Just added the Celts to the History School - Right now we also have Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Media. Check it out: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...History-School.
A Native American Peoples (such as the Sioux)
A Post-Colonial Power (such as Brazil or New Zealand)
A Mesopotamian Civ (such as the Sumer or the Hittites)
A Southeast Asian Civ (such as the Majapahit or Indonesia)
The Zulu or the Kongo
Israel
Austria/Austria-Hungary
Ethiopia
Poland/Poland-Lithuania
Sweden
Just added the Celts to the History School - Right now we also have Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Media. Check it out: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...History-School.
Oh yeah, I'll go write RussiaOriginally Posted by Hawk
You do realize that the Boer solders and Zulu warriors were on opposing sides of the battlefield?
Sweet, looking forward to it!
(Are you sure you don't want to be listed as a teacher?)
Very well, sure. Also, its really long.Sweet, looking forward to it!
(Are you sure you don't want to be listed as a teacher?)
Long is good. I want a good amount of info on every civ by the time we are finished, as long as it's enjoyable to learn from.
I'll add you to our list of teachers!
k i edited my first post to have it. tis ridiculousLong is good. I want a good amount of info on every civ by the time we are finished, as long as it's enjoyable to learn from.
I'll add you to our list of teachers!
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...74#post1513374
the basic things you need to know.
please read this before you try to talk to me about democracy.
Awesome post, Shiav!
I really want someone like the Hittites or Assyrians. They'd be really fun to play as.
I agree, but the Hittites are in that scenario, so I don't see them being added. Assyria has a better chance, and are even more worthy out of the two - they invented siege towers, for example!
***
Alright people, now that the Huns are in the game, I see absolutely no reason why the Sioux shouldn't. The Sioux have always had a special play in my heart, and they were quite impressive too! We need to really push for the Sioux now...
Here's what we've got in the 50+ Civilization Civ 5 thread:
Sioux
Capital: Sioux Falls
Leader: Red Cloud (1822 - 1909)
UA: Buffalo Dance. Cattle, Deer, and Sheep provide +1 productivity and +1 food.
UU: Dog Soldier. Replaces Pikeman. Starts with Open Terrain 3 (only if there is a Totem pole in the city) and Drill 1. Strength 12, not 10. Cost 130, not 100.
UB: Totem Pole. Replaces Monument. +1 culture, not 2. Cost 70, not 60. Maintenance 1. ranged units (including sea and air) receive two Promotions.
(Land - Open Terrain 1 & 2, Sea - Targeting 1 & 2, Air - Siege 1 & 2)
Alternate
Leader: Sitting Bull (1831 - 1890)
UU: Deerfoot. Replaces Archer. Strength: 5. Ranged Strength: 7. Range: 2. Movement: 2 (+1 in Open Terrain.). Note: This unique Sioux Archery unit gets +1 in Combat and Ranged Combat strength. Additionally +1 movement in the Open Terrain only.
UU: Raider. Replaces Lancer. Combat: 24. Movement: 5. Starts with Evasion(50) promotion. Has a higher combat strength and extra movement point.
UA: The Hunter's Way. All Cattle and Sheep worked by a City provide +1 Food, all Horses provide +1 Gold, and all Deer provide +1 Production.
- I'd like to discuss this, because is this what we all want? How could this improved upon to make the Sioux more appealing, and to give them a more unique game play style?
I'd like to make them a horse culture civ, because as soon as horses become available to them they really found a place for them in their hearts. It's so clear that if horses were in the Americas before Europeans (not talking about extinct ones here), then they would've been a horse culture from the start. The Sioux in fact thank the Europeans for bringing the horses to America!
Anyway, that's my opinion...What's yours?
Aren't there enough Horse centered civilizations though? Don't get me wrong I agree 100% but we have the Mongols who revolve around horsemen, the Huns will no doubt, the Greeks best unit is companion cavalry, Songhai's UU is cavalry, Russia's UU and their ability both have to do with cavalry. We need Civilizations that are more focused on Culture, and the modern/industrial era.
I will say this however, I would love to see the Sioux and Inuit in a DLC somewhere down the road along side a Zulu Ethiopia DLC if neither are added in the Gods & Kings Expansion.
I would enjoy the Zulu
Leader: Shaka of the Zulu 1787-22 of September 1828
UU: Impi Warrior. Replaces Warrior. No terrain cost and +1 movement, Gains +25 attack boost if there are units in adjacent tiles.
UU: Dinizulu's Volunteers. Replaces Musketmen. Higher matinence than regular Musketmen, Better vs Melee units.
UA: Military Genius. Great generals appear after every new era, Upgrades cost -25% less.
That was just my personal one
The Sioux could be a culturally focused and horse cultured civ. Really it's the Mongols, and now the Huns too, that are horse cultures - just having a horsemen UU doesn't count, you need an ability around horses. I believe that there are enough civs for a third horse culture, and the Sioux are the most ideal that isn't in the game to fit this role.
I don't think the Sioux are in this expansion, but I think we should fight for them to be a DLC, because the Firaxis team responds to civs that are more popular...We need to show them that we care!
Agreed, we may also want to try to pop the Zulu and Inuit in there as well... Just saying. Russia could count as a horse civilization though, Their ability improves quantity of horses and they have cossacks.
Hmm, ok. Nevertheless, with the amount of civs in the game, and being added, there is room for multiple civs to each strategy, and each strategy has its own variation.
The Zulu are already incredibly popular, and are a classic - they've been in every prequel! The Inuit are getting support already, but we could definitely give them more...All three of these I want in the game anyway, so I'm happy to help push for all three.
Very well we must make this push, but how? How will we get them to put these civilizations in the game? To make a 50+ civilization game? Come up with a way and I'm in.
Yeah about this, is there ANY evidence that the devs give a crap about our suggestions? This all seems like a rain dance to me. The debate itself is fine if people want to kill time by discussing this or that nation, but I have yet to see any practical outcome of this.
Polynesia, steth? Community demand => developer action.
There's a mod for TOR that has the orange pixel in it. Because people wanted it.
I vote for Poland - unique empire, which stopped the Ottoman advance into Europe.
Is there proof of this? Or just conjecture. Also, I never saw a "give us Polynesia" post on here.
We get it. I want Poland to but you went over board and insulted every other culture. That is a no no.I vote for Poland - unique empire, which stopped the Ottoman advance into Europe.
I vote for a expansion where the Inuit, Polish, Brazilians, Assyrians, Finnish, Sioux, Apache, Mexicans [maybe], Kongo, and Majaphit are all added.
Not a direct thread, but a poll like this where Polynesia was top five (i think hawk started it).
Also, if you really want to be technical the Austrians/Hungarians/Polish/Transylvanians that stopped the Ottoman advance. It was at the gates of Vienna, on Austrian soil, with the majority of the force present being Hungarian and Polish, with Dracula providing the initial reduction in Ottoman forces.
You can't claim entire credit for a victory that's not in your empire and not being fought entirely by your forces. That's like the Germans claiming credit for the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, yes there were German mercenary reinforcements but its still an English win.
While I think the Polish should be in the game the Zulu are my number 1. After that I would love to see Poland, but the Zulus and Ethiopians first.
I would say so, because they gave them the stats that we all were asking for, almost exactly in fact! The fact that they are "Polynesia" and not "Hawaii", "Moari", or "Samoa" (we did a poll and "Polynesia" as a title came up most popular). Their UA, UU (except a lot of us wanted the Maori warrior to have guns, because of how effectively and quickly they learnt to use guns, but it's reasonable and expected that they chose the melee option), and UI (I think most of us asked for the Moai statues as a UB, but we got something more interesting), all of this it seems they got directly off the forums. On top of this, Polynesia had never been in the game before, and there were critics - it seemed unlikely, but they really quickly became a popular idea and shot up in the polls. So convenient that they suddenly were introduced only a few months after we started debating Polynesia as a civ..
This poll is a good example of pushing for civs...There is more than one way to do it, but discussing a civ, drawing attention to it, perfecting stats, spreading the idea, and polling to see popularity - and show the Firaxis team how popular they are - all can help. We want the Firaxis team to know that we want them, and how many of us want them, and that we are willing to pay money for them.
Basically, get more people talking about it.
Look harder. Polynesia was championed heavily, and the "early ocean" ability was the UA suggested.
The vikings were also strongly promoted, and the UA also closely reflects what was suggested (all units are amphibious).
I'm not sure what you consider "proof", but suggesting that the above was mere serendipity is fighting against the current of probability.
To be fair, those are both pretty obvious abilities to give the civs.
Yep. There's no notarized certificate declaring that the posters of the 2k forums receive credit for Polynesia (and, to a lesser degree, Denmark), but that's more probable than declaring it mere serendipity.
Having said that, we sure seem to harp on the same civ's over and over.
You have to understand that to Americans such as myself Britain, England, and the United Kingdom are all understood more or less as being synonymous with one another. The only thing that's taught about them in history class here is that we kicked their butts in 1776 and 1815, and then saved their butts in 1917 and 1944.
That said, I do have a desire to expand my knowledge of world history, and I'll take what you say into account in revising my proposal.
Ancient Era: Brutus
Classical Era: Arthur Pendragon
Medieval Era: Richard Lionheart
Renaissance: Henry VIII
Industrial Era: George III
Modern Era: Winston Churchill
Sad that the US education system believes that the UK and England are the same but now you know better
Classical Era: Arthur Pendragon? This is a joke of course unless you want Robin Hood in Medieval Era and perhaps Sherlock Holmes in the Industrial age....although it is a toss up between James Bond and Harry Potter for the Modern Era. And Brutus....? Brutus who in the Ancient Era?
It looks like the entities between England and the UK, Britain etc is missing from the US educational system. I am starting to understand why there is an economic crisis emanating from the US...
As for 'saved their butts in 1917 and 1944', thanks for finally bothering to finally turn up...
Gilgamesh was the leader of Sumer in Civilization IV, and there isn't much more historical evidence to his existence than Arthur's (there are a number of individuals who might have been the inspiration behind the Arthur legends).
Brutus refers to mythical descendant of Aeneas and founder of Britain (essentially their Romulus). He's almost certainly an invention, but nevertheless I maintain he's the best choice to be leader of the civilization in the ancient era.
I imagine the Brutus he's referring to is the one that James I/VI claimed descent from. At a guess.
And yeah, Americans being ignorant is no reason to pander to that ignorance. At least the English leader in the game was actually Queen of England, not the UK. Shame about the UA name and the SotL.
Now that we have Austria, Sweden, and Ethiopia (three of the poll's options), maybe this poll should be updated?
The American education system does not teach such nonsense, as bad as it is. I have no idea how anybody would be under the impression that England and the United Kingdom are the same thing.
True, but I think it's still somehow a relatively common misconception.
lmfao ....
Well, honestly, in the grand scheme of things, who cares? They are fairly interchangeable in my parlance, even if I know that there is a difference.
That's a good point. Even here, where the British are revered by some people, no one really cares whether you say England, Britain or the UK. People understand the context. If it's about King Arthur or something, and someone says Britain, we know they mean England. If someone said the English beat the French at Waterloo, we know they mean the British.
The problem is that in the mindset of the world, there is absolutely no difference between the English and the British, because despite actually being British, the Scots and Welsh are viewed as separate cultures and nations. Ergo, there is no one else left to use the name British other than the English, so they come to mean the same thing.
I know some Scottish people who would care quite a bit.
Anyways, I just realized that this thread needs to be redone or the discussion merged with the other 'which civs do you want' threads. Several of the poll options are being added to G&K, which makes the poll obsolete.
Too bad they couldn't stop the other people. You know the ones with the Tanks that destroyed half of Europe. That one, yeah?I vote for Poland - unique empire, which stopped the Ottoman advance into Europe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote