What new Civs should be in an expansion?

What Civs should be included in an expansion?

  • Assyrians

    Votes: 15 22.4%
  • Babylonians

    Votes: 39 58.2%
  • Byzantines

    Votes: 17 25.4%
  • Carthaginians

    Votes: 32 47.8%
  • Celts

    Votes: 32 47.8%
  • Dutch

    Votes: 24 35.8%
  • Ethiopians

    Votes: 29 43.3%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 11 16.4%
  • Iroquois

    Votes: 20 29.9%
  • Israelites

    Votes: 22 32.8%
  • Khmer

    Votes: 19 28.4%
  • Maya

    Votes: 31 46.3%
  • Nubians

    Votes: 12 17.9%
  • Ottomans

    Votes: 40 59.7%
  • Phoenecians

    Votes: 22 32.8%
  • Portuguese

    Votes: 27 40.3%
  • Sumerians

    Votes: 12 17.9%
  • 'Vikings'

    Votes: 42 62.7%
  • Zimbabweans

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • Zulu

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • Total voters
    67
Nubians will be interesting as new civ, I liked Numedian mercenaries in Rome TW.
Phoenecians .. sounds quality.
Babylonians + Ottomans .. essentials.
Carthaginians .. I like them.
Celts , Vikings... one of them only will be enough.
Ethiopians .... I didnt vote for them , but they are better representative of Africa than Mali.
 
Lockesdonkey said:
Don't worry overmuch about it. I only hope that at least two African civs make it.

Me too ... I cast for Ethiopia on that basis, but it was a tough decision because there are so many others in that list who deserve to be in. But I'm a fan of the idea that every region of the world which saw some kind of indigenous civilization ought to be represented.

Personally, I'd like to see focussed expansions, aimed at a particular period or area. For instance, you could have the Mesoamerican, Ancient Meditteranean, Mesopotamian, African, Native American, Imperialist Europe, Medieval Europe etc expansion sets, so that fans of those eras or places could be truly satisfied. Alot of expansions, true, but they could keep the price low by inviting fan submissions to keep production costs down, and eventually offer them in sets (eg set 1, the West, include ancient med, medieval europe and imperialist europe)
 
Israelite9191 said:
Here is the list of Civs I think should be in the game after all the expansions are in:
1. Inuit
2. Canadians
3. Americans
4. Sioux
5. Iroquois
6. Aztecs
7. Maya
8. Inca
9. Malinke
10. Abyssinians (Ethiopians)
11. Zulu
12. Asanti
13. Carthaginians
14. Egyptians
15. Spanish
16. Potuguese
17. French
18. Celts
19. Romans
20. Greeks
21. English
22. Germans
23. Vikings (Mabey Union of Kelmar if you want to be more specific)
24. Polish
25. Hungarians
26. Russians
27. Turks
28. Phoenicians
29. Israelites
30. Arabs
31. Persians
32. Indians
33. Tibetans
34. Khmer
35. Majaphit (Indonesians)
36. Chinese
37. Mongols
38. Koreans
39. Japanese
40. Anasazi
41. Babylonians
42. Sumerians (41 and 42 could conceivably be replaced with the Assyrians)
I think 41 or 42 is a descent number, it covers pretty much every region with enough people without going way overboard. All of these civilizations have enough cities or sites to be used as settlements , as well as an easily identifiable culture, most of which are still in existence in some form today. They all have at least one "great" ruler (except possibly the Anasazi) to be used as their leader. I did not include the Byzantintes, Ottomans, Songhay, Medeans, Somalis, etc. etc. because other civilizations stand in for them easily ( for example, Romanium for Byzantium and Mali for the Songhay).

EDIT: I can't believe it, but I forgot the Dutch. That makes the total 42 or 43.

What about Eastern Europe??? :eek:
Is your atlas missing that page...
 
I't be nice to see the Illyrians (essentially, they are what yiu get when you put pre hellenized -before Greek influnces- Romans in the Balkin peninisula; exceptional fighters (and reamained so for mostr opf Roman history, becoming int he 3rd century, the main peoples from which legionaries were recruited from, taking Italy's place), famous pirates, and were well on thier way to becomming an established power when Rome began a peice meal conquest of the area.

-on another note, it was also the Illyrian rebellion that stopped Rome from conqeroing Germany- many will say its the ambush in teotoburg forest, but in reality, all the germans did was stick thier arse in a hornets nest with that one, and the Romans quicklly launched a massive expedition solelly meant to ruin the countrey side and teach the germans a lesson they would never forget (and promptlly afterward, thier was the Pax Romana ;))- but, one may ask, if the Romans could so easilyl launch a campighn of destruction, why not another one of Conquest?

The answer is that the single most serious revolt in all Roman history was occuring in the Illyrian provinces- why was it so serious? Because for the only time in Roman history, several Legions joined the people in thier rebellion, creating a dire situation in which monumanetal forces needed to be dispatched- forces that could have been used to occupy Germany in a second invasion, as its one thing to go through, burn everything you see, and then head back- another thing to go in, and actually set your arse down, and begin to say its yours, and the second requires a great deal more troops to do then the first.
 
Xen said:
I't be nice to see the Illyrians (essentially, they are what yiu get when you put pre hellenized -before Greek influnces- Romans in the Balkin peninisula; exceptional fighters (and reamained so for mostr opf Roman history, becoming int he 3rd century, the main peoples from which legionaries were recruited from, taking Italy's place), famous pirates, and were well on thier way to becomming an established power when Rome began a peice meal conquest of the area.

Dunno ... you could say more or less the same for lots of pre-Roman groups, for instance the Catuvellauni who were on the verge of creating a power in Britain and thereby control over the tin supply in Europe when Caesar invaded. Close but no cigar doesn't count, imo.

In any case the Illyrians are very closely associated with the Romans themselves ... seems like a bit of a duplicate civ, really. And do we really need to start including small European kingdoms, in addition to all the other European civs? If Illyria was in Australia or something, I'd certainly count it in, but as it is I just don't know.
 
frekk said:
Dunno ... you could say more or less the same for lots of pre-Roman groups, for instance the Catuvellauni who were on the verge of creating a power in Britain and thereby control over the tin supply in Europe when Caesar invaded. Close but no cigar doesn't count, imo.

In any case the Illyrians are very closely associated with the Romans themselves ... seems like a bit of a duplicate civ, really. And do we really need to start including small European kingdoms, in addition to all the other European civs? If Illyria was in Australia or something, I'd certainly count it in, but as it is I just don't know.

just throwing up a possible ancient civ located in eastern (well, central-south-eastern) europe; I'd agree that it was close; but then, so were the celts and Spanish bore close resemblence to the early Iron age Italics; and they bore great resemblence to the bronze age Mycenaeans; most of europe was very stable in how its civilizations actually progressed from warlike tribal based societies to... well, war like nation based societies ;)
 
I like both Carthage and Phoenecia - but they are the similar in that they were sea empires- partly made up of the same peoples. One of those thanks.

The Dutch, The Celts and The Vikings - yes please. And no complaints about Euro-centric.

The Ottomans - an abosulte must and and a shoe-in to get in first x-pack.

The Hittites - For a Kadesh scenario.

Congo and Ethiopia - Good for African scens and world scens.

The Babs - Well because it makes sense.

Then some civs to fill out a world map, , Khmer, Polynesia, Iroqouis Confederation and the Maya (Though I'd personally prefer the ones at the top of the list)
 
HourlyDaily said:
Then some civs to fill out a world map, , Khmer, Polynesia, Iroqouis Confederation and the Maya (Though I'd personally prefer the ones at the top of the list)

If you want civs to fill out a world map, then australia should be there
 
I'm not sure what reasons you'd have for including them as a civilisation. Barbeque? Beer? The inability to play cricket? :mischief:
 
Babylon and Carthage are two of my favorite civs. I was saddened to hear that they are not going to be in Civ 4 Vanilla (especially Babylon; Hammurabi has always been around since the beginning).

Ottomans and Scandinavians are undeniable additions needed as well; their importance as civilizations need little explanation.

But I wonder why Armenians aren't on the list? Heh, Tigran the Great carved up the legacy of Seleukos and created an empire that stretched from the Caucases to Jerusalem. Sure, it fell when Rome sneezed at it, but it was impressive and it helped affirm the Armenian 'homeland' in the Caucases at Artaxata and in Eastern Anatolia around Tigranocerta (until the Young Turk genocides pretty much disposed of their communities in Anatolia). Even after their short stint with political power, Armenians had a strong commerical empire during the middle ages (stretched from Constantinople to India), were rather important as mercenaries and vassals for the Byzantines and Arabs (and, the Persians back during the wars against the city-states in Greece), and developed a rather unique and vibrant culture that remained pretty unique even with overbearing Muslim and Byzantine intervention.

And no, I'm not Armenian. Just suggesting that they might have some sort of validity to be considered a civ in Civilization.
 
Welcome to Civ Fanatics Hanno Barca

I ike Greece for Nastagia but Russia works well for me too. On the whole i am a preaty adaptible player do to my lack of a play strategy.
 
supposing there are 2 expansions (as in civ3) and 15 extra tribes between them i would like to see added:

- Babylon (or 4 those dead keen on Assyria, Assyria)
- Bring back the Zulus!
- A native american tribe, preferably sioux or iroqious
- Polynesia (or 4 those dead keen on Australia, Australia)
- Carthage just because they lose the punic war doesn't mean they doesn't count!
- Maya
- a representative from SE Asia, preferably Siam or Khmers
- Ethiopia or Nubia
- Korea
- Turks/Ottomans
- Hittites
- Dutch
- Vikings
- Celts/Gauls
- and this one for Mr Hanno Barca, Armenia (and no, im not armenian either)
 
Babylonians most definitely - but I assume they'll already be 100% set on putting them in the first expansion.

Samoa [Leader- Aggresive, Creative]- This is really just for a representation of the Pacific in general. You can't really lump all of Polynesia together into one Civ, and Samoas the most recognizable. NZ isn't really an option because you'd have to choose whether to go with the Maori angle or the more modern pakeha one.

Cartharge- Civ will seem weird without Cartharge there, they've always played a big part in all of my games.

One Civ I won't be missing is Korea- They always screw me over >.<
 
Back
Top Bottom