What new Civs ? (no nationalism ?)

What new civs should be in (multiple choices) ?

  • Mali/Songhai

    Votes: 77 35.8%
  • Abyssinia/Ethiopia

    Votes: 101 47.0%
  • Kongo

    Votes: 35 16.3%
  • Khmer

    Votes: 65 30.2%
  • Malay (Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines)

    Votes: 69 32.1%
  • Tibet

    Votes: 48 22.3%
  • Thais

    Votes: 39 18.1%
  • Huns

    Votes: 79 36.7%
  • Poland

    Votes: 79 36.7%
  • Hungary

    Votes: 54 25.1%
  • Polynesia

    Votes: 67 31.2%
  • Hebrews

    Votes: 109 50.7%
  • Assyrians

    Votes: 68 31.6%
  • Sioux/Comanches

    Votes: 69 32.1%
  • Cherokees

    Votes: 58 27.0%
  • Australia

    Votes: 49 22.8%
  • Cuba

    Votes: 25 11.6%
  • Brazil

    Votes: 51 23.7%
  • Canada

    Votes: 45 20.9%
  • Atlantide (j/k) = I prefer to develop my own civ, I don't care about historical ones.

    Votes: 21 9.8%

  • Total voters
    215
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who would the Australian UU be? Crocodile Dundee? or... he could be a Great Leader... :lol: I do apologise for being picky, its lunchtime! I don't think that America should be in ancient era, though I understand that they have to, what with America being a huge commercial market anyhoo. I vote for Phoenica.
 
Espírito said:
Same goes for Poland, it was created in 1914 and all thats ever happened is its been a target for German and Russian expansion. The Prussian and Bavarian and other Eastern European tribes are suitably covered by Germany and Russia. No need for Hungary either.
Australia and Canada are British/French settlements and remain European allies, the only thing either of them has done is participate in the World Wars.

Most of the civilisations who have made an impact on the world are already represented, and there is no need to add more to the game except in MODS, which should be done by users anyway.


Actually Poland and Hungary were both rather influential in European and international affairs for quite a while.

Hungarians successfully managed to keep the Turks at bay for quite a while in the 14th and 15th centuries, and by the time the Turks managed to finally conquer Hungary, they ran out of steam and couldn't take Vienna.

Also the Hungarian king Louis the Great's domains extended at one time from the Adriatic to the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea. I wouldn't exactly call Hungary insignificant.

Similarily Poland has done a lot of stuff in Europe prior to being paritioned by Russia and Prussia. They aided in lifting the siege of Vienna by the Turks and also had a really large kingdom with the Lithuanians. They went into decline afterwards, but that's not the point :D

In the modern era, Poland and Hungary were also among the first nations to reject Communism.

And most importantly my background is Hungarian and I think it would be cool to play as them :lol:
 
i agree phorvath my gran dpa came from hungary and i got soem great grandparent from poland too lets add em both to civ 4 :D
 
Im curious what the Canadian unique unit would be... I think it should be a Royal Candian Mountie. They could be like rifleman type units but with a special, they can act as military police even in republic or democracy. This will reflect the laid-backness of the Candians who i know and represents perhaps a more positive attitude toward the mounties held by the general public.
 
This has already been said, but the Hebrews should be in the game. Also, the Sioux would be another good choice. Maybe Australia should be the Aborigines (can't spell well) the people on the island before the English came...?

Should Carthage be counted as Phoenicia though? At one point Carthage was Phoenicia's colony, but still...

The Huns would make a good new civ, but again, it might fall into the Mongols catagory...
 
phorvath2110 said:
Actually Poland and Hungary were both rather influential in European and international affairs for quite a while.

Poland at one time (WW1 ish) wasn't even on the map! :lol:

Hungary was a world power before WW1 but do we need another European country?
 
I voted Congo because it fill a big gap in Africa, and because it was the only colony Belgium had :p
And also Australia because they fill up a gap :)
 
Zeekater said:
I voted Congo because it fill a big gap in Africa

We need more African countries. The gap there is too wide. Pacific region, too. But seriously, another European country? For God's sake, its already too bunched up in there!
 
What I mean is:

Say you make a world map in the editor. Europe is crowded, Asia is mildly crowded, but Africa, there is a big gap between the civilizations there (Egypt, Zimbabwe, etc).
 
Dreadnought said:
What I mean is:

Say you make a world map in the editor. Europe is crowded, Asia is mildly crowded, but Africa, there is a big gap between the civilizations there (Egypt, Zimbabwe, etc).

What civilization ever dwelt in the Congo? Why can't it just have some natives in it?

Empty spaces fosters colonialism, which is fun.
 
When Europeans colonized America and Africa there were already people living there. The Europeans conquered the natives there to claim the land.
 
Yeah...which is what I said should happen.

Natives doesn't mean civilization.
 
The question is still the some...
Europe: +3 Scotland, Poland(+Lithuania) and Austria-Hungarian
Africa: +3 Ethiopia, Marrocos and South Africa
America: +5 Sioux, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Cuba
Med. East: +2 Hebrews and Phoenicia
Asia + Oceania: +4 Thais, Khmer, Polynesian and Java(Indonesia)

Grand total of +17 new civ's.
But then the problem of the 31 civ's + barbarian tribe to solve!!!

Hoping the problem is solve on cIV...
 
I told you: Why put more European civs in the game? And, why Mexico? Isn't kinda wierd seeing Tenochititlan and Mexico City at the same time?
 
Dreadnought said:
Poland and Huungary were Communist nations! :lol:

But they were also the first two to break away from the block in significant ways.

However, although Poland did move against Russia, it did NOT move decisively against communism...as a matter of fact, I would contend that the system the Polish people were trying to bring into existance was a better step towards true communism than the Soviet Union ever took.

PS. I also wonder exactly how "advanced" a culture needs to be in order to be "civilized" by thestonesfan's criteria. Part of the fun of civ, to me, is taking peoples that were never really that "advanced" through the industrial and modern eras and into the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom