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.
Rita Poon said:
Not quite sure what you mean. You're not suggesting that Native Americans had the capability of colonizing Europe, are you?
No, I'm saying that they had advanced in other areas. The tech tree in Civ so far has been based on how Eurasia advanced, I'd like to see more fundamentally different routes in Civ4.

Natives also lacked the gunpowder, navigation, medicine, agriculuture
& economic system required to sustain Imperialism.
No, the natives were more advanced than the Europeans in medicine and agriculture (as well as in some other fields), and traded over long distances just like the Europeans.

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.
Actually some of them had a good hand and played it pretty well. The Iroquois sped up their empire building considerably by playing the European powers against each other, while exploiting the beaver resource. Most, however, did not get the chance, for the sole reason that their population was decimated by the diseases the Europeans brought.
 
Interesting, so you want to see the tech tree advance in a less Euro-centric fashion? Hopefully I'm not getting too OT, but what technologies would you like to see introduced to the game? Could always use the ideas for my own mod. Personally, I'd like something to replace Monotheism on account of the fact that the ultra-modern nations of East Asia never needed Monotheism.

Ribannah said:
the natives were more advanced than the Europeans in medicine and agriculture (as well as in some other fields), and traded over long distances just like the Europeans.

Guess it all depends on what you mean by "advanced"

I've always assumed that advanced for the sake of this game meant more capable of pulling out a domination victory. I'm sure you're correct that Natives made technological advances that the Europeans had not. But European advances enabled them to dominate the Americas.
 
I made some choices, but things are pretty even.

How about a few less civs than after C3C - but with more differences and more features instead of a mere UU and a mix of two traits?

Huns and so on are already represented as the Mongols, btw. Assyrians... Babylonians and Sumerians are already in, we can add them all or reduce the number to more basic civs but civs with real differences.
 
The Huns and the Mongols were seperated by almost a thousand years. You can't just say that they are the same. The Byzantines and Romans were the same (it depends on the way you look at it. The Byzantine Empire was sometimes called "New Rome" so you can call the Mongols "The New Huns".
 
Rita Poon said:
Interesting, so you want to see the tech tree advance in a less Euro-centric fashion? Hopefully I'm not getting too OT, but what technologies would you like to see introduced to the game?
A lot, actually ...
With regard to the Amerinds I'd say that there should be additional agricultural techs like Advanced Irrigation and Interplanting, and Women's Rights is definitely a must. :)
And The Canoe, of course!

Not just new techs, but also alternative technology paths, where e.g. Democracy, Ecology, Medicine, Combined Arms and Guerilla Tactics (if we have something like those) arrive much earlier and from different prerequisites.
Perhaps available resources and terrain (no early The Wheel if you live in the forest) should have an effect on the available tech path.
And when two sides meet they should not be able to learn each other's advances right away.

Monotheism is not an advance at all IMHO; I'd replace that with Ethics, and Polytheism with Mythology.

I've always assumed that advanced for the sake of this game meant more capable of pulling out a domination victory. I'm sure you're correct that Natives made technological advances that the Europeans had not. But European advances enabled them to dominate the Americas.
Well, there are other ways to win now!
Even so, I doubt the Europeans would have been able to dominate the Americas if the diseases hadn't been so devastating.
 
Zenon_pt said:
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 had thought that South Africa is largely descended from people of Zulu heritage. If I'm wrong someone please correct me on that. Weren't there some larger african kingdoms in West Africa in the region near Nigeria? :confused:
 
I say go for more "classic" civs in Europe and the Middle East. I rarely play, fight against American civs and the Zulu.
 
phorvath2110 said:
I had thought that South Africa is largely descended from people of Zulu heritage.
Bantu (including the Zulu), Bushmen and Hottentots, with Europeans added to the mix (Dutch plus some Germans and Huguenots, later the British), slaves from elsewhere, and even immigrants from India and China.

Weren't there some larger african kingdoms in West Africa in the region near Nigeria? :confused:
Mali/Songhai/Ghana is certainly a better choice, as is Ethiopia in the east.
The Golden Age of South Africa is still to come, I think.
 
Dreadnought said:
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?

Europe is a continent with multi-cultures. so why not!!!

Mexico issus.
Byzantium vs Ottomans is the some issus.
 
phorvath2110 said:
I had thought that South Africa is largely descended from people of Zulu heritage. If I'm wrong someone please correct me on that. Weren't there some larger african kingdoms in West Africa in the region near Nigeria? :confused:

I'm not an expert on African kingdoms and never was.

But in the case of S. Africa is simple. I like modern civ's with have importance recently history...

The S. Africans were in fact "descended" from the zulu's, but nations falls and nations rises (look in Med. East).
 
Austria-Hungary would definately be a bad idea. I doubt either Austrians or Hungarians would be pleased to have their country be "shared" by another. Austria is already represented by Germany; England could be changed to "The United Kingdom" to represent Scotland (and the Celts, for that matter); Portugal, as powerful and important as it was, could be re-assimilated into Spain; and the Netherlands really had little impact on European civilization (not for lack of trying, but just because they were completely dominated by Spain and the like). There is a good argument, however, for the Poles and the Hungarians; the former almost became a superpower earlier on, and remained a driving force behind much of Europe's wars, treaties, and foreign policies; Hungary was a superpower for a few hundred years, after which it kept the Ottoman Empire at bay, becoming "the savior of Europe." Both countries now play major roles in modern global civilization; indeed, Poland and Hungary are the most powerful of the Eastern European nations. Most importantly perhaps, neither of them are culturally very similar to other nations, such as Spain/Portugal, Austria/Germany, etc.
Apologies for ressurecting the thread.
 
Correct me if i'm wrong ,but havn't we left out one of the most important, powerful and influential race to have ever walked the face of the earth.

What about the Assyrians?

And don't say Babylonians to me - cause that just don't cut it. Assyrians encompass a whole region with their capital city being Ninevah - not Babylon - the babylonians were a part of the Assyrian Emprie.

All these great races and nations included - from the really powerful to some which are really obscure - but for some reason -we've left out the most powerful - most influential empre of the Assyrian's. An empire and people going back over six thousand years. The great kings of Assyria - and don't say Babylonian's cause its like calling every american a New Yorker. New York is a great city - but the nation and the people as a whole in the USA are american's . . . I hope I have got my point across.

Some one answer me please . . .

Why?
 
netherland is still important as small as they are .. besides teh spanish and the british teh dutch were just as important in colonizing the new world remember the dutch first had wall street before they traded it to england for suriname
 
Splinter civs. England emerging from the Germans, then America emerging from the English, then for example the Confederacy (in actuality no more than a failed government, not a civilization) emerging from America. It would take a lot of research to include the entire list of historically possible splinter civs from the mere Peoples that existed in 4000 BC. But this would be done for free by modders if the game just included some mechanism for splintering, like mixed nationality populations, accumulation of resources to corruption recievers, unrest, advances, whatever spurs, maybe even random sometimes.
 
What about Austria and Serbia?
 
I haven't read the whole thread (shame on me), but has anyone suggested that Civs get 3 traits instead of 2? It would allow more diversity and depth, IMHO.
 
Mewtarthio said:
What? Not even the Assyrians? Just because they're not around today doesn't mean they never were.

true, Assyria was one of the worlds greatest if not the greatest world power. The Hebrews, Jews came from the assyrian empire. Where do you think they travled from to find the promised land - they left Assyria - crossed the river to find the promised land - that is why Abraham is called abraham - or in ancient aramaic, abra-ham - to cross, to go over - to cross the river as the Hebrews did. Does no one know about the great siege of Ninevah - where for serveral years they held out against the massed armies of all their enemies.

Please correct me anyone if I am wrong. And just to fix one point. How can you call the assyrian's a minor civ compared to the Babylonians. In history as a whole, the Babylonians were the minor civ compared to the Assyrians.
 
Civs I wouldn't mind having
Mali/Songhai/Ghana
Khmer
Tibet
Abbysinia/Ethiopia
Oman
Austria
Mexico
Poland-Lithuania
Scotland
Nubia
Native American tribe of some sort (Cherokee, Sioux)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom