What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

How high priority is some Filipino civilization?

LOL!!!!!!!

With the new map, it'd be feasible, given that Manila, Cebu, and Davao can coexist and grow considerably. The big concern, though, is the very late spawn date (1898 AD). Alternatively, on the Mexican spawn, the Philippines also spawns as a vassal of Spain. Its independence should be coded too, though, something that both the human and the AI can achieve. Related to stability and happiness, maybe?
 
Not high, there are a few big name civs that definitely come first. Even after that their priority is low but that's because I know very little but Filipino history and am therefore not very eager to include them because I have no idea what their game could look like. If you have ideas about that (or want to remind me about a post you made in the past) that might change my mind. See the discussion about modern Israel we had recently, if there are ideas for interesting UPs or UHV goals it immediately becomes more likely for such a civ to exist at some point.
 
Perhaps its not worth the effort, but I would say the civil war had a big and lasting impact on the US historically.
I can list countless events for every country that had a big and lasting impact, though.
 
As much as I'd like to see the Confederacy finally get its day in an RFC mod, I think that it, as well as Israel or the Papal States, just don't fit with the scope of the mod.
Israel and the Papal States would have 1 city cores, and unlike the Dutch, wouldn't have large historical areas to colonize.
The Confederacy would last less than a dozen turns regardless of speed, which makes crafting good historical victory goals nearly impossible.

I like the idea of adding the Swahili, Swedes, and Tamerlane/Turkic Central Asian civ. A Nubian civ (like Makuria in SoI) could be interesting, as could more Amerindian or African civs. (Zulus? - with the bigger map it might actually work)


I get that. I would see the Confederacy as something that would have a long shot at surviving and under those circumstances a chance of either annexing the north (replace america) or even playing out an alt history. If world wars happen, they could join an opposing side like in some of the historical fiction novels that abound. It could also be something that is a player only option, though it seems like a pretty vile choice for the player. "Switch to Confederacy..? How about no."
 
For Jerusalem and the Papal State, I would argue that 1 city civs should be allowed if they are sufficiently important in world history, such as Jerusalem and the Papal States.

Jerusalem especially is a civ I want as our current number of 3000 bc civs is quite low. It's also why I'm highly receptive to 3000 BC civ suggestions in general. Papal States is born more from a hatred of important cities being represented by independent cities. Whenever I find that something like Jerusalem, Rome, etc is supposed to be independant and not part of a major civ, a bit of myself dies inside. If I knew more about Native American/Asian cultures I'd probably be hurting even more tbh.
Jerusalem did not exist in 3000 BC. In fact the Hollywood narrative of the Exodus is pretty much impossible. If there was an exodus of Semitic peoples from Egypt it would have almost certainly happened after the life of Ramesses. I think if there is any truth to teh Biblical narrative it's more likely that Ramesses was the pharaoh that took Joseph as a vizier.
 
Jerusalem did not exist in 3000 BC. In fact the Hollywood narrative of the Exodus is pretty much impossible. If there was an exodus of Semitic peoples from Egypt it would have almost certainly happened after the life of Ramesses. I think if there is any truth to teh Biblical narrative it's more likely that Ramesses was the pharaoh that took Joseph as a vizier.
Really? Jerusalem is around at 3000 BC in DOC, so I just assumed a Jerusalem civ would start at the same time.
 
Jerusalem did not exist in 3000 BC. In fact the Hollywood narrative of the Exodus is pretty much impossible. If there was an exodus of Semitic peoples from Egypt it would have almost certainly happened after the life of Ramesses. I think if there is any truth to teh Biblical narrative it's more likely that Ramesses was the pharaoh that took Joseph as a vizier.

Or there were multiple migrations that were reducted to one narrative. But that is not here nor there.

There is a sense of emptiness in the early game, in part because the map does not have many accurate, but irrelevant NPCs. City states, nomadic tribes, civilizations made up of independent polii are not represented by the game mechanics. Adding the kingdom of David won't fix these problems.
 
Still think nomadic tribes as a NPC civ could be cool, could be used to fill up sibiria and fill up the space there.
 
though it seems like a pretty vile choice for the player.
This whole talk about including the CSA, and especially this part I have quoted - because no, it isn't uniquely 'vile' compared to other things you can do, such as engaging into the triangular slave trade, or something as simply as letting your cities starve, brutally crush rebellions, seize independent countries, annex entire continents, and ever so on - is extremely Americacentric.
 
Starting as America and settling the continent already implies some pretty vile things. I don't think there is an ethically acceptable UHV except maybe Polynesia's.
 
I don't want to be too specific here.
 
Persia.
 
History Rewritten has a Nigerian civ that could serve as a base for this. Africa in general is rife with potential for civs with unique gameplay. It's why I like the Swahili, but also something in Nigeria, as well as maybe Songhai and Zimbabwe. With the larger map I would also really like to see Nubia.
 
Top Bottom