Italy and Make Mussolini its leader. And make Teddy Roosevelt leader of America.

Ok, first of all there would be HUGE protest over this. The Leader of a Civ is supposed to be a historical figure that did GOOD for the country, not BAD. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin were all bad historical leaders, causing the second world war, killing million of innocent Jews/Russians, I am not gonna list all the atrocoties these horrid men did (because it would easily be longer then the 15,000 words allowed!!)

As for the leader of the USA Civ, I think Lincoln did more for the States then Teddy, although it is a close call. How about George Washington, the founder of the country?

 

[Chauliodus]

Assyrians, Hebrews, Phoenecians (abit too closly related to Carthaginians tho, maybe Canaanites), Armenians, Etruscans, and Huns or Magyars or Avars (just more Asiatic nomadic civs).

 

[pkmink]

Originally posted by Ukraineboy
Slav is too General... we already have Russia... biggest Slav country.. Russia is basically Slav....

Poland wasnt created till after Napoleon war (DONT QUOTE ME, IM NOT SURE!)

and they were basically the whipping boy for Germany and USSR...

I DO quote because you are giving only part of the story and IMHO a little misleading (unintentional for sure), so I would like to set the facts straight...Poland was created in 966 A.D., at the height of it's power from the 14th until the 16th century it was the largest country in Europe, with the capital first in Cracow and later in Warsaw (there was also another capital in the beginning, Gniezno, near Poznan), stretching from the Baltic Sea (albeit with a rather small coastline) to the Black Sea. Cracow was a large cultural centre with one of the oldest Universities (1364) in the world. Religious freedom was the standard in that Poland, precipitating a large influx of persecuted Jews and other minorities from the rest of Europe. Due to internal chaos with the ruling nobility arguing endlessly in between themselves, and external pressures, that large country would gradually shrink until in 1795 it dissappeared altogether when Prussia, Czarist Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire divided it between them. It had a short relive when Napoleon came in the 19th century, and despite two large uprisings in 1830 and 1864 against the occupying powers it couldn't regain independence until 1918 when the Ancien Regimes were defeated. Having hardly existed between 1795 and 1918, and having little time to rebuild a sovereign nation, a civic society, a modern economy and army it comes as no surprise that it didn't stand much of a chance in 1939 when it was attacked by the Nazi's and by the Soviets, though it put up a good fight nonetheless and held out 5 weeks against huge odds, more than enough for Great Britain and France to mobilize and attack the Nazi's and fulfill their promise...

In Eastern Europe, until the rise of a strong Czarist Russia in the 17th/18th century (under Peter the Great), there were basically two strong powers: Poland and Hungary. Bohemia, Bulgaria were older Slavic nations but smaller and didn't have the big power and influence of the other two nations.

So, going back to which nations should be in Civ, Slavs is too general, from Eastern Europe I vote for Poland and Hungary (which btw aren't Slavs), and perhaps Bulgaria because it was a strong country in the Balkan area. Other nations that should be included: Assyrians, Israelites, Sumerians.

Pat, who is majoring this year in Eastern European History...

 

[Shirastro]

Talking about strong countries in that area i think Serbs should be added not bulgarians.........They had an empire thou short-living, they were one of the first to get autocefality (i am 100% sure thats not how its spells, autonomy of an ortodox church), they were one of the 3 nations that kicked Turks from Balkans, they createt first and second Yugoslavia.......and they have become famus/infamus with all that Miloshevic thing

 

[Tom|420]

I always thought that implementing the Inuits as a minor barbarian tribe was a bad idea. After all they where (and are still today) a large nation covering all the North part of Canada, in the neverending snows area. They even have their own canadian territory now (Nunavut).

The Sioux is a good idea either. After all aren't they the Natives which inspired Lucky Luke and most of the other Western movies? (If not, those were nations relative to the Sioux IMO)

 

[bru]

I will go with the Huns because no one else picked them!!

 

[Blasphemous]

Excellent point, Illustrious.
Couldn't there maybe be a mod that would replace all the nations with made-up (realistic but non-existing) ones? That should be a cool project, if anyone wants to make one I wouldn't mind helping (I will not however commit to making an entire mod myself, as every time I tried, I lost interest afte a week or two.)

 

[fehler]

Vandals!

And "Souix" is deragatory, it should be Dakota or Lakota.

 

[pkmink]

Good point too, Shadowflame and Illustrious. Either that or all the civilizations, it shouldn't be such a big problem with a computer. Or just 4 Civilizations, like Huntington's Clash of Civilizations the west, the muslim world, the orthodox world and the asian world.

 

[pkmink]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


The original Prussians (as they're properly known in English; their land is Prussia) were a Baltic people, related to the Lithuanians and Latvians.

The name, quite naturally, came to refer also to the Germans who settled the area in High Medieval times, and went unambiguous a few centuries later when the Old Prussian language died out and the people became assimilated.

(...)

West Prussia proper returned to Polish rule after WWI, and the suddern half of East Prussia became Polish after WWII (with concomitant massive ethnic cleansing).

(...)

You're absolutely right the East Prussia was ethnically cleansed after WWII by the Poles (which meant that the German population was forced to leave, not the more extreme version of what happened in some parts of former Yugoslavia in the nineties, also many Germans left voluntarily...), just as the Poles in the eastern territories which were incorporated in the Soviet Union in 1944/45 were forcibly removed or went voluntarily also, not wanting to live in stalinist Soviet Union.
However, you could have also said that the original Prussians were ethnically cleansed by the Teutonic Knights...

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I might try and find out about some civilizations worth adding that AREN'T European.... I admit, I can't think of any (apart from Australians or Indiginous Australians).... Polynesia? Indonesia? Maori maybe...

 

[RedAlert]

Hi everybody! This is my first post. (Woohoo!) I always thought that some important civilizations were missing from Civ3. I've seen alot of good ideas on this thread already, but here are some of my ideas.

I would like to see in Civ4:

1) More African civs: Ethiopia and Mali/Songhai (also change Zulu to Bantu, since they encompass all of the southern african civilizations), possibly Nubia.

2)More Asian civs: Tibet, Khmer/Cambodia, Indonesia, and a central asian one - Timurids or Seljuk Turks (Or just merge them with the Ottomans to make one Turkish civ.)

3)More modern American civs: DEFINATELY CANADA (even though they are very close to the Iroquois), Latin American ones like Brazil, Argenitna, Cuba, Gran Colombia. *I realize alot of people think that modern american civs should not be in the game, but I think they should be provided, just so those who do want them can play them.*

4)More European (yes, more): Austria or Hungary (preferably Hungary. I would like to see a more medieval German civilization that includes Austria, Bohemia, etc.), Finland (they should not be represented by the Scandinavian/Viking civ), and Poland- how could you possibly forget Poland?

Civs I would like to see altered/ taken out:

-Byzantines: Take out. They can be represented by the romans, or greece in medieval times (greek was the Byzantine official language and most of the people were greek)

-Babylon + Sumeria: Should be merged into a mesopotamian civ (different name though)

-Hittites: I don't really think they should be in Civ4, but yes if there' room

-Zulu: as I already said, they should be replaced with Bantu.

-Iroquois: I actually think they are the best native american civilization, but since there would be no room between America and Canada, I guess they could be replaced with the Sioux (or Dakota/Lakota), or another worthy civ.

-Carthage could be merged with the Phoenicians -POSSIBLY- I wouldn't really care if that stayed the same, It's just an idea.

Lastly, if there is room, these other civs should be considered : Polynesia, Huns, non-Viking Sweden, either pueblo area in north america or inuit civilization, Vietnam,and Australia.

I have more ideas for leaders, UUs, civ traits, and whatnot: maybe I'll post them later.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

Look! The Canadians are whining like little children again.

If Canada gets in, there are quite a few countries that should be added as well...

Mexico
Australia
Israel
Indoesnia
Vietnam
Brazil
Scotland
Saudi Arabia
Haiti
The area where the Vatican is.
That old British seabase that is a "country" now.
McDonalds restaurants

The Canadians always whine about being left out of these games. They whine hard about BF42 as well, despite the fact that there were no major "Canadian only" battles to include them in. Now in Civ, of all places, the Canadians want in. Hey, stop recognizing the crown, get a real culture of your own and fabricate some importance about your country in history. Maybe a good UU would be oh... say... a little hockey player with no defense but a high movement rate.

If the Canadians are added to Civ4, then we'll know that Firaxis is more interested in selling copies than actually creating a true sequel to Civ3. It wouldn't stop me from buying the game, I'd just be sure to rename Canada to be a civ of IMPORTANCE.

This poll doesn't even have Canada on it (because the poll-maker is intelligent) so why did they even come in here whining?

On topic: I voted Israel, Tibet, Abbysina, Polynesian, and Slav. Israel is a must, and they should have been included into the game for Civ3. That is an actual civ of merit.

Moderator Action: Xavier - consider yourself warned for nation-bashing. This post and your following one are pushing the rules pretty hard. You've been a member here long enough to know the rules. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

You don't get out much do you?

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I like Illustrious's idea... and I've often thought along those lines myself since it is pretty presumptious to lump a whole lot of civilizations from the history books and give them specific traits and what not.
Perhaps Civ4 should be more freeform and open ended (sorry about the buzzwords)... That way, everything can be included. Canadians can have their IMHO their rightful place in the Civ series and Xavier can play games with civs of "more importance".
Good luck to you Xavier....

 

[RedAlert]

Originally posted by Xavier Von Erck
Look! The Canadians are whining like little children again.

If Canada gets in, there are quite a few countries that should be added as well...

Mexico
Australia
Israel
Indoesnia
Vietnam
Brazil
Scotland
Saudi Arabia
Haiti
The area where the Vatican is.
That old British seabase that is a "country" now.
McDonalds restaurants

The Canadians always whine about being left out of these games. They whine hard about BF42 as well, despite the fact that there were no major "Canadian only" battles to include them in. Now in Civ, of all places, the Canadians want in. Hey, stop recognizing the crown, get a real culture of your own and fabricate some importance about your country in history. Maybe a good UU would be oh... say... a little hockey player with no defense but a high movement rate.

If the Canadians are added to Civ4, then we'll know that Firaxis is more interested in selling copies than actually creating a true sequel to Civ3. It wouldn't stop me from buying the game, I'd just be sure to rename Canada to be a civ of IMPORTANCE.

This poll doesn't even have Canada on it (because the poll-maker is intelligent) so why did they even come in here whining?

On topic: I voted Israel, Tibet, Abbysina, Polynesian, and Slav. Israel is a must, and they should have been included into the game for Civ3. That is an actual civ of merit.

First of all, I don't remember whining about anything. I can't believe I'm responding to this (and it's not because I'm a 'stupid' Canadian.) I was merely trying to answer the topic question as best I could. We all have the rights to our respective opinions, and though I have not been here long, I think these kinds of racist and degenerating remarks do not belong on these forums. (and no, this is not whining either.) If you are going to be a Canadian-hater, or for that matter, an anyone hater, fine, but I do not appreciate it being expressed in this quite frankly insulting manner, and I am sure others here feel the same. I would simply like to have Canada in the game. I am Canadian and take pride in that. No matter how controversial it is to say wheter Canada should be a civ or not, everyone has different oppinions about what a true civ is. I agree however, that Canada would not be high on my list of civs that should be in the game, but I think you are taking it a bit too far. I have seen more than one post expressing your views like this, and it appears that you are the one who is whining. I am sorry I have to put it like this, but I feel I need to say something in my (and Canada's) defense. If this were all pure sarcasm, I would understand, but I do not see the need to make remarks like this. Again I am sorry if I'm off topic, I just had to say this.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

We all have the rights to our respective opinions,

Blah blah blah.

and though I have not been here long, I think these kinds of racist and degenerating remarks do not belong on these forums. (and no, this is not whining either.)

Yeah, because "Canadian" is a "race." You're very smart. You are.

If you are going to be a Canadian-hater, or for that matter, an anyone hater, fine, but I do not appreciate it being expressed in this quite frankly insulting manner, and I am sure others here feel the same.

It's not about "Canadian Hating" as I would say the same thing if there were 200 posters from Paraguay in here constantly whining that Paraguay isn't in Civ. Paraguay isn't a civilization. It has no merit. It has no importance. The person who made this poll was on the right track, just that whiny Canadians have again ruined what could have been a very cool thread with their inanity.

I don't care about Canada enough to "hate Canada." I care about Civ3, BF42 and the art of gamemaking, which should not be trod underfoot because a bunch of Canadians have "Little Man Syndrome" and wish to attempt to take over every thread discussing who and what should constitute new civs in Civilization, or what armies should be in BF.

If it were restricted to the big silly "What traits and UU would Canada have..." thread, that'd be one thing and it was rude to go into THAT thread and denigrate the idea, but in this thread when Canada isn't even on the poll (rightfully) it is really inappropriate for a bunch of nationalist goofs to come in and start hollering about Canada.

Moderator Action: Warned for nation-bashing in conjunction with your previous post. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889