I think Israel's gaining some ground, although it'll be hard for it to catch up to Portugal/and Brazil with how popular they are right now.
Poland/Poland-Lithuania
Portugal/and Brazil
Israel
Assyria or Sumeria or Hittites
Majapahit/Indonesia
Vietnam
Zulu or Zimbabwe
Kongo or Benin
Sioux
Inuit
I think Israel's gaining some ground, although it'll be hard for it to catch up to Portugal/and Brazil with how popular they are right now.
Fair enough. all good points.Originally Posted by SlickSlicer
Apologies that I suggested anything butThanks man.
Inuit, seriously...
Please may we have some real civilisations. What's the proposed UA: forty-odd words for different types of snow.
Not to worry, I understood your suspicion. But it's like you said, you would have great fun being Israel against Hitler, and I'm sure that any Islamists *spit* or Aryan nationalists *spit* would enjoy the equivalent in reverse. I don't care much about Israel either way personally, as far as that goes.Apologies that I suggested anything but
I do think that David or Solomon would be best though. I think that, relative to the rest of the world, Israel was more important then. Today, Israel is one of those City States that keeps asking its major power ally to gift it units and to help it kill invading armies / barbarians. Like all Militaristic City States, it produces quality units too, and it can give them to its friends. Whereas ancient Israel under David and Solomon was a genuine (albeit small) player, courted by the other powers of the day.
That's actually an urban myth.
Indeed. They actually have eight million words for it. Needless to say, they were quickly overrun by other civs that didn't spend all their time coming up with synonyms.
Brilliant. I have nothing against any nation/ empire etc that merits inclusion. All the ones mentioned in the poll, bring them on, it can only add to the game. However, the Inuit is the big exception. I would vote for Canada as a modern Civ, well before the Inuit.
I don't want to go off half-cocked and be insulting, a la Brazil, but I can't see any notable leaders/ technological advances/ famous people/ cities/ impact anything...apart from, like most humans, their ability to adapt has been their greatest tool. However, that said, that can be said for people who dwell in deserts, mountainous regions, jungles and other inhospitable environments. And what's more they didn't even bother to go and explore, if they'd traveled south, they may have seen that it became warmer at certain parts of the year and instead of having 40 words for snow, they could have had 40 words for tree...
Respect to Polar Bear and other terrific advocates but if every Civ was going to be included in the game, the Inuit would be the one I wouldn't buy...
Apologies to all about 'belittling' Brazil. If there is anything that this game teaches us, is that we learn a lot more about Civs/ Cultures/ History etc than we would do in most classrooms. I would welcome Brazil but I fancy a few other Civs before them and I still think that poll is deeply inaccurate.
There was one poster on this thread who, because his beloved Canada (another Civ that I would welcome but not yet) were not fitted in the poll, actually voted for the Inuit because it was the closest thing to it...it sort of proves a point. People prefer to have some 'association' to what they want than nothing at all...
Now, I understand the Aryan Nationalists, but how many Islamists are we talking about here? The enitre kit-and-cabbodle, or just the extremely misinformed Al-Queda and friends?
Islamists usually refers to Muslims that are violent, including Al Qaeda and Wahhabists. The problem is that while only an extreme few actual commit violence, there's a culture of acceptance within much of the Islamic world of said violence as a useful or "understandable" tactic to accomplish a religious or political goal. It makes the definitions of words like "Islamist" hard to nail down.
Fair enough for those of you who don't want to vote for the Inuit, but I voted for them for a few reasons...Firstly, they would add something different into the game, like a new strategy or type of game play - I believe I read something about units walking on Ice tiles, so that would be pretty cool! Then there is the fact that they do represent a very large region of our planet that hasn't had much representation, and I'm all for representation. Also, after reading Polar bears research I found that there is more to their history than I originally suspected. Another reason is because I like their culture, but that's probably more of a personal biased thing.
Hmm, that's a good point...I apologize for not having the option say "Canada or Inuit", I guess I forgot about that.
By putting Portugal and Brazil together they ended up ahead of Indonesia. I believe Portugal alone would be near the top, while Brazil would be above the average. By the way there is a similar poll at CFC.
Thanx for the link!
Yeah, I think Portugal would've done well all by themselves.
The Inuit don't "deserve" to be in the game as a civilisation. But, I would quite like for them to be included anyway for game mechanics purposes. The prospect of using ice and tundra effectively is appealing.
Yes, I view this this same...I don't agree that they match up to say Rome or China, but they'd be a lot of fun regardless. It's like how I know that the Sioux don't really "deserve" a spot either, but they are my favourite idea, and I think they could have a UA with horses that would really make them interesting to play as. Also, I didn't expect them to add the Huns for the same reason, but I'm actually really glad they did, as it opened the door for other civs who normally wouldn't really be considered. (which would be a real shame!)
My vote goes for Serbia even though it's not in the pool. I think it easy to make. Lots of leaders to pick, had huge historical influence easy choice of special units and civ specific abilities.
There are many civs that aren't in this poll, but would deserve a spot, or at least be interesting choices.
But couldn't having a Lapp culture or more likely the Finns serve a tundra-esque hole for a Civ?
Would that be better played out as a game mechanic through policy or religion? Unless you always play a map that has an Arctic circle and stay within it, it seems a bit much just for the one aspect. I dont think we need a whole new civ just to to use every hex of the game.
Likewise, when i think of civilization, for me there needs to be a sense of historic importance. i admit i have trouble playing America because when i am in the classical age running around with a spearmen the absurdity of it lessens the experience for me. I might get chewed out for this, but i would much rather see an Iroquois civilization morph into an American one.
For this same reason i find the idea of a Canadian civilization a bit laughable as the game stands right now(even though nationalistic pride demands my support). Canada simply does not classify as a civilization, its a remnant and product of another one, that goes the same for a lot of other modern countries that could potentially have a cool UA, UU,, or UB.
If people want to see their country or nationality represented a better option might be to make a mod where your civilizations symbol, UA, UU, and UB are customizable from a list. Other wise your inevitable opening up the door for 200+ civs in attempting to represent human history
On the other hand i do support an Israel civilization and Brazil as long as it has a very South American feel to it.
To be fair MirkyWater, I only wrote that about the tundra because other Civvers were advocating having a Civ that is snow-bound just for diversity and how it would work. I was trying to back non-Inuit Civs which I thought were more deserving, I don't particularly want the Lapps or the Finns but I prefer them to the Inuit.
Can't disagree with anything you have said
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think as many people know about the Lapps or the Finns in comparison to the Inuit - at the very least the Lapps. I do like the Sami people, they are pretty cool, but I really don't see it happening...And the Finns are probably just as unlikely now with both Sweden and Denmark representing Scandinavia.
...Just saying.
I am European rather North American and while I freely admit that the Eskimo/ Inuit are names that you here from elementary school is doesn't mean that they are more deserving. Israel is far more well known that half of the nations in Civilization or are proposed for Civilization but these nations are more 'deserving' in many peoples' eyes. I still would prefer the Finns over the Inuit simply for their exploits in WWII or their uniqueness in language, culture etc.
As I said before, I don't care if they are in or not and they probably won't be, I am not going to lose a wink of sleep, I would just prefer them than the Inuit if there had to be one or the other. I believe that the Inuit is a mind-boggling choice. I respect them and their culture but I don't believe that they should be in the game.
Thoughts on each civ:
Poland/P-L; They are most certainly deserving, but I fear that their most well known unit - the Winged hussar - is already indentified with Austria. not being too familiar with Plish history, I can't think of another but my instinct says a Lithuanian UU would be suitable.
Portugal/Brazil: As I've already said, I'm concerned that Portugal will play too similarly to Spain, which already has incentives to explore quickly. I'm aware of its different history and achievements, but it's primarily known for exploring past Africa and establishing Hegemony in the East, as well as Brazil. UA/UU/UB could be easily done but I'm still worried about Portugal's style. Brazil would be great if a modern civ is needed as I don't think it would play too similarly to any other civ. You could consider Amazonian tribes and the like for UA. And they are most certainly not a third world country. They're one of the fastest developing countries in the world and are rivalled only by Colombia in SA. Living standards for most are probably better than India, which has far greater poverty than Brazil. In addition, current lack of economic development shouldn't exclude a civ from entry.
Israel: Very viable but not my top choice. Not a great choice for the devs/publishers either even though a lot of people would love it.
Assyria/Sumeria/Hittites: We've had Hitties in a scenario and they were fun to play as; unbelievably powerful in classical and medieval eras. Any of these would be great but I'm partial to the Hittites.
Majapahit/Indonesia: My premier choice, for Maja's rich/unique history as well as the need to fill the area in.
Vietnam: Again, would be very viable and a geographical filler. Unique from most other civs and ery different from China, the only neighbouring civ.
Zulu/Zimbabwe: Most definitely not for me. Still not seen anything that makes me think of Zulu as an essential Civ for any Civ game. Their claim to fame is warring with Britain in a half year long war in which they lost, even though they did repel the first invasion. For the "African resistance" civ, look to Ethiopia.
Kongo/benin: no strong feelings either way on this. I feel the same way towards them as I do the Huns.
Sioux: I wouldn't mind ONE more Native American tribe and preferably one nearer the west of the US, but I'd prefer the Apache or the Blackfoot. We could have an all-encompassing "First Nations" civ but I'm not sure how it'd go down.
Inuit: No. I just... No.
As to the arguments against combined civs, you need to take into account that if someone wants Assyria, then they're likely looking for a civ to inhabit the Western Middle East. The groups generally reflect Geographical areas or cultural groups; personally, I don't want Portugal due to reasons above but I'd love to have a Portuguese civ; Brazil would do nicely there.
Not true, China is bordered by Mongolia, Russia, Korea, and Japan, while Vietnam was bordered by China and Siam. Just thought I should mention that.
If your'e going to put in Poland-Lithuania then the Huzzar was their thing. So there wouldn't really be a Lithuanian UU. I don't see much of a chance for the Polish since the Huzzars where given to Austria, once the Polish fans find out expect "Why does Austria have Polish UU?"
I don't think the Anglo-Zulu war is their ONLY claim to fame, although it is impressive. I would point out more of the fact that being a weak tributary then from 1816 to 1828 rapidly changing into a military power, that's nice. Plus, they dominated South Africa and beat just about any army in their way. The Zulu are really the ONLY African nation besides the ones in the game that people know of unless they REALLY study Africa. Also, their culture is still alive and strong well into the 21st century, being one of the most spoken languages in South Africa. Also, there have been many Zulus that went into the government and became important figures. I think the Zulu, in terms of representation, will represent a lot of Southern Africa and various bantu tribes who where powerful, but aren't well known. Such as the Xhosa.
Er...Vietnam and Siam are not neighbors. They had interactions historically, but Vietnam is bordered by Laos and Cambodia. Siam=Thailand. Siam does not border Vietnam. Or at least it doesn't currently.Not true, China is bordered by Mongolia, Russia, Korea, and Japan, while Vietnam was bordered by China and Siam. Just thought I should mention that.
http://www.maps-thailand.com/map-southeast-asia.php
If you're just talking about regional influence, Vietnam had interactions with China, Siam and even Japan, though, and possibly with others. They also had interactions with several of the colonial Empires. Both Vietnam and Siam intervened in Cambodia, and sometimes fought one another. So in that respect, I guess they might as well have been neighbors if they weren't de facto neighbors at one point historically (I am ignorant on whether at any point they shared a border historically, admittedly. I simply know that they do not currently).
I agree on nearly all of twesrx's points above.
Not currently, no. But in the past they shared a small border.
I agree on most of them as well.I agree on nearly all of twesrx's points above.
Thanx for your thoughts!
As for Assyria, they are really deserving of being in the game. I'm not just talking about regional representation, but shear military power and effect on history!
Well all three of them had some military dominance going their way but Assyria really dominate Mesopotamia. Hittites were the first Iron users though, and that brought them some serious military might.
Forgot about Siam, and I'd like to say it was because I was thinking of modern borders but I'm not so sure. China is the only modern country that borders Vietnam. However, Siam could ad to a South-east Asia scenario.
As for my comment on a Lithuania UU, I meant that since the Hussar is taken by Austria, a Lithuanian unit could be Poland's UU to represent their tied history for a number of centuries; like Denmark and Norway.
Perhaps a civ to represent all South African inhabitants; Boers, Zulu, Xhosa and Anglo-South Africa? Not sure what the scenario would be though.
I would love the Inuit addition to the game. As I mentioned in the Inuit thread, it would be interesting to have an arctic-based civ ... it would definitely influence gameplay.
But I would have liked the Zulu to come back, and the Sioux would be interesting. Kongo would be an great Faith-based nation (admittedly, I know next to nothing about the Kingdom ... and that's merely what I gathered from two seconds of wiki surfing, haha). Also, some more archipelago nations like Indonesia would be fun to play against Polynesia.
Haha, I guess I'm great with whoever is added (should there be more DLC nations).
I wish I understood why people hate Vietnam so much.
Charlie's in the trees...
I have been putting this suggestion all over these forums. Why not the Pueblo Civilization in a DLC.
Leader: Pope (Po-pay)
Capital: Taos
UA: Pueblo Revolt - If a Pueblo city is conquered you get the three of the most powerful units possible respective to your era or tech progress.
UU: ? (I'm not sure yet, leave your suggestions please.)
Other Cities: Sandia, Cochiti, Acoma, Laguna, etc.
Funny.....I wish I understood why people hate Vietnam so much.
The UA is ridiculous. I think it should be like If a Pueblo city is conquered the Pueblo get moved to a small reservation in a tiny part of your Civ. Why on earth would they receive 3 units for being defeated in battle?
I voted for Israel, Sioux and Poland. Three civs I'm interested in actually playing.
I would've thought they'd be a little more popular than this..I wish I understood why people hate Vietnam so much.
Keep up trying to get attention to them though, as I think there is definitely hope if there's a second expansion...I really could see them as one of the 9 new civs of expansion number 2!
I don't get it. Mind explaining yourself?
"I wish I understood why people hate Vietnam so much."
If you take that statement by itself, it sounds like someone one has never heard of the Vietnam war.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote