What will the next DLC have?

[Drawmeus]

The Vatican should be a city state. Seriously.

As for whole Civs, I personally don't want obscure nations. While I'm not trying to diminish the impact that they've had on history, how can be really justify a civ like the Minoans (for example)? What would their UU be, a Minotaur? Civs that only exist through ancient archaeology and didn't rule more than the single island of Crete don't justify spots along side such history-spanning entities like the Ottomans, the Roman Empire, or China. Isn't Crete a possible Greek city name anyhow? If an ancient Civ was somewhat of a "forerunner" to a major Civ, they deserve a city name and a mention in the Civilopedia.

The major Civs that deserve spots (imo) are Celts, Zulu, Mayans, Italy, Israel, Korea, and maybe Vietnam (I could see it working if they used one of the ancient kings ruling an up-to-date Vietnam, kind of like China).

See, personally I disagree entirely. I like the idea of seeing what would have happened if the Inuit seized the opportunity to expand as players on the historical stage. A big part of the charm of Civ to me is the what-if - what if that interesting group had managed to become a major empire?

I am personally hoping for a non-western, non-military civ next. Korea would work for that. I also want more African representation, preferably the Zulu and an important central African/jungle group.

 

[Sonereal]

See, personally I disagree entirely. I like the idea of seeing what would have happened if the Inuit seized the opportunity to expand as players on the historical stage. A big part of the charm of Civ to me is the what-if - what if that interesting group had managed to become a major empire?

I am personally hoping for a non-western, non-military civ next. Korea would work for that. I also want more African representation, preferably the Zulu and an important central African/jungle group.

Zulu and Korea I can see? But Inuit?

 

[Drawmeus]

Zulu and Korea I can see? But Inuit?

Inuit would be a totally unique gameplay experience (if they did them half-decently - and given how well they've created interesting DLC civs so far, I'm inclined to believe they would). So yes, Inuit.

 

[Sonereal]

Inuit would be a totally unique gameplay experience (if they did them half-decently - and given how well they've created interesting DLC civs so far, I'm inclined to believe they would). So yes, Inuit.

I rather they put money into making civilizations that are noteworthy.

 

[The_J]

Is surviving in the cold, with an unique culture, not something noteworthy ?
Inuits can be included with the same reasons like the Polynesians, like the mentioned reasons.

 

[Drawmeus]

I rather they put money into making civilizations that are noteworthy.

The same basic discussion happened when they released Polynesia. There are (at least) two ways to judge whether a civ is good enough to make the cut - whether it was noteworthy, or whether it makes for an interesting and unique gameplay experience. It sounds like you're judging by the former criterion while I'm judging by the latter. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think we have enough common ground to convince each other to change our minds.

 

[starrywisdom]

I rather they put money into making civilizations that are noteworthy.

You mean like the Civ's we've all played hundreds of times over? I don't mind always having the 'great powers' but I would like the 'little guys' to change - this isn't a historical simulator, it's a game so if the Inuit can be designed to work well where NO other civ can(ice) have a decent UU/UA/UB then why not? Better then having another American/Russian/English/Etc leader who is marginally(if any) different in gameplay.

 

[Sonereal]

The same basic discussion happened when they released Polynesia. There are (at least) two ways to judge whether a civ is good enough to make the cut - whether it was noteworthy, or whether it makes for an interesting and unique gameplay experience. It sounds like you're judging by the former criterion while I'm judging by the latter. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think we have enough common ground to convince each other to change our minds.

Polynesia is noteworthy for its history and for the gameplay experience it offered. The Inuit, however, will probably turn out just as well as the sci-fi scenario did in CivIV (what was it, Aftermath, Afterworld?)

Not to mention that the Inuit are far low on the list for either criteria in my opinion.

You mean like the Civ's we've all played hundreds of times over? I don't mind always having the 'great powers' but I would like the 'little guys' to change - this isn't a historical simulator, it's a game so if the Inuit can be designed to work well where NO other civ can(ice) have a decent UU/UA/UB then why not? Better then having another American/Russian/English/Etc leader who is marginally(if any) different in gameplay.

Yes, exactly like the ones we've played before. There's a reason why every Civ game from here to the end of days will include America, the Brits, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Indians and why we have to discuss whether or not the Inuit are noteworthy.

 

[killmeplease]

inuits could have UA of per-city unhappiness reduction (say by 2) for cities found on barren/tundra
tiles so they could have many small polar cities working on fish and whales, linking up furs and other resources of those areas.
iglu ub (granary replacement) could provide additional production from unemployed citizens and tiles with fish resource

 

[Dragonflow]

The Inuits might be added later when the really important civs are all in game. They should add some African civs, such as Zulu, Congo, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Carthage and maybe a South African Boer civilization. There are many civilization that need to be added before the Inuit.

 

[nokmirt]

Add Phoenicia or Carthage!

I rather they put money into making civilizations that are noteworthy.

Civs off the beaten path should be left out. Otherwise we'd have to include the Mbuti tribe as well. They are just not going to have empires with a huge impact on civilization. These smaller peoples have their impact, surely known locally, but are a very small part of the larger world. I think if they are going to add several of these little civs, they should put them in an expansion bundle. Or create a bundle of scenarios that deal with smaller tribes of people, CiV could prove to be very educational as well. We all should learn about the world we live in past and present.

 

[spider1]

I don't think it matters who or what the new civ is as long as they are something new and interesting to play.

 

[Kimuyama]

The Inuit (I'm completely Neutral about this, I just enjoy making these up)
Note, embarked graphic is a couple of kayaks.
Leader: ?
UA: Something allowing instant passage over ice, plus some bonuses to snow and tundra.
UU: Inuit Hunter (Replaces Scout, can enter coast from start, other stuff).
UB: Igloo (maybe; Replace granary) or something that replace and improve harbours.

Cities:
Nuuk (Capital)
Iqaluit
etc.

 

[sithofheaven]

Has it?
Apart from the little fascism-adventure in the beginning of the last century Italy hasn't contributed that much, I think.
Not to downplay the history of the Italian peninsula, which is very rich, but Italy itself is quite a young country, formed in the late 19th century.

Germany and Italy were both unified in 1871 and I doubt anyone here is questioning whether or not Germany should be in the game. Just because it existed as separate states doesn't change the fact that the Italian peninsula was distinct from Rome by the time of the Renaissance and the Renaissance is reason enough to add them.

 

[Drawmeus]

Polynesia is noteworthy for its history and for the gameplay experience it offered. The Inuit, however, will probably turn out just as well as the sci-fi scenario did in CivIV (what was it, Aftermath, Afterworld?)

Not to mention that the Inuit are far low on the list for either criteria in my opinion.
[/I]

I think you're underselling how much different your city site evaluation would be if you were playing a civ with large bonuses on tundra and ice coasts. That's an evaluation we've never had to do before in Civ, in any game.

I'm certainly not arguing that the Inuit were "noteworthy" in history the way England was. I agree that if your criterion is historical impact, the Inuit are never, ever being added. But I think a gameplay experience favoring arctic and sub-arctic coastal regions as prime areas to develop into would be very interesting.

 

[seasnake]

I think Italy is farther down the list than some, but still a worthwhile choice some day. I do think Portugal and Netherlands (or United Provinces, if you like) should be the two next Europe civs, or maybe the Celts.

Lately, my list of civs I want in include:

The 34 BTS civs with Polynesia, Siam, Iroquois, Songhai and Denmark replacing HRE, Khmer, Native Americans, Mali and Vikings

Then I'd add:

Hittites
Mississippi
Kongo
Sioux
Khazaria
Majapahit

 

[Alexastor]

Germany and Italy were both unified in 1871 and I doubt anyone here is questioning whether or not Germany should be in the game. Just because it existed as separate states doesn't change the fact that the Italian peninsula was distinct from Rome by the time of the Renaissance and the Renaissance is reason enough to add them.

Even if we're talking just about the states that existed after 1871, Germany is of much more importance than Italy. It were the Germans who (unfortunately) started the two most horrible wars in history of mankind.

Other than that, "Germany" in CiV covers the whole period from 120BC (Furor Teutonicus)
trough the middle ages (Landsknechts) up to present.

Talking about Renaissance... Do you know what Renaissance means? It means "rebirth", rebirth of philosophy and culture of classical Rome and Greece, lost during the middle ages.

Renaissance Italy has more in common with Rome than it has with the past 1871 Italy.

Besides, the most important Italian city states are already present in form of city states.

 

[mbkkbm]

I personally think the Celts or the Inuit would be fun to play with. The Celts could have the Gaelic warrior with the UA of mines provide + 1 food or something

 

[spider1]

The idea of a geographic specific civ interests me. The Incas and Highlands rock, as does the Polys and arch maps. A civ specific to tundra and snow, and one specific to desert would be interesting to play. There are already maps for that.

 

[agoodfella]

Hope Korea gets the nod, I'm a def. buyer.