Which Civs/Nations do you want in the first Expansion for CivV?

[awesome]

a few buildings because why not:
carthage: cothon: replaces harbor, gets base harbor's effects and +1 gold from water tiles worked by this city and maybe no maintenance
ethiopia: amba: replaces courthouse, base courthouse's effect plus 2 culture
zulu: ikhanda: replaces barracks (or armory, military academy) +30 experience for land units instead of the base buildings' 15

 

[black213]

Ethiopia:
0.5 Culture from 2 Citizens in all Cities. During a Golden Age, City growth is increased by 33%.
UU:
Oromo Warrior for Musketman
One of the first gunpowder units in the game. May be only trained by Ethiopia. The Oromo Warrior receives a major bonus when fighting in friendly territory (+50%), making it a very useful unit for defense unlike the Musketman which it replaces.
UB:
Stele for Monument
May be only built by Ethiopia. The Stele grants +1 additional Culture and reduces Culture cost for tile acquirement by -25% in the City where it is built in, unlike the Monument which it replaces.

Balanced?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I was set to think the Oromo Warrior was overpowered, but I think that works. The Stele seems OK, although I worry if it hurts the Krepost (that's the target for balancing).

Now the tough part is the unique ability. The key is to make sure it isn't better than the French, since that seems to be the point it would be pegged to. Make sure we're counting everything (Musketeer or Oromo Warrior. Early, better monument or very good Infantry unit). But it'll come down to whether or not one is overwhelmingly better for culture than the other. It seems to be the anti-French, since it encourages vertical growth. The end result isn't bad. A city would need to be size four to break even with France. I think it should be capped, though, at some tech, but I could be wrong.

Any idea for a name for the Ethiopian ability?

 

[black213]

I was set to think the Oromo Warrior was overpowered, but I think that works. The Stele seems OK, although I worry if it hurts the Krepost (that's the target for balancing).

Now the tough part is the unique ability. The key is to make sure it isn't better than the French, since that seems to be the point it would be pegged to. Make sure we're counting everything (Musketeer or Oromo Warrior. Early, better monument or very good Infantry unit). But it'll come down to whether or not one is overwhelmingly better for culture than the other. It seems to be the anti-French, since it encourages vertical growth. The end result isn't bad. A city would need to be size four to break even with France. I think it should be capped, though, at some tech, but I could be wrong.

Any idea for a name for the Ethiopian ability?

I too were worried if it was going to be at par with France, but France fits more for a wide empire and Ethiopia a tall one.

 

[Pouakai]

One thing I don't like about many suggestions for civs (Including this one, sorry) is it takes the UU / UB ideas straight from Civ IV, without thinking of new ones

 

[Louis XXIV]

That might be because none of us know enough about Ethiopian history to think of something better. We've presumed Firaxis did some decent research with Civ4 and are incorporating that.

I too were worried if it was going to be at par with France, but France fits more for a wide empire and Ethiopia a tall one.

Yeah, then again vertical culture is even more powerful because SP cost won't rise. But it seems to be small enough to balance that out. The question is if there should be a tech that gets rid of the power (like Steam Power is for France). Maybe not because you won't really notice the effect until size 4, so it isn't an instant thing. But that's a tough call.

No the question is if anyone with knowledge of Ethiopian history can think of a name for the ability. I'm thinking something to do with religion, but I'm really not sure.

 

[awesome]

up until the polynesians came with their statues, i was thinking of a combat bonus in friendly territory, since it was one of the only parts of africa to hold out on being colonized for so long

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, the Oromo can have that and work out decently.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Rename Ethiopia "Nubia" and have an earlier UU.

 

[awesome]

i meant the friendly territory bonus as a civilization ability. on a unit, it's a different story.

 

[black213]

Rename Ethiopia "Nubia" and have an earlier UU.

Nubia in my opinion should focus on Gold, not Culture.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That would make sense. Although I'll add to avoid confusion that Ethiopia and Nubia were not remotely related. It isn't simply renaming them, it's choosing an entirely different Civ. I'd also argue Ethiopia's achievements were more significant than Nubia.

If the goal is just to have a never before seen African Civ, I'd recommend the Moors over Nubia (I realize I'm using African loosely to use an Arabic civ that had a significant foothold in Spain, but still). Probably the Almoravids to be specific. They would also be very gold-focused.

As long as geography isn't a problem (Spain, [Carthage], and Songhai would create some difficulty), it would be a brand new addition that had a cool history and left behind impressive remains.

 

[Save_Ferris]

If the goal is just to have a never before seen African Civ, I'd recommend the Moors over Nubia (I realize I'm using African loosely to use an Arabic civ that had a significant foothold in Spain, but still)

Why have a never-before-seen African civ when you could have the Zulu? They've been used but they were both significant AND unique. Don't limit Africa to the north.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, I was responding to the suggestion of having Nubia over Ethiopia. I was confused unless the goal was to have a never before used Civ.

The problem with the Zulu is they're most famous for fighting the British. That makes them significant, but only as an aggressive power who fought on not equal terms with a much greater power. It doesn't represent historic, long-term achievement or cultural accomplishments. It makes them comparable to the Souix, not the Iroquois (the former I don't think qualifies as a Civ, the latter does). Now I've been told there was far more to the Zulu than Shaka, so, if that's the case, they are deserving. But if it's just that they fought a lot of wars in southern Africa, I don't think they're deserving.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Well, what about Carthage? There isn't a city-state for them, so they are viable.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I absolutely expect (and hope) for Carthage to be included at some point. Pouakai has a thread about five threads down from this one that speaks generically of Civs to include. I included lots of thoughts for Carthage (actually, I held back, I could conceivably think of more ideas if they were desired).

Since this thread was New Civilization Idea singular and mentioned Ethiopia, I originally limited my comments only to Ethiopia. Plus, Carthage is the definition of a North African Mediterranean Civ. It was squarely focused on the Mediterranean (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Spain) and its people were not native to Africa (Phoenicians, essentially Lebanon).

 

[Moss]

Ethiopia:
0.5 Culture from 2 Citizens in all Cities. During a Golden Age, City growth is increased by 33%.
UU:
Oromo Warrior for Musketman
One of the first gunpowder units in the game. May be only trained by Ethiopia. The Oromo Warrior receives a major bonus when fighting in friendly territory (+50%), making it a very useful unit for defense unlike the Musketman which it replaces.
UB:
Stele for Monument
May be only built by Ethiopia. The Stele grants +1 additional Culture and reduces Culture cost for tile acquirement by -25% in the City where it is built in, unlike the Monument which it replaces.

Balanced?

Moderator Action: Merged into an already existing thread.

 

[awesome]

should've merged it with the newer thread instead.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I would like an ancient Mediterranean pack with three new civs: Carthage, Phoenicia, and another one. The trouble is finding the other one:

I think the Minoans are unique enough and actually had a good influence on the world. However, they didn't have enough cities.
The Etruscans had enough cities, were unique, and also had an influence, but they were in the same location as Rome.
The Hebrews were unique and definitely influential, but they were also small.
The Hittites had a good number of cities, were influential, and were relatively unique, but they were too far inland to be seafaring. Same with the Lydians.
The Assyrians and Nubians had the same perks as the Hittites, but were even further inland.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Celts could also fit, but were inland as well. Sea Peoples are too ephemeral historically. I wonder if any of the Diodichi stand out as separate from the Greeks (maybe Rhodes), but probably not.

I think the Minoans aren't a bad choice. Language could be an issue (since we don't know if they spoke Greek like the Mycenaeans). Crete was a fairly urbanized island during their peak and you can always include areas of similar culture (islands like Thera would be a part of Crete). The biggest problem with them wouldn't be cities, it would be the rest of their historical record. Since we haven't translated their language, there's a fear that their leader will be King Minos and their unique unit a Minotaur.