Which New Civ Would You Most Like to See?

[Piyaz]

Know what guys? There are only gonna be 8 civs, so we r gotta choose wisely and select civs that will touch wide areas...



1) Turks :

Turkic people were involved everywhere. Warring with chinese (Turkic Khagans, Uyghur, Kipchaq, Oghuz) and europeans (Huns, Bulgars, Seljuks, Ottomans), as well as Arabs(Seljuk, Ottoman and Persians(Seljuk, Ghaznavi) and Indians (Ghanznavi, Ghurid, Timurid[Uzbeks], Mughuls[Uzbeks]).

Special Unit : Janissaries.


2) Arabs :

As Much as involved as the Turks. Maybe even more so. They were in Africa, East Indies, India, Middle East, Europe, and made presence in china also.

Special Unit: Mameluke


3) Mongols :

They were distant cousins to Turks, so u can touch bases with Kipchaqs, Moghuls, Timurids, Tatars (Turkic Tribes mixed heavily with Mongols and none of them used the janissary, which were used by the Ottomans alone, so they can't make use of the Turks here). Maybe even the eastern Hun Tribes.

Special Unit: Horse Archer or some kind of a horse unit that was traditional to the tribes of the Steppes.

(why the hell did the chinese get the horseman anyway? Should have given them the shaolin kung-fu fighting monk or something)


4) Malays :

This covers indonesians, malaysians, filipinos... Had contact with arabs, chinese, and europeans.

Special Unit: help me out here....


5) A West African Civilization (Ashanti, Mali, Ghana, etc.) :

Should cover West Africa
Special Unit: help me out here....


6) Celts :

Covers The Irish, Scots, Welsh, and the original Britons. They fought Vikings, Anglo-Saxons (Germans, and later English)

Special unit: Whatever the fighters in Braveheart were called...


7) Vikings:

Covers Scandanavia
Special Unit: What are the boats that the norsemen sailed in called?


8) Spaniards:

The Fought in The New World and The Old world. Rivaled France and England. Fought Arabs and Turks. Should cover The Portuguese also.

Special Unit: Conquistador

_________________________

Honorable Mentions:

Kurds -- only because Salahuddin rules. And even though i am a Turk, i have a soft spot for the Kurds.

Israel -- the ancient state of israel under David and Solomon.. not the current bastardized version of it.

Incas

Masai/Ethiopians

________________

BY THE WAY, ATTILA WAS TURKIC, NOT MONGOL



If my choices suck, let me know why... plz.

 

[Beloyar]

'''
I'd like to see the Byzantines, the Mongols and the Ethiopians.
,,,

 

[JohnnyReb]

Originally posted by Piyaz
6) Celts :
Covers The Irish, Scots, Welsh, and the original Britons. They fought Vikings, Anglo-Saxons (Germans, and later English)
Special unit: Whatever the fighters in Braveheart were called...
7) Vikings:
Covers Scandanavia
Special Unit: What are the boats that the norsemen sailed in called?

BY THE WAY, ATTILA WAS TURKIC, NOT MONGOL

Celts: Painted-Face Mooners (2/2/2)

Vikings: Longboats - My guess would be make them like caravels as far as capability, but make them available to Norsemen with Mapmaking?

Erm..Attila was a Hun. Nobody really knows where the Huns truly came from or where there eventually disappeared to for sure. If you claim otherwise, give me proof

Btw, your choices were good. I like mine better, but hey, I am a bit partial there!

 

[siredgar]

This list is very limited.

 

[Genghis Janeway]

I think that the US should be kicked and in it's place should be the Maya (Influenced because I am Mayan) under the rule of Quetzalcoatle(Hope I spelled that right).

 

[duke o' york]

You all seem to be just picking civs without considering how you will shoehorn them onto the world map. Spain will be fine, and the Vikings too, but apart from these your choices are ridiculous. How does anyone propose that the Turks, Arabs, Babylonians and Persians will all start on what is practically the same land? And for one of them to be expansionist?
I think that the Dutch deserve a place here but will be squeezed between the French and Germans straightaway on the earth map. The Celts will be stuck in Ireland and difficult to get past the English.
I'd like to see a new civ in central Africa but have no idea which one. With regard to the Americas, your suggestion for the Sioux seems a little familiar. Wouldn't they be a little like another civ already available, with the same UU or is this just my imagination?
The Incas to begin in South America sounds fine though. Going along with the "build a civ, not replicate their history", then I think that an Australian aboriginal civ would be good but this will leave no room whatsoever for peaceful European colonisation. Not that it happened like that! Mongols should be reintroduced though, but the apparent introduction of the Koreans strikes me as a bit strange. Things're going to be crowded there too and I'd have thought that they were included in the Chinese civ, just as the Arabs can be thought of as the Babylonians.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Originally posted by duke o' york
You all seem to be just picking civs without considering how you will shoehorn them onto the world map. Spain will be fine, and the Vikings too, but apart from these your choices are ridiculous. How does anyone propose that the Turks, Arabs, Babylonians and Persians will all start on what is practically the same land? And for one of them to be expansionist?

You're assuming every civ would be used from the same cultural group, and that they would be playing on Earth. If it isn't an Earth map then their actual starting locations will just be somewhere around one another, and if it IS on Earth..hmm...okay, build military fast!

With regards to your other comments, great call on the Australian Aboriginies. Hell, maybe this time around THEY could turn the British Isles into a Penal Colony.

 

[JoeM]

Originally posted by JohnnyReb
Erm..Attila was a Hun. Nobody really knows where the Huns truly came from or where there eventually disappeared to for sure. If you claim otherwise, give me proof

Germany is where they are now.

 

[Beloyar]

If there were Turks, they would start in Central Asia. Their homeland was in what is today Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
Arabs would start on the Arabian peninsula, not in Mesopotamia.

 

[Ronald]

The name was Golda Meir

 

[Ronald]

Israel

and of course it's Israel not Isreal

 

[Piyaz]

Johnny Reb -

and about huns being turks, ur right, we dont know for SURE.
but hear me out anyway...

1) Like I said, turks are a very diverse group of people probably the MOST diverse. Some tribes lean more towards mongolian appearances, and some lean towards more caucasian appearances, albeit all having some features similar. Hell, in my own family, i have people who are light skinned and have grayish-green eye colors and some one like myself is more brown with black eyes. yet we all have asiatic features. as well as caucasian. I have observed this in many turkic families... from uzbeks to kazakhs, to turks and azeris, (with varying differences here and there).

2) anyway sorry for digressing... my point is i havent really read any roman accounts of huns and i need to start reading them... but if atilla was described as asiatic with brown skin (that is what i read in many journals) he could be turk as well as mongol. (finno-ugrians have been ruled out in this case. even though they have somewhat asiatic appearance, they dont look mongolian)

3) atilla maybe was kipchak.. a turco mongolian mix that leans more towards turkic than mongol in cultural affinity terms, but looks mongol.

4) did u see crouching tiger... remember the younger hero leading his bandit tribe on a raid on the chinese caravans in the desert?
he was actually representing either kipchak or karluk warriors going on raid.

5) Did u notice some of warriors looked kinda caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes, and some looked more asiatic with brown skin and black eyes? Guess what, they are all related they are from the same tribe.

6) so just because atilla was descibed to be mongolian, doesnt mean rest of his band looked mongolian... infact i wouldnt be surprised if some of the members of his tribe looked a little caucasian as well.

7) Bulgars and Avars have often been said to be the remenants or the inheritors of the hunnic empire. Bulgars have been confirmed to be turkic. Magyars are probably the only ones that have been finno-ugric and no relation with huns and magyars have been made (so finno-ugrians ruled out again). notice all these tribes, with the exceptions of magyars, been making incursions into eastern europe for a long time. Only times mongols have been recorded was when temujin Chingghis Khan rode out of mongolia.

8) and atilla was often sketched with asiatic features and a HIGH nose bridge, not a low nose bridge like mongols and other "pure" asians have ( YES WE ARE A BUNCH OF MONGRELS, AND ARE LIVING IT UP!). he has been drawn with black hair and brown hair. asians dont have brown hair unless they dye it.

9) Mongolians and Turks are something like cousins in cultural relationship. however, Turks and Mongols rarely ride out together. They spend most of the time either fighting each other or the chinese or the manchus. However, Turks from diverse tribes have consolidated more than once to form empires. It could also be that Atilla was from one tribe and others were from other diverse turkic tribes.

Anyway, I hope some of that made sense... sorry for the long post. I hope u read it though, thoroughly. I wasted a whole lotta time on this as u can see...

plz feel free to discuss further.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Yep, read it all. I must say you've piqued my curiosity a bit regarding Attila and I am gonna delve into this a bit deeper. Please be patient though on a reply, I have a lot on my plate right now.

Yes btw, you post made perfect sense