While you wait for Civ5...

Yes,but Spain should repalce BablonCurrently,Babylon owns Iraq for 40 turns,then loses it all.Spain however sometimes conquers all of Latin America,and always settles its.And it is usually a superpower in my games.Babylon howeer,sits at the bottom of the list,being conquered many turns ago.

I think Babylon should be replaced by Spain.

 

Ok, adding the point of South America, I think it would be important to have some City States on Brazil and the Amazon River area both to interact with the Aztecs and to be there when the navigation starts.

East Brazil (useful for Great Navigations Era)
Caetés (Northeast of the Country)
Tupiniquim (a little lower were Bahian and Espírito Santo is now)
Tamoios (Rio de Janeiro Region)
Guaraní (South of the country, and North of Argentina)

Northwest of Brazil and Amazon River area
Ashaninka or Anti (Had a lot of interactions with the Incas)

 

Perhaps city states could also be sripted to spawn as independent colonies.Like,in the 1800s,City States spawn in Colombia.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there weren't any cities in Amazonia before the colonial era. Using cities in RFC to represent the Celts and Mongols was problematic enough, I don't think it should be extended to even less urbanised tribal societies.

 

It would be awesome if somehow the Holy Roman Empire could be simulated by 3 or 4 city-states all allied with the Emperor (Germany).

Also, it seems like some limited form of unit stacking would end up being necessary - I can't see Italy being big enough to hold an army large enough to conquer Rome.

 

Cities in the modern sense, no there were none. But those indian tribes I cited were like the North American indian tribes before the arrive of Englad. Connected by bloodlines, language and religion. Set on very specific areas. Teritorial, bitter among each other. Etc, etc. Making them as city states serve a lot of purpose. Specially the great navigations where Portugal and Spain traded with them a lot before killing or slavering everyone.

 

About Budapest: the "capital" of Hungary was the city called Buda (it was founded by the Romans, so the 1000AD spawn date is accurate if we take in account the founding of the Hungarian state, altough it was not that relevant city that time but whatever), but in 1873 Buda and 2 other cities near it ( Pest and Óbuda ) were united and Budapest was born.

So probably the best would be to have the city founded in 1000 called Buda and near the 1850-1880 it should get renamed to Budapest.

 

I think that we cannot get 1000 city states, it would lag horribly and make the world diplomacy too complicated. so i prefer gameplay to historical accuracy srry, i just think that few powerful city states would be much more enjoyable than tones of little ****s:



Asian cities:For china one or two at least(one tibet, one south china), more would make the game too complicated. One in south west asia (angkor). DOn't know for mongol capital because if you want to represent mongols by barbarians so they will destroy it! I think that very powerful barbarians would fit better in waiting of a mongolian civ. Maybe two cities states in central asia to represent samarkand ect...
One in south or west india. For middle east, i think that there must be jerusalem and maybe a phoenician city, another to represent iraq(babylon or bagdad in medieval area). And maybe one last in arabia with tons of petrols around to make some of these cities very interesting for colonials powers. After i just don't know for byzantines in medieval area, do you want to make them city states or as the roman civ? For russia, would be cool to see kiev.

South america: Just one or two cities to represents incans, the rest(bresil ect...) should only get barbarians.

North america: Do you want to make the iroquois? In all case there should only be barbarians encampment(except in mexico) to represent the nomad lifestyle of amerindians or maybe just a city states in classical area to represent the pueblo(you know, the big cities scuplted in mountains that look like helm's deep), or an other to represent hurons(iroquois worst ennemies) to challenge the iroquois if they are in it.
tlaxcala: I know this is the city that destroy aztec empire(spanish armies was 5% conquistadores, 95% tlaxcalans) but, she's just too close to mexico.a barbarian encampment would fit better, so at least one city to represent mayans.

africa: I just don't know if you want to make the songhai or the malinese. If this is the songhai then their capital is gao and not timbuctu, so timbuctu should be a powerful city state, and then there would not be civilizations in africa before 1450 at least!!!
To represent ethipian, there must be at least one city state. The rest of africa should stay barbarians(except one city states for the great zimbabwe in classical area maybe...). ah and for north africa we need at least in classical area carthage!

Europe: We must create a civ to represent spain(like the guy who already created a celtic civ), city states cannot replace this world power(especially for the colonization). Also, two city states in east europa(warsow and budapest) that would make the german-russian relation intersting, two in italia(for medieval area), Rome and Venice maybe??? One in south italia(siracusa for classical, napoli for medieval?). One in greece for medieval area(athens) and Edimburgh, lisbonn and amsterdam of course. Like the mongolians, barbarians encampment would perfectly fit for scandinavia because if you put city states then they will not be agressive at all. Or maybe just one in denmark.


But there still tons of unanswered questions: What will become a civ when she exploses? tons of city states? Will you recreate an independant civ just to represent civ that explosed? How the world will be? With the exagon it should be at least two time more large than the civ 4 one! It will results lag? certainly, i just still don't know what about the fact that civ 5 can fit will multicore. It will certainly reduce lag for me with my quad core 3 ghz but for the others???? Maybe you will be obliged to accelerate the construction times to permit player to build big armies(with the exagon it's just necessary now, you can't invade the half of europe independant city with 3 units and a catapult empiled ).

 

I'm not sure if anyone got my memo, but it is confirmed that City-States can control other cities.
The Spanish Empire can work as a city-state until it is released as a full civ.
Also I feel that Singapore should definitly be a city state, even if Siam is to represent all of South East Asia. And at least one East African city-state should be included.

 

yes, but can they build settlers and wonders?

 

For Europe especially I think it will work better as a "patchwork of City States" representing the various "ethnic areas".

So for the main "Civs" I would go with:

- France
- Greece
- Rome
- Spain
- England
- Germany
- Russia
- Turkey


I has always been one of my ideas and hopes that Civ will include Civ Unions which merge/collapse/rebel and sometimes being traded between countries as alliances rise and fall throughout the ages.

Just imagine being "England"; after a period of rule by Rome and invasions you end up forging a Civilisation out of the city of London there are city states all around your land

"Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, West Country (Cornwall), Wales, Midlands, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Scotish Lowlands, Scotish highlands, Shetland, outer Hebrides, Faroe Islands.

As "London" you quickly subjegate; through force, bribary and general willing-ness to join several of the city states and form "The Kingdom of England"; to the north and West the "Kingdom of Scotland" and "Kingdom of Ireland"; these still count as city states but are a more powerful union although not a fully fledged civilization of sorts. After many centuries of conflict, conquest and political haggling you form the "United Kingdom of great Britain"

Just imagine a game which was not civs with many cities facing off against each other... but unions and alliances. You control the capital but have to balance the power of your "City States" which make up your country... as in a council of barons/parliment/districts run by generals where they all have greivances internal squabbling and general sabre rattling.

City states could form alliances and unions creating new civs sometimes accending in power... most often collapsing as their neighbours take them over; but never disappearing for whlist they may cvease to exsist as a country you could not quell all the people

Take Poland (Warsaw), it starts as a City state, mrges together with lithiaunia and for a time becomes a civ under the name polish-Lituianiaun Commonweath; unfortunally it collapses back into city states and between Austria, Prussia and Russia it is absorbed into the various countries ; unly reappearing after Russia undergoes a revolution loosening its hold on its city states and a few break off forming their own country. (Poland); which is shortlived as Russia retake their "lost" territory once the rebelion has run its course.

The Holy Roman Empire could be a looser alliance between many city states as none of them has enough votes to run the entire country until Prussia grow powerful enough forming Germany out of the the northern half and Austria forms a union out of the sourthern and Hungarian city states.

Sorry for rambling but if we are talking ideas of what we could do with Europe/World in Civ V utilising City states into alliances coudl be kind of cool .... at least I think so

 

I'm certain it can be modded in, and it may be possible to spawn new cities under a city states control anyway (As would likely be done for RFC I imagine, it might be hard to put settler maps in for a city state).

 

I heard somewhere the maximum amount of civs was 22 in a game.

Spain
Mongols
Inca
+1 more or independents...

I think Portugal could be represented by city-states (Since for a time, it was Spanish. This would mean that during that period, they are allied to Spain) and possibly the Dutch.

Bonus with the city-state thing is that you can give Spain an ability that gives them units upon first contact with city-states/civs and immediate declaration of war.

As for city-states
Seoul (100%)
Palembang (Sri Vijaya - Indonesia) or Angkor (Khmer), small chance for both
Samarkand, Bukhara (Central Asia) Chance for Kashgar (better simulation of the "great game")
Aksum / Zanzibar
Mayapan, chance for Copan
Chan Chan and Quito (So the Incans conquer their land)

Don't know about Europe, it's pretty crowded there though. What do people think about the HRE being a bunch of city-states, with a late late German spawn)

 

In the vanilla game there are 18 civs max. But their are many modcomps that allow more civs. (RFC has it, or at least it's possible to have more than 18 Civs in one game in RFC) I think this is also possible for Civ V.

 

What about those who wish to play as Spain? Spain should be modded into a full civ if possible.

 

I thought firaxis had put the cap for number of civs in a game above 18 so that we can add DLC civs and still have our 'full house'.
Also someone said a spot should be used for independents, we don't need independents, we have city states!

 

Just to add:

Boma (1879) or Leopoldville (1881). The middle of Africa is almost always empty.

 

How are you going to replace Babylon with a civ that isn't even in the game?

 

Simple. We don't put Babylon were it should be.Move Babylon to spawn in Spain aorund 720ad.Create dynamic names,settler maps,and voila! We have Spain!

And Babylon could just be represented as a city state.