Finally, all civs are known. Thus, a poll to celebrate is called for:
Which civ do you look forward to most? For me, it is Sweden.
*exclusion - with a "c", naturally.
Austria, with Maria Theresa
The Byzantium, with Theodora
Carthage, with Dido
The Celts, with Boudica
Ethiopia, with Haile Selassie
The Huns, with Attila
The Maya, with Pacal
The Netherlands, with Willem of Oranje
Sweden, with Gustav Adolphus
None; I am far too disheartened by the exlusion of another civ (such as the Zulu)
Finally, all civs are known. Thus, a poll to celebrate is called for:
Which civ do you look forward to most? For me, it is Sweden.
*exclusion - with a "c", naturally.
Last edited by JFD; 04-20-2012 at 08:18 PM.
We don't know all of their abilites yet, I want a very religious nation and I am still waiting for more information as to who is who. Then I will vote. I am not a major fan boy of any of these civilizations, so it will come down to their abilites. I will say this, it is going to be either Byzantium, Carthage, or the Celts.
Fair enough. By all means vote when we have more information on the civs. But personally I am a Swedish fanboy.Originally Posted by PachaMinnie
Ethiopia FTW! I'm really excited about them, glad to have at least one other African civ to accompany Songhai
Carthage: for the music, the weird UA, and the early-game attack units.
I'm excited about most of the new civs. Just a shame so many are military focused. I'd really been hoping for a faith/culture Ethiopia (I imagine their last unknown unique will involve faith somehow).
Austria got my vote though, because I've always wanted a civ that incorporates CSs into itself.
Have to go with the Netherlands, since I'm all about the capitalism. Also, nice touch puttng "such as the Zulu" on the end there. Didn't bias your poll or anything
The last option certainly . Will only buy the expansion because of the changes and because of the possibilities for modding,which I hope to use for adding some civs more interesting .
The Celts. I'm Irish, and the UA just sounds quite enjoyable. Then after that I'll probably play the Huns, then Byzantium or Carthage. Last will probably be Sweden. Unless their uniques are really good.
Well... I didn't really think of it like that. I personally didn't want the Zulu in the expansion, but it seemed like the one which popped up the most as a civ which, if it hadn't been included, would cause much disappointment.Have to go with the Netherlands, since I'm all about the capitalism. Also, nice touch puttng "such as the Zulu" on the end there. Didn't bias your poll or anything
Also, capitalism is very nice. From a gameplay perspective, I will enjoy playing the Dutch the most, because I enjoy playing commercial civs, which there is a lack of as the game stands. But because of superficial nationalism, however, I chose Sweden.
From what we know, I will probably try either the Celts or Byzantium first (the latter of which seems more appealing right now as unique warriors are not awfully exciting) because they have the best synergy with religion. But the Netherlands seem the most interesting right now, though I will save my vote for when more info comes out.
This is how I would rank the new civs though, in terms of how interesting their uniques seem:
1. Netherlands
2. Austria
3. Maya
4. Sweden
5. Byzantium
6. Ethiopia
7. Celts
8. Carthage
9. Huns
Honestly, Carthage seems pretty dull with a mediocre as well as conditional SA and two early unique units, while the Huns seem way too bent on a singular strategy. All the rest of the new civs added however seem pretty interesting in terms of uniques, especially when compared to the vanilla civs in general. A unique resource and keeping happiness from luxuries could give a considerable gold and happiness edge to the Dutch, which by far makes them the most appealing to me, especially if the East Indiaman should synergize with this by plundering more gold or something. As for Austria, we really don't know much about them, but the peaceful annexation of CS could have interesting potential; however, it could just as well turn out to be pretty boring and irrelevant.
I'm still trying to get over the fact that in a game with almost half of the civs being European, they decided to make an expansion with two thirds of the civs being european.
What I can't get over is that people on this forum obsess over this.
Civilization does not exist to acknowledge or validate cross-sections of the world. It's just a game, and more to the point, it's a game where every civ looks the same. How often can you really feel that you're playing a European civ? All cities look the same. All non-unique units look the same. You get the diffeernt leaderheads, of course, but beyond that, what difference does it make?
The game's the thing.
Personally, none of the new civ's has really grabbed me yet, because none of them offer any interesting new gamestyle mechanics.
Austria -- Insufficient info, but this could be my front-runner.
Byzantium -- Insufficient info. Honestly, with the way Byzantine instigated coups and assassinations left and right, they should be a major player in espionage. But they're probably not since espionage doesn't start until the renaissance. Hell, getting a spy in the middle ages should be built into their UA. But it's probably not.
Carthage -- Dull UA, and two UU's. The problem with UU"s is, if you don't actually go to war during their era of relevance, then they're a unique waste. As for the UA, why hook the players up with free harbors? Why not instead incentivize players with rewards for building them (q.v. my proposed idea for Portugal).
Celts -- Insufficient info.
Ethiopia -- A turtle civ. Rewards a passive playstyle.
Huns -- Ill-conceived, weakly executed. They couldn't come up with city names or two uniques, so they made it a civ anyway. Unfaithful to their own critieria.
Maya -- Insufficient info.
Netherlands -- Only civ so far that might not have two UU's. What I've heard of the UA is not very sexy.
Sweden -- Another double UU civ. Nobel prize could be good, could be bland.
On the whole, I was looking for something goal-oriented, like Spain or the Incas. Something that would challenge me to play the game in a way I wouldn't otherwise. This may well be where I differentiate from others, who just like to start doing well and just keep going up, up, up. They make rudimentary investments and then want to watch the payoffs roll in. Thus, they win as long they "don't do anything wrong". This is where we get a lot of the complaints about the AI's backstabbing, denouncing, and overly competitive behavior.
Last edited by steveg700; 04-21-2012 at 03:46 AM.
Didn't vote here. I'm quite happy with the diversity, and look forward to playing as all of them, except maybe the Huns. I'm not an early rusher play-style, so they're not of too high importance. I am sort of looking forward to the City State bonuses of Austria and Sweden, and the business based Netherlands, but not so strongly that I'd say 'Must play first'.
I'm happy it includes the Byzantines
Man, they really went all out to cram as many female leaders in as they could.
Theresa and Boudica are good but Theodora, really?
Regardless, I'm most excited about the Byzantine Empire. Does anyone know if she'll speak Medieval Latin or Greek?
Well they were male-heavy before the expansion. Yes, realistically, women haven't really been leaders, but in a game where variety is key, I'm all for more female leaders, as long as they sorta make sense.
The Celts.
I couldn't disagree more. Variety (really just a synonym for diversity) should never take precedence over historical significance. The Civilization series doesn't appeal to fans because of forced gender equality; its appeal is the ability to take all the various hegemonies from history and form an answer to the question "what if...."
When the Expendables had an all male cast, no one claimed that the lack of female action stars was offensive to women because the film was an homage to a genre which historically lacked female protagonists. Audiences knew what to expect, and those expectations were met instead of subverted. Geo-politics has a similar history to action films in respect to the issue of gender. If all the leaders in Civilization were male, no one but the most butch, bra-burning feminists would find it at all odd.
They were Europe-heavy before the expansion too, and yet here we are
I voted for the Celts, but maybe Carthage. And yeah, I would've preferred if it was Hannibal.
I think Dido as leader has really let Carthage down. And it's probably too early to tell about the Maya.
Yea we have almost no info on the Maya. They could butcher the UA and make it too dependant on the "2012" phase people are going into. And as a half Kaqchikel that worries me lol. I already have to explain to my friends about what our calender was too often, would hate having to do it in multiplayer...
I understand. I just left High School a year ago, and you wouldn't believe the frustation of how many people my age actually think the Maya have predicted the end of the world. I am really looking forward to the Maya, though, so fingers crossed they don't turn them into a gimmicky ploy to reel in consumers.
I voted Sweden, but along with them I'm waiting pretty evenly for Byzantine and the Dutch too.
Actually all civs apart from Celts and Huns look very fun so far.
I've been waiting for Sweden and after reading about Beach's boardgames I saw it as a possibility, still was quite surprised for them to be included. Been interested in them after reading The Battle that Shook Europe. Also us finns were part of their Empire once.. Read that book and you know why the Carolean infantrys specality in the game has got something to do with long marches.
I'm glad they are not 100% warlike Civ as their UA seems to support otherwise.
Also I loved to play Byzantine in Civs III & IV, especially excited to get the Dromon back!
And Dutch just simply sounds very fun Civ to play, going all trade empire.
The Celts have always been a favourite of mine! There are quite a few civs on that list I want to try, but first thing goes to my all time favourites!
Ethiopia because I am lame and tend not to build many cities anyways.
Don't think that...I'll be playing them as well!
I voted Celts. They became my fav civ in III and IV, so I am hoping it will be the same again.
I play that way as well...though I voted the Huns, just because they are a civ that is going to be different to play...I loved playing the Byzatines in Civ 4, I have relatives that are Dutch, my wife is Irish, and I love swedish pancakes (and the swedish chef for that matter)...So I look forward to playing all of the new civs...
The Huns myself, they seem pretty unique and I'm looking forward to seeing what those battering rams are up to.
Ah yes, those "unique" and "different" huns. We've certainly never had any mounted archery units before, have we? Delightful. Oh, and that battering ram--in what devilishly clever way will it reinterpret spearmen? It's not like they can just remove the bonus against mounted units and replace it with a bonus against cities, right? Yeah, they're really switching up their pitches here. Flippin' the script.
I'd suspect folks are just screwing with me. But that'd just be narcissistic of me..
The Celts have been my favorite so far, but now it's definitely the Sweden. Really excited about their uniques, the ability might be really cool!
In any case I didn't expect so many to prefer Sweden.
Last edited by JFD; 04-23-2012 at 04:32 AM. Reason: I spoke fibbs.
When you come to a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong.
If the game were called "Mud Huts And Spear Chuckers V", I could understand your gripe. But it's called CIVILIZATION. Primitives need not apply.
Your commentary is pretty racist,because you falsely assume that any Non european civ that hasn't been included yet is a primitive one . This planet is too big for being too focused on only one continent .
It's not about "race", it's about facts.
Anyway, I picked Maya because I'm hoping that their UA will be something totally wacky to really shake things up. Other than that, I am looking forward to playing Carthage as Hannibal and Byzantium as Justinian.
Would it surprise you to hear that I agree with everything you just said. And I also agree with what I said. And that's not contradictory.
You are arguing that it's a form of revisionist history to pretend that women had a significant role in the leadership of nations. Obviously that sentiment is completely false. Completely and utterly. I also think, in a similar vein, that what Liberals have done to remake the Native Americans into some peaceful hippy commune, basically the Garden of Eden, that the white man destroyed is another bit of revisionist history that disgusts me. Women have never really lead in any consistent, meaningful way until very recently (Elizabeth and Catherine being such lonely exceptions to the rule), and Native Americans were horrifically violent and savage to each other (fighting over boundaries and territory, hardly a civilization that "had no concept of ownership") before the white man got to them So on this point, I think we agree completely.
But Civilization isn't Wikipedia or a textbook. It's entertainment. Period. And when it comes to entertainment, variety is a key component. I listen to Penn's Sunday School and on his first episode, when requesting his audience members to try out for the part of "Call-in News Reader", he specifically asked for women. Why? Was he saying that women make better news readers? Was he saying that every podcast needs to have a gender-balance for "equality's sake"? No. The only reason he wanted a woman for that part was that every voice on his podcast was male. And on radio, when you have all male voices, it tends to turn into a bass-heavy monotone to the listener. Female voices have a different pitch that adds to most people's enjoyment when listening. It's entertainment and it needs to service the goals of entertainment first and foremost.
Civ isn't making the statement "Women have been great leaders in history!" or "Women need to be included because that's what's 'fair'!" It's simply a matter of "It's more boring to play a Civ game where every leader you interact with is male. It's a sausage fest, and thus, not as interesting or fun". And I support that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote