What new civs would you like to see added in an expansion pack?

[Lars_Domus]

Also, does anyone know how many civs this expansion is going to have?

6, of which Vikings, Gauls and Carthage have been announced. In the other "what civs would you like to see in the XP"-thread there's a link to the result of a poll on the matter, and Vikings, Celts and Carthage are all among the top 6. The other three are Babylonia, Ottoman and Byzantine. I would not be surprised if Firaxis revealed these to be the missing XP-civs.

The poll I'm talking about can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152377&page=37

 

[Ribannah]

* Inserts the 38 pages of the previous thread on this exact same topic. *

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

To be fair, this one was first.

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Why does everyone say Babylon? Assyria is like, 10,000 times cooler.


My 6 picks:

1. Assyria - Leader: Sargon
2. Sweden - Leader: Charles
3. Khmer - Leader: Jayavarman
4. Ethiopia - Leader: Zawditu
5. Israel - Leader: David
6. Netherlands - Leader: Wilhelmina

and my ridiculous #7 choice because I think it'd be fun:
7. Argentina - Leader: Evita

I took some historical liberties (especially with Wilhelmina), but I just can't pass up a leader with that name.

 

[kharas]

I like to see the Chileans... why?

- Because they had a complete culture, with military tradition (prussian tradition, introduced by Emile Körner), scientific leader, like Humberto Maturana (ok,it's not Einstein, but still is relatively important) in these days, they have artists like Gabriela Mistral or Pablo Neruda, military heroes, renowned along the world, like Prat or O'Higgins, they have the highest tech in south america. Some of their political theories are studied in many universities, like "el peso de la noche" by Diego Portales (studied in Frankfurt), and they NEVER lost a war. The natives, "Mapuche", never were conquisted by spanish, althoug incans and aztecs yes were. In the military sector again, the inventor of "Cluster Bomb" is a Chilean, I can not remember his name now, but he is chile, I swear it.

Statesmen: Diego Portales / Augusto Pinochet... (I prefer the first)
Suggested Bonus: Something in military aspect and something in the economic one. If the malus system is considered, their weakness is the industrial sector, that make Chile dependant of greater potences.
Obviously, Chile is a civilization of the modern days, just like USA, but with less power and influence.

Special Unit: Any update of a rifleman. I will think on this.

 

[Atropos]

Chile isn't the worst choice I've seen by a long shot, but I don't think they have a realistic chance of getting in. I like the idea of Assyria instead of Babylon - they lasted longer, and the Assyrian ethnic group still exists.

 

[Martinus]

I think an informal rule for these kind of polls should be that you cannot vote or propose your own country, since otherwise we have hordes of nationalistic fanbois.

 

[Atropos]

I agree with Martinus, but the rule is unenforcable.
My 6 civs:
Assyria
Hungary
Netherlands
Thailand
Ottoman Empire
Uighur

 

[kharas]

Chile isn't the worst choice I've seen by a long shot, but I don't think they have a realistic chance of getting in. I like the idea of Assyria instead of Babylon - they lasted longer, and the Assyrian ethnic group still exists.

Ok, i know that Chile do not have a real option to in, but the questions is "... would you like to see..."
Well, i like to see Chile in the game by the early reasons.

In otherway, ok, propose the own country may be influenced by patriotic sentiments expresed in a game, but, talk against it merits...


ah, Chile integred the security council of ONU, another merit of a small country, and Chile said NO to war in Irak, that is, in the minimalist way, a show of bravery, because in those days Chile was according a free comerce agreement with USA. I do not say that vote against is good or bad, only that it shows the bravery of a Country that can not win a war against USA, even with all south america allied (moreover, south american countries hates Chile).

 

[Atropos]

A lot of countries opposed Iraq II. I'm not sure that that's enough to justify inclusion. Belgium is even smaller and even less likely to win a war against the US, and it also opposed the war.

Chile does have a very proud military history in wars against its neighbors, which is why I think it's an interesting choice - maybe not the best, but interesting.

 

[SkippyT]

Chile ... very interesting. But still .. to hell with it. I want Chile in

 

[kharas]

A lot of countries opposed Iraq II. I'm not sure that that's enough to justify inclusion.

I think same, that is not enough. But added to the other reasons is interesting.
And, there are no South America modern civs in the game. Brazil maybe is an option, but its curriculum is made only by great names (Brazilian Empire) without effect. Moreover, what may be a brazilian unit... a football player??? (without offending, that is not the intention)

 

[troytheface]

chili? at least Bolivia had a general that won some battles. Chili?

 

[kharas]

chili? at least Bolivia had a general that won some battles. Chili?

Excusing my ignorance... who is that general???
- Bolívar, he was native from Venezuela.
- Santa Cruz... He lost the war of confederation against Chile.

By the chilean side:
O'Higgins... He freed Chile, and was second general in "expedición libertadora del Perú", financed by Chile, and battled by chileans. In this expedition, was freed Peru and "Alto Perú", now called Bolivia.

Please, argue based in history, not in story.

 

[slehuede]

You choose guys. I'll give some ideas.
Someone mentioned Diego Portales, but actually he wasn't a president or anything like that. He was a politic philosopher. Add Diego Portales is something like add Marx. Do you understand me?

1. Lautaro. A very important mapuche who fought against spanishs and won. He has to be very agressive and organizated or something like that.
2. Bernardo O'Higgins. The first president -not with it name, but in the fact the same. Brought independence to Chile. He should be administrative and liberal -anti-aristhocratic. Also maybe philosophical.
3. Arturo Alessandri Palma. Brought democracy to Chile. Very political, carsismathical and organizated. Good relations with other countries.
4. Salvador Allende. Socialist. Organizated and good relations with other countries. Philosophical.
5. Augusto Pinochet. Extreme-right one. Very militar and aggresive. Also free market defender.
Ricardo Lagos. Almost like chilean's Roosevelt.

 

[thanghv]

wikipedia said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam
me said, "small" nation like a barbarian if compare to united china (china is english name, in vietnam china mean 'center of the world', 'center of best thing'). They capture us for about 1000 year but we have our private culture, so the last revulation become success.

after that, the france with hi tech come to conquer the poor closed door barbarian and again, 100 year late with right tech from Xoviet, we take another success revulation with the famous battle Dien Bien Phu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu. but mighty American take control of south vietnam and it make a war long for 30 year. Who win, you already know.

in civilization game, its' very interesting to play hard level, your civ weak first but last stand. But if you have to stand again a mighty military, you will lose easy, not true in real life like in vietnam, vietnam's infantry can hide and take health in its town, cottage and more, its' town or cottage can procedure military too (with neccessrary condition)

so for vietnam civ, I suggess:

Leader: Ho Chi Minh
Traits: Aggressive and Philosphical
Unique Unit: Infantry (Can hide and take health in town, cottage, hamlet <of its mother country>)
Unique Building: Town, Cottage, Hamlet (can procedure military, if the city is capured, town still can procedure military)
Fave Civic: Police State

ps: I think only have special UU, vietnam can stand again China, France and mighty USA