Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by veBear, Sep 21, 2010.
I found some more infos and jus wanna share it
You think you could place that in a spoiler
yes, but why?
done into spoiler
It was just a very long post, and posts like that take time to go past. Therefore, spoilers are such a great addition to this forum
Another expansion Civilization set I came up with. If they were to go with the Religious city states idea. A set of Civilizations with a very religion-aimed policy.
Tibet (Gendun Drup, the first Dalai Lama)
Israel (Solomon or David)
I think Carthage absolutely needs to be in the first expansion, with Hannibal as the leader, and here's why:
The major difference between Civs 4 and 5 is the switch from squares/stacking to hex/1UPT, and I've been looking forward to this change because battles take on a chess-like strategy more akin to a real battlefield. Once they fix the battle AI (grrrrrr), I can't wait to employ clever strategies to defeat a numerically superior force.
This was Hannibal's bread and butter. He was spanking Rome for a while with surprisingly few troops because of his strategic genius, and the way Civ 5 is set up lends itself to this greatly. For example:
The Carthaginian Empire
Power: Envelopment - Mounted Units ignore Zones of Control
UU: Hannibal's Elephant (replaces Knight, but treats hills as flat land or something to simulate the whole "crossing the alps" thing.
UB: Cothon (trade-boosting harbor)
I get why switching up leaders would be nice, but in this case, the new combat system is designed for great tacticians like Hannibal or Napoleon or Alexander...
Vikings or Norse or whatever
Either Portugal or the Netherlands (because only England has a ship as a UU - they need some competition)
Ethiopia (often underrated, I was glad to see them in Civ4)
Vietnam (unlikely, but how cool would it be to have a UU like Vietkong - Infantry units that are invisible when moving in forest/jungle)
I disagree on the Hannibal part. Yes, he was truly a great statesman, but in the end he failed. Therefore I would like his father Hamilcar as a leader, who did not fail. While the other generals failed in the First Punic War, he led a sucsessful Guerilla war on Sicily. He also almost singlehandly conqered much of Spain as a substitute for the land lost in the First Punic War. If not, I say Dido, who founded the city. I would eventully guess that there is a large chanche they take this woman, as they went for Wu with china, who not really did anything special during her reign, just because she is the only female leader of china.
the possiblity to give an own civ into game like in galciv
where you modify your own civ bonuses when creating an own civ
where you can put in own modded leadershipper (also picc) and also choose starting point on map and modd some resources startin era or pregiven techs and improvements
and ability to mod your uu and ub
You're absolutely right. I would like to have some editor that allows you to make units and building easily. And also leaders. I mean, how hard can it be? You can already design your own characters in games like The Sims and Saints Row. It would be cool to have a "Leader-Maker" in Civilization.
i want Ukraine or Kyivan Rus. Cuz in civ4 there was Stalin (very dissapointing leader, i hoped they wouldnt make him cuz he was evil dictator who killed around 20 million ukrainians), plus there was no Hitler. So im starting to think that Sid hates Ukraine. And i vote for Ukraine. Not 21st century Ukraine but historical "Zaporizhian Sich" or "Hetmanshchyna" with leader Mazepa, or Vyshnivetskiy.
Or at least i hope there will be Kyivan Rus' with leader Sv'atoslav.
He does not hate Ukraine. It is just the fact that Stalin, although quite brutal, improved the whole industry in Soviet and heavily modernized his country. They have had Mao until recently in Civ, and he was no good leader in many ways either, but he managed to run his country in a sucsessful way. That's why they include them. If I were to guess why they do not include Ukraine it is probably because of it not being important enough in the world basis. I am sorry to say so, but I think that is why
Yeh, it is, but historical Ukraine was very important and interesting country(Kyivan Rus, Zaporizhya). But anyway, maybe you're right, im just hope they will add Ukraine
Another problem with Ukraine is that they weren't independent for long periods of time. Ukraine achieved real independence only in the 90ties. But, yes, Ukraine has a unique culture, language and history, and if they are to be added I would't suggest Mazepa as leader, he is too controversial. Sviatoslav or maybe Yaroslav Mudryy could be good choices, as is Vishnevetskyy. It would be definitely nice to have Ukraine in the game.
So if we have Stalin in civ4 we also can have Pol Pot. They are both same. And Hitler. Stalin was even more evil. You dont know all things he did with ukrainian villagers. It wasnt worth it. Stalin also started WWII and won it. And now everybody thinks he's a hero.
And by the way CIV4 doesnt contain longlasting or successful civilization. It has interesting civs which ukraine is. and im upset that cossack is russian uu. It isnt russian! They werent cossacks who fought on russian side. They just called themsevles like that. And REAL cossacks were UKRAINIANS
Stalin can not be compared to Pol Pot or Hitler. I'm, of course, not protecting him, and I agree that having him is Civ is wrong, but Stalin did make the USSR strong because everybody was in awe of him and the strength of communism. This is why he is still regarded as one of the greatest leaders in Russian history - because he was successful, unlike Hitler and Pol Pot, who left their countries in ruins. This why Khrushchev failed - Stalin's influence was still strong back then, even after he told the world the truth about Stalin. And the claims that Stalin started WWII are simply idiotic - Stalin had no reason to start the war, he was afraid of Hitler. He actually thought that he was safe after the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, and when Hilter attacked he was in shock and even wanted to resign his post. His role in the victory cannot be denied though - his strong image did inspire the Soviet Union during the war, but of course besides that he didn't do anything else for the win except for taking all the credit to himself after the war.
Your claim about the cossacks is also not true. You are correct that the cossacks are associated with Ukraine, and should be the Ukrainian UU. The cossack originated in the Don area, but there are different cossacks: Ukrainian, Kuban' cossacks, Siberian cossacks... They may differ in their customs, but they are cossacks nonetheless, because they are all descended from the Ukrainian cossacks. And there were, of course, cossacks that fought for Russia, and they were REAL cossacks, however, I don't feel comfortable myself with the cossack being the Russian UU in Civ. It should've been something else.
Perhaps this whole idea of making a list of civs we want to
see wouldn't be a waste if an 'official' list was created and sent in?
Not that I say we should force a note upon firaxis and say 'MAKE IT
OR THE GAME STINKS' but perhaps if a large percent of the hardcore
fans agreed on what civilizations should be included then it would
perhaps encourage firaxis to add certain civs.
But to help stay on topic.
My edit to my list
China /Qin Shi Huang
Pardon me but, What on earth did Wu Zetian do for china?
Now I am all for having women leaders, but to go this far as to add
some practically clockwork leader merely so to have another female leader?
I have no problem with Wu Zetians design or anything, I merely don't see the
point in having a leader who rose to power in a great empire rather then one who
greatly helped strengthen one or even built one.
I agreed on your point Thor, though I do not think they will change chinas LH
Here is a list of civs I have seen mentioned a lot here, parted into two categories:
Choiches for Firaxis
Timurids OR Mughals
Any changes wished?
And FairFenix, one of the reasons why Firaxis will probably not choose Ukraine is that even if it have a great past, it simply is not great enough compeared to other European powers (Spain, Norse, Netherlands etc.), and there are quite many europeans already. No offense meant. But I could be wrong though and they could actually add it.
And will be!
Now, here's my thought on these:
Polynesia - A must have, but I doubt Firaxis will add them, as they never were an empire (on the onther hands, the Celts were never an empire too...)
Byzantium - I'm against. It is a Greek Roman empire in Turkey's territory, and not a nation at all.
Poland - I have a feeling Firaxis will finally make them for us!
Portugal - No doubt about them.
Zulu - No doubt about them.
Sioux - There is a chance they will be added.
Khmer - There is a chance, but not a big one (because of Siam's presence).
Indonesia/Majapahit - Probably not, but would be interesting to have.
Celts - No doubt about them.
Ethiopia - Will probably return.
Korea - No doubt about them.
Dutch - No doubt about them.
Assyrians - We might actually see them.
Hebrews - Probably not. They never were a great power, and were always an underdog. I will be surprised if Firaxis will add them, but it will be a nice addition.
Timurids OR Mughals - I'm against. Not a nation.
Polynesia - Tempting, but were they even a full THREATENING empire?
Byzantium - even though IgorS, is against them, and I myself dislike them, one
cannot deny the major impact they had. But it would be a better use of memory
to just make Justinian I or Constantine a leader for rome.
Poland - They MUST be added. They were one of the few countries ever able
to take Moscow and HOLD IT. Who else besides the mongols could pull that off?
Sioux - I'm shawnee, I am against this XD, just kidding. But I don't see much
point in adding them.
Khmer - Even though we already have siam for that area. I can guarantee you
that if you called a siamese a khemer they'd probably get pretty irritated.
Indonesia/Majapahit - why?
Ethiopia -another must be added, they accomplished something NO other african
country did, survive european colonial ambitions!
Korea - eh, I like korea and all but they have only been a major power in the modern
and ancient eras.
Assyrians - Now here's an interesting bit, I would like to see Assyria, but we
already have babylon, now I know the two were ENTIRELY different but they
were rather overlapped in the land they owned. But then again, they DID
have sumeria, an utterly pointless civ, in CivIV
Hebrews - That's asking for trouble from hundreds of people, perhaps
add Jerusalim as a city state?
Timurids OR Mughals - Just add a mughal leader to India.
Now my list itself, abit revised to fit the topic of next expansions.
Now, I picked these because each one has had a PROFOUND impact on history.
Even the Zulu had an impact by standing up against britain.
If these civs were added I am SURE the game would be welcomed by an even
Separate names with a comma.