Dear 2K/Firaxis: Still want Israel, Zulu, Inuit, and these others civs...

[aarondhknight]

This thread is as much for 2K/Firaxis (as if they are actually reading this) as it is for fellow Civ fans to dream together and conjecture great mod ideas.

What I would like to see the most from the creative talents of the Civ makers next are Israel as a playable civ (led by Solomon), the filling up of Africa (using the Zulu, Kongo, Morocco, and modern South Africa), inclusion of an ice-walking UA civ for the Inuit, and inclusion of a handful of other deserving civs that could help fill up the map and enhance gameplay: the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, the Seminole, the Carib, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, Australia, Canada, the Australian Aboriginees, Majapahit, and Italy would be a nice group to pick from.

Any other thoughts out there?

[JFD]

This thread is probably redundant. Have you seen this one? http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ilization-Civ5

However:

Dear 2K/Firaxis: How are you? I am so stoked by Sweden that I'm fine with any other civs you decide upon. Probably should be non-European though. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, after all.

If I had to: Portugal, Brazil, Majapahit or Great Zimbabwe/Kongo/Zulu. Areas woefully underrepresented.

[SlickSlicer]

1.) Vietnam

[Polar Bear]

You all know who I support.

Inform me if you want to make an Inuit mod, or make an artwork for Apanuugpak. I am more readily on the Civilization fanatics forum so contact me there. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

[slowtarget]

You all know who I support.

Poland, yeah?

[zephyrtr]

We don't even have our hands on the 9 new Civs that they're bringing out with G&K and already you're writing letters to the devs asking for more civs? Come on.

[luciferkid]

Dear Firaxis,if Brazil is in your list for new civilizations,make sure the game designers read such books,to make a good job about describing Brazil's history and for creating a Unique Ability that represents their history as well:

http://www.amazon.com/Independence-D.../dp/1860640605
http://www.amazon.com/1822-Portugues...5371120&sr=1-1

There are books that describe their history with more details beyond these two .

[steveg700]

This thread is super-duper-uper redundant, mostly requesting civ's that are problematic at best to devise valid or interesting uniques for.

How about they just add the civ's but not give them any uniques? I mean, people don't seem to care that deeply about actually playing these civ's, just that they be included in some fashion, right?

[JFD]

A double post has somehow appeared.

[JFD]

This thread is super-duper-uper redundant, mostly requesting civ's that are problematic at best to devise valid or interesting uniques for.

How about they just add the civ's but not give them any uniques? I mean, people don't seem to care that deeply about actually playing these civ's, just that they be included in some fashion, right?

I think you're right. I mean, is a majority enough going to actually play as the Inuit? Something tells me not. The Zulu? Perhaps, but not for their own self-worth. Israel? Maybe for the lols and role-playing. Maybe there's some psychology behind the game that draws the need for validation of equality or of specific civs. Or maybe everyone plays on Earth maps and don't enjoy emulating colonisation. In any case, I wanted Sweden because I knew I would play Sweden hereon for many of my games. The only other civs I might play that isn't included are Hungary, Brazil and Portugal. The rest would be just to appease those who feel equality, or diversity, is called for in a game made by Westerners. I don't believe a large enough majority will play such obscure civs as the Majapahit as to realistically warrant their inclusion.

[Homero]

Inquisators ,let people have fun. Let them ask the Zulus, Brazil, Inuits, etc.

[JFD]

Okay. Firaxis, where is New Zealand in the game? Offer us a City-State, at least, if you'll be so kind.

[Homero]

We don't even have our hands on the 9 new Civs that they're bringing out with G&K and already you're writing letters to the devs asking for more civs? Come on.

Good point

[John Hugo]

Inuit, able to walk on ice: cool! How about ice resources like seals?

[istry555]

Many people on these boards don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state or simply suggest civs that are so similar to existing or more important civs in terms of their uniques/how they play that it's pointless.

Honestly, this thread should be merged into:

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ilization-Civ5
or
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...tc-quot-Thread

Otherwise the discussion just repeats itself.

[Homero]

Honestly, this thread should be merged into:
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ilization-Civ5
or
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...tc-quot-Thread

Otherwise the discussion just repeats itself.

A splendid suggestion.

Many people on these boards don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state

This is not an easy task. Is Venice a "civilization" or a "nation-state"?

or simply suggest civs that are so similar to existing or more important civs

A very subjective point of view...

[istry555]

This is not an easy task. Is Venice a "civilization" or a "nation-state"?

Well, I actually meant the distinction between civilizations, nations, nation-states, and states, but that felt annoying to type. But Venice also argues my point. Many people on this board immediately dismiss Venice simply because it's currently part of Italy and as such can't conceive of any justifiable way to include Venice except as an Italian Civ. Also, Venice is something that predates the rise of nationalism and modern nation-states so it isn't really the best example. Admittedly, it's also an distinction that is easier to make in some cases than others (more often than not with some very modern countries).

A very subjective point of view...

I was thinking mainly in terms of gameplay mechanics, i.e. suggesting several civs that historically would best be represented as naval civs. Once you reach a tipping point in terms of how to exploit that gameplay, you either have to start repeating yourself or implement the civ in a manner different from what they are historically known for.

[aarondhknight]

I realize this is a redundant thread - however, with redundancy comes visibility for the game's developers and writers. With the countless threads that get posted here, it is far easier for a regular poster to dig through posts to gauge public opinion than it is for the game's makers, who are quite busy I would imagine.

And it is fair to call me out for posing this question before the 9 new civs are even available for us to play...however, the timing of my post is precisely because of those 9 new civs, and more to the point: my discouragement at which groups were chosen and which groups were not.

Seems like a good time to make my opinions visible to the developers, even if it may more therapeutic than effective.

[VicRatlhead51]

Many people on these boards don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state or simply suggest civs that are so similar to existing or more important civs in terms of their uniques/how they play that it's pointless.

Honestly, this thread should be merged into:

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ilization-Civ5
or
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...tc-quot-Thread

Otherwise the discussion just repeats itself.

I agree with this post completely. Something to add is that all but a small few of the civilizations in this game have had an empire type period in their History. Its a game for Empires. Some of the smaller nations that have been suggested just don't have a history on par with the ones currently in the Game.

I might be out of place here but Italy already has representation in the game. Not only that but arguably one of the greatest in the Game. They may be called Rome but they're just Italy by another name. Having a modern Italy would just be redundant especially with other more interesting choices waiting in the wings.

[Polar Bear]

I think you're right. I mean, is a majority enough going to actually play as the Inuit? Something tells me not.

The ability to move units onto ice tiles is very enticing. Even without this I would still play as them.

[zephyrtr]

I imagine navigating ice tiles would be very rarely useful, even for naval units (which doesnt entirely make sense) but especially for land units. There've been so few situations in the many games I've played where ice has seriously obstructed me. This definitely wouldn't be a power that would be useful every game, probably not even every 5 games, and that makes it a crappy unique ability to have. I don't know why walking over ice is something that would sound enticing to ... anyone really. It would have to harm them in the same way as Carthage's ability to walk on mountains, in order to avoid abuse. And speaking of, even Carthage's walk over mountains is very situational, but there's lots of times I could see getting over mountains directly would save a LOT of time and probably make a sneak attack much more effective. Getting over ice wouldn't serve in a similar way at all.

[SlickSlicer]

It doesn't sound useful to me at all. More enticing would be significant bonuses in tundra/snow squares, which are otherwise useless. You could apply the same logic to a desert based civilization. Such a bonus would allow these civs to build cities in places that wouldn't be considered by other civs, and also capitalize on resources that are nearby tiles which would otherwise be useless. Due to start bias, it would likely affect every game played with said civ as well.

I'm alright with the Inuit. I always have been. But I like them for the possibility of the bonus I mention above rather than because I think they have significant historical worth. If they could find another civilization that could utilize the same bonus, I'd accept them just as readily. Also, I'm more interested in a desert based civ than a tundra/snow based one, as desert tiles seem to love me in most games.

[JFD]

The ability to move units onto ice tiles is very enticing. Even without this I would still play as them.

And I wish you could. But, not meaning to be harsh, you are probably amongst a few.

[Polar Bear]

Ice walking is just an additional benefit to the Inuit unique ability. We have more than one idea, but this is the current main one - People of the Arctic: No unhappiness from number of cities for cities build on snow or tundra tiles. Snow and tundra tiles provide one production bonus.
There are maps that ice walking would prove to be a strategic advantage. It would also help with scouting. Ice often connects continents that cannot otherwise be crossed without entering water tiles. Small islands are often connected to ice tiles, making them available for colonization earlier.

[zephyrtr]

But if ending your turn on ice harms the unit (like it does for Carthage and mountains -- as it would HAVE to do to avoid abuse) you wouldn't be able to get a scout across 5 tiles of ice without him dying. And +1 production to snow/tundra still doesn't make snow a desirable tile. It helps Tundra get on par with plains and grasslands, but this UA still feels very weak to me.

There's nearly nothing that shows up on Snow tiles Luxury wise, so really it's pretty bad. At least tundras have deer, you can probably get whales, and crabs and fish off the coast, and you're like to get iron and coal... everyone else is going to have most of the luxuries, and that's gonna suck if Inuit will be a small Civ. It's just a really funky premise to build a team around, because the game wants to penalize you in multiple ways for settling cold regions.

The no happiness penalty for Cities built on tundra/snow is iffy to me. I'd rather something almost like Netherlands: unique improvement that produces Seals or something off of Snow tiles, to help further deter invaders. They will say "Well, they're not settling particularly valuable areas, and they have a monopoly on this other luxury, so I don't see much point in going to war with them" and then you can push culture in peace.

[VicRatlhead51]

Maybe I'm wrong but the Inuit seem more like a culture than a civilization. Who would be their leader? What cities would they have? They just don't seem to fit in with the other civilizations. There are better native American groups to add. The Apache for example. Geronimo as a leader. Plus one production from plains or maybe a tech stealing bonus since they adapted to horseriding and gunpowder weapons so well. A pony warrior could replace cavalry with extra movement or something as a UA and maybe an archer replacement Apache warrior with a stronger attack. I don't know. That's just an example. I just don't see how the Inuit fit in other than the fact that they thrived in a region no one else wanted they really have nothing going for them.

[PachaMinnie]

Ice walking is just an additional benefit to the Inuit unique ability. We have more than one idea, but this is the current main one - People of the Arctic: No unhappiness from number of cities for cities build on snow or tundra tiles. Snow and tundra tiles provide one production bonus.
There are maps that ice walking would prove to be a strategic advantage. It would also help with scouting. Ice often connects continents that cannot otherwise be crossed without entering water tiles. Small islands are often connected to ice tiles, making them available for colonization earlier.

Who says this is going to be their UA? Perhaps it will be something totally different. Another way around the Snow problem is don't settle to near them, it isn't like a desert that comes up out of nowhere. It is snow, it's in the far north and south, and you can dodge it. A civilization that has bonuses to Snow and Tundra tiles isn't very enticing to me, I would much rather have Monaco, Berbers, Numidia, etc..

I do also think that there are much more deserving Civilizations out there. So, I don't know about the Inuit, I wouldn't mind them, but not yet.

[Polar Bear]

But if ending your turn on ice harms the unit (like it does for Carthage and mountains -- as it would HAVE to do to avoid abuse) you wouldn't be able to get a scout across 5 tiles of ice without him dying. And +1 production to snow/tundra still doesn't make snow a desirable tile. It helps Tundra get on par with plains and grasslands, but this UA still feels very weak to me.

There's nearly nothing that shows up on Snow tiles Luxury wise, so really it's pretty bad. At least tundras have deer, you can probably get whales, and crabs and fish off the coast, and you're like to get iron and coal... everyone else is going to have most of the luxuries, and that's gonna suck if Inuit will be a small Civ. It's just a really funky premise to build a team around, because the game wants to penalize you in multiple ways for settling cold regions.

The no happiness penalty for Cities built on tundra/snow is iffy to me. I'd rather something almost like Netherlands: unique improvement that produces Seals or something off of Snow tiles, to help further deter invaders. They will say "Well, they're not settling particularly valuable areas, and they have a monopoly on this other luxury, so I don't see much point in going to war with them" and then you can push culture in peace.

No one said anything about ice tiles doing damage to the units. The Inuit have always been very good at surviving on ice, so damage should not be part of the ability, nor does it make sense for game play.
Seals would be a good luxury resource. We are hoping that they add them as well.

----

VicRatlhead51. You have not read the Inuit thread. Read it. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

[istry555]

No one said anything about ice tiles doing damage to the units. The Inuit have always been very good at surviving on ice, so damage should not be part of the ability, nor does it make sense for game play.

He was saying it would have to hurt units to prevent abuse. Otherwise you can just hide units on the ice or create permanent sentries.

[SlickSlicer]

But if ending your turn on ice harms the unit (like it does for Carthage and mountains -- as it would HAVE to do to avoid abuse) you wouldn't be able to get a scout across 5 tiles of ice without him dying. And +1 production to snow/tundra still doesn't make snow a desirable tile. It helps Tundra get on par with plains and grasslands, but this UA still feels very weak to me.

There's nearly nothing that shows up on Snow tiles Luxury wise, so really it's pretty bad. At least tundras have deer, you can probably get whales, and crabs and fish off the coast, and you're like to get iron and coal... everyone else is going to have most of the luxuries, and that's gonna suck if Inuit will be a small Civ. It's just a really funky premise to build a team around, because the game wants to penalize you in multiple ways for settling cold regions.

The no happiness penalty for Cities built on tundra/snow is iffy to me. I'd rather something almost like Netherlands: unique improvement that produces Seals or something off of Snow tiles, to help further deter invaders. They will say "Well, they're not settling particularly valuable areas, and they have a monopoly on this other luxury, so I don't see much point in going to war with them" and then you can push culture in peace.

Snow tiles act like plains and give the same tile bonuses as them. Tundra tiles give +1 production.

There, now they can settle in those far off tundra areas that have a few useful resources, maybe even a natural wonder, but, close to them, have useless snow tiles. And start biases would ensure they usually begin close to such areas.

This is neither overpowered nor useless.