What new Civs ? (no nationalism ?)

[Dreadnought]

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.

I agree with you!

 

[Rita Poon]

Austria is already in the game. Same with Scandinavia. Are you guys still playing Vanilla Civ or was that sarcasm?

I'd like to see Mississippian & Zimbabwean Civ. Maybe Anasazi, too.

Voted for:

Mali/Songhai
Abyssinia/Ethiopia
Kongo
Khmer
Malay (Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines)
Tibet
Polynesia

 

[Dreadnought]

sarcasm!

anyway...

 

[Chauliodus]

Hebrews, Assyrians, Ethiopia.

 

[Dreadnought]

The HEbrews should defenitly be in the game. They are one of the longest lasting civs in the world!

 

[kaoruchan]

Mali/Songhai, Ethiopia, Khmers, Hebrews

 

[SewerStarFish]

Remember, the capital of Assyria is Ashur.

 

[GeZe]

Bulgaria:
The rulers of the balkans during the medival ages and the foes of Bysintine,having besiged Constantinople.

 

[jimkirk]

my vote

1)abbysinia/ethiopia (anyone remember the queen of sheba?... hmmm of course not :d
2)hebrews/israelites (ancient era not the modern one )
3)sioux/comanches another native american indian group just for the heck of it

 

[thestonesfan]

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.

I agree. I'm not sure what the official "criteria" for a civilization is, and I don't know how they would set it. But, there really is no reason to have a "Congo" civilization. There are African civs they could implement that wouldn't be wholly fictional, such as the Mali(or Songhay), or the Ethiopians, in addition to the Zulus.

I don't really care, myself. I'd rather not see legitimate civs get cut in favor of fictional ones. I'd rather they put some more effort into making native populations represented by more than a mere goody hut or barbarian camp.

The main thing I was contesting was the need to have all corners of the earth filled up by a civ from day one. I don't see anything wrong with having an Africa or North America that is very sparsely populated. At the same time, the areas shouldn't be completely void of population. I mean, white settlers negotiated extensively with Native American tribes, many of which had no permanent settlements or unified government.

 

[Rita Poon]

I should say that I play my games as 1 of 2 mods.

Mod 1-Only the most historically significant Civs. Pretty much just Eurasia.

Mod 2-Civs that would fill up a whole real world map. Heavier on America & Sub-Saharan Africa.

I find mod 2 to be a lot more interesting. Some may see Civ more as a historical re-creation society. But I think China being colonzied by the Empire of Munhumutapa & the "Army of Iroquois Communism" are a lot more fun.

BTW-Kingdom of Kongo was a pretty important center of trade. Was a much more centralized & technologically advanced civ than the Zulu ever were. Unfortunately, it was decimated by getting involved in the slave trade. My next leaderhead project is Alfonso of Kongo, who tried (unsucessfully) to end slave trade.

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, perhaps I am just uninformed about the Congo.

It's with a "C" in English, BTW.

 

[Rita Poon]

The old Kingdom was spelled with a K-you're thinking of the modern Nation.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kongo

 

[thestonesfan]

Perhaps I am incredibly uninformed.

 

[Rita Poon]

Its all good. What you say about representing minor civs makes a lot of sense. Would be nice if there was a better way than "goodie huts" to represent some of the less powerful civilizations. While at the same time NOT elevating every nationality that ever existed to full fledged civ status. Would be nice if there was a happy medium.

Just played a game where Babylon was stuck on some tiny, barren, isolated, island & never made it out of the middle ages. So they were treated like a 3rd world country.

But I'd like to see more games where several civs are isolated on a seperate continent, with plenty of resources, but without the ability to exploit them. Like the Native Americans were. As the game stands now, everyone will always be in the tech race, unless they get a horrible starting position. It should be possible, even common, to find civs lagging behind by an entire age.

 

[Dreadnought]

Its all good. What you say about representing minor civs makes a lot of sense. Would be nice if there was a better way than "goodie huts" to represent some of the less powerful civilizations.

I agree. On one huge map 1v1 against a computer on emperor I just began colonizing a small continent in the westernmost part of the map. It was late industrial/early modern ( I was too busy fighting the Persians to colonize the island earlier in the game). I found a goody hut on the island, and I was thinking "Why the heck are these guys still in the prehistoric?"

Instead, goody huts should be tiny city-states. What I mean by that is they have their own radius and have population. However, the city is not guarded by troops. This is the 'city-state'.

When, say, 60% of the major civs in the game are in a new age, the city-states enter the age and can give you techs from that age, just like when they give you techs in the prehistoric times.

 

[thestonesfan]

But there are plenty of natives that have not advanced beyond the stone age.

 

[Ribannah]

I agree. I'm not sure what the official "criteria" for a civilization is, and I don't know how they would set it. But, there really is no reason to have a "Congo" civilization. There are African civs they could implement that wouldn't be wholly fictional, such as the Mali(or Songhay), or the Ethiopians, in addition to the Zulus.

Big difference between Mali and Ethiopia, who were among the leading nations of the world in their time, and the Zulu, who were a local power for a short while (but their best days may still be in the future).

I mean, white settlers negotiated extensively with Native American tribes, many of which had no permanent settlements or unified government.

The 'negotiation' often came to destroying their permanent settlements.
It was only after a number of tribes were driven onto the plains, that they started to follow the buffalo, to survive. While keeping their unified government btw, while the settlers abandoned theirs.

But there are plenty of natives that have not advanced beyond the stone age.

Name one.

 

[Ribannah]

But I'd like to see more games where several civs are isolated on a seperate continent, with plenty of resources, but without the ability to exploit them. Like the Native Americans were. As the game stands now, everyone will always be in the tech race, unless they get a horrible starting position. It should be possible, even common, to find civs lagging behind by an entire age.

They were just as isolated from Eurasia as Eurasia was from America, and their tech level was equally advanced when they met (not counting the early Chinese expeditions).
Nor did they 'lack the ability to exploit resources'. They used as many resources as were used elsewhere. One important resource, animals that could be put to work, was lacking.

 

[Rita Poon]

Not quite sure what you mean. You're not suggesting that Native Americans had the capability of colonizing Europe, are you? Aside from animals, Natives also lacked the gunpowder, navigation, medicine, agriculuture & economic system required to sustain Imperialism. Besides, not having domesticated beasts of burden=inability to exploit resources.

By no means am I suggesting Natives deserved their fate. Just that they were in a tough position & I don't see how they could've played their hand any better.