Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
If Firaxis/2K ask this question:
What two new civilizations do you choose to join to the ones in the games? Why?
What two new civilizations do you choose to join to the ones in the games? Why?
Which do you choose?
- Thread starter Zenon_pt
- Start date
Onagan
The Dutch
Sweden (I realy miss them, and no other european country will as good)
&
The Aboriginals.
&
The Aboriginals.
Only 2 
Phoenecians and Hittites
I'll do without the Assyrians so long as Sumeria and Babylon stay in the game
edit: I'd be happy if the game just had ancient/classical Middle-Eastern and Mediteranean civs, my favourite period/region
Phoenecians and Hittites
I'll do without the Assyrians so long as Sumeria and Babylon stay in the game
edit: I'd be happy if the game just had ancient/classical Middle-Eastern and Mediteranean civs, my favourite period/region
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Poland and Austria
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
(message too short)
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
As has been seen in the latest versions of the game, a rule is added two new civilizations in each new version. And I think that will remain in those criteria. Now the justification for it has never been told.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you mean the paleolithic Australians who never even developed agriculture, the fundamental aspect of the whole concept of civilisation itself, or some other aboriginals?
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Israel and Brazil!
1st - ISRAEL: It's about time to add them to the game.
2nd - BRAZIL: The 3rd biggest future-economy is Brazil. And can be a goog adding to the game!
1st - ISRAEL: It's about time to add them to the game.
2nd - BRAZIL: The 3rd biggest future-economy is Brazil. And can be a goog adding to the game!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm guessing you adhere to the whole BRIC(/BRIMC/BRICA/BRIMSCKAET/BRI-Whatever-C-Whatever) theory? A questionable idea, certainly, but not one without merit... Still, I can't help but feel that the confident assertion of Brazil achieving 3rd place- behind India and China, I'd assume- isn't influenced by a certain degree of Lusophone solidarity...
Deep Thought
S.A.G.A.P.O
I would like to see a progam where you design your very own perfect civilization.
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Partly it is about Lusophone Solidarity
, but in reality it is more because of markets (marketing) where civ can be play, like in future countries achieving the levels of development, like China, India (with are already grans civ over History), Mexico, Brazil and South Africa.Over this last 3. Brazil have more culture, historical achievements! So, why not?
And you? Which do you choose?
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Bolivar as leader of Gran Colombia, right? Why them?
-
Off Topic: Summer in Ireland. What do you recommend? (Want to go there this summer!)
-
Off Topic: Summer in Ireland. What do you recommend? (Want to go there this summer!)
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Poland = Obvious
Gran Colombia = Contolled all of Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Guinea, Suriname, Ecuador, Most of French Guinea, Most of Northern Brazil, Most of Peru, Most of Costa Rica and some of the Caribean Islands.
i think it should be called Venezuela though. Venezuela was the part that was the most "vital" to the country and basically the "center" of everything in Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia's name is also misleading due to "Colombia" and the game is supposingly supposed to teach you about the civilizations. (i can imagine some American kid walking into EB games and thinking "Oh Cool, Colombia is in the game" when it was a joint effort lead by Venezuela.
Besides there's no denying Simon Bolivar deserves to be in the game.
Vandal Warlord
Nazgûl
Vandal and Nubians
Vandals= It would be cool to control a barbarian Civ
Nubians= They CONQUERED Eygpt!
Vandals= It would be cool to control a barbarian Civ
Nubians= They CONQUERED Eygpt!
Olmecs: Origin of all mesoamerican Civs. Too bad we know so little about them. Modern Brazil, Uruguay, Australia, Canada, Pakistan and Indonesia would be nice, too. If Poland is added, Ireland, Hungary and Ukraine should be added, too.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I agree with Olmecs, but i have a problem with the rest of your post.
Uruguay over Argentina, Chile and Venezuela? heck even Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay deserve to be in before.
Australia and Canada? there's something called England.
Pakistan i don't understand. There are much more deserving civs. Indonesia could be a good addition.
And what's with the Poland part?
Spoiler :
Ukraine has been part(not even a vassal) of Poland and Russia for most of it's history. (Polands for most of it's history)
Hungary would be ok as Austro-Hungary.
no clue where you got Ireland from.
Bongo-Bongo
The Master
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 621
Kongo-I'd like to see a few more civs from Africa, and I feel Kongo would be one of the best to add.
Another Asian civ, Siam or Vietnam preferably.
Another Asian civ, Siam or Vietnam preferably.
Scilly_guy
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 403
Do you mean because they we colonised by England? Under your logic why then is America in there and why is it called America and not the United States of America.
I considered the Aboriginals too but its a good point about them not developing agriculture and that was the primary basis of being able to settle in cities. What about the Maori did they have agriculture and cities? They were damn good with boats!
If Israel is in it then shouldn't Italy and hell maybe even Kosovo and other new states.
Similar threads
