What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

For North America, add a civ (or ideally 2-3 civs - representing Mississippi culture, a Great Lakes culture and another to the west) where their cities only control the tile they're directly settled on, they don't expand control with culture (maybe with the possible exception of a capital like Cahokia - that could control the tiles immediately adjacent to it). They would preferentially settle tiles with resources to control them and foreign powers would be pushed to raze the settlements rather than capture them. It would help North America feel less empty, but still allow for exploration and not suddenly hit a civ ahistorically controlling the entire map, as well as give some representation to the people who lived there. It could also allow some trade with Mesoamerica. It would probably require a specific set of units to offset production issues with small cities.
 
Last edited:
For North America, add a civ (or ideally 2-3 civs - representing Mississippi culture, a Great Lakes culture and another to the west) where their cities only control the tile they're directly settled on, they don't expand control with culture (maybe with the possible exception of a capital like Cahokia - that could control the tiles immediately adjacent to it). They would preferentially settle tiles with resources to control them and foreign powers would be pushed to raze the settlements rather than capture them. It would help North America feel less empty, but still allow for exploration and not suddenly hit a civ ahistorically controlling the entire map, as well as give some representation to the people who lived there. It could also allow some trade with Mesoamerica. It would probably require a specific set of units to offset production issues with small cities.
But it would demand a plenty of city names. Except if we really want Mississippians to found Poverty Point or Chaco Canyon.
 
But it would demand a plenty of city names. Except if we really want Mississippians to found Poverty Point or Chaco Canyon.
The Mississippians were not one people but a loose group of peoples who shared one culture. So the Cahokia mounds were settled by Dhegiha Siouan-speaking peoples, some of the more southern settlements spoke Caddoan languages, and some of the other settlements likely spoke other languages. There are not very many people today who speak these languages. Could be tough to put together.
 
Could treat cities as tribal settlements and use tribe names, where a number of squares could serve per tribe. Foreign powers could only raze them and plague would also have a chance of razing them. There's increasing evidence of ceremonial meetings between different tribes and while they may not have had a unified leader, it's not a stretch to include one 'representing the people of X' in DoC, considering some of the other civs included. It's just hard to make a feasible and fun playable civ, nevermind a number of them. You'd probably have to have more of the focus on pre-Colombian times, which increases the need for more than one civ. It would improve gameplay to have them exist though imo, and have them involved in trade and diplomacy.
 
One interesting idea is having respawns with their own UHVs, for example, Islamic Egypt could have its own UHVs. DoC already kind of has this with Persia/Iran, Italy/Rome, and Maya/Colombia.
 
Tajik civ covering the Samanids and Ghurids.

Leader: Ismail Samani and Muhammad of Ghor

UHV:
1. Rival of Baghdad:
Build a wonder, an Islamic great mosque, and have 2 great people in Bukhara by [Insert year here].
2. The world burner: Control Iran, Northern India and Tibet by 1250 AD.
3. Iranian Intermezzo: Be the first Civ to enter the renaissance era.
 
Top Bottom