Yes!! Someone who supports the great nation of Ireland!Originally Posted by Moostache
Yes!! Someone who supports the great nation of Ireland!
any petitions to add the Mongols into the game? I would hate to think that 2k dont get it right for the expansion.
I don't think there's a petition to add Mongolia into the game. There's one for Spain but as far as I know there is none for Mongolia. I wouldn't worry if I were you. Mongolia will probably be added in an expansion pack (or it might be one of those two civs that come in the D2D DLC).
As a fan of the series since Civilization 1, I find it a little odd that the Mongols were not on offer. It seems a shame that they have been pushed to the side for this installment of the series.
The Mongolian Empire, at its peak, was the largest empire in history, stretching over 24 million sq km (9.226 million sq miles) or 22% of the worlds land area. Subutai, Genghis Khan's leading general and tactician, is also considered one of history's greatest military commanders. The figures speak for themselves.
As a fan from the very start, it has always been interesting to have the Mongols as opponents. Their mix of aggression and the use of a highly mobile war machine means that players need to be wary. They addition of this civilization ups the ante and means that players to not get lax in maintaining an effective military.
As much as I appreciate the new diplomatic features, it is nice to have a civilization that is mainly concerned with warfare. It actually makes diplomacy more interesting. It also means that warfare has that little bit of extra spice. Allying with the Mongols can be just as interesting as opposing them. Having them in the game certainly adds to the tension and spirit of the game.
Some may criticise the Mongols for being one dimensional, but it is a dimension that stretches far. They may only do one thing, but they do it well. Warfare is one of the factors that makes the Civilization series great, and who does it better than them? It would almost seem like an anti-climax if they were not around.
Although I am unlikely to play AS the Mongols, they do make the game more interesting. Please give this some consideration, as I am sure many other fans would like to see them added, preferably in the initial release and not 6 months later in an expansion pack.
Good luck and good gaming!
As much as I have enjoyed reading other people's comments and selections, I had to be brutally honest with myself. If I picked a Civilization, would someone outside of that country be able to tell me something famous about it or a famous leader from that country.
Not pointing fingers (honestly), but if someone asked anyone outside of some of the countries mentioned for one leader of the country, would they be able to do it? From my basic knowledge of history (and from playing all the Civ games) I could tell you a little about Tokogawa or Hannibal, because they have all been prominent at some point in history. I could at least give a minimum description about the country they came from also.
If I was to ask someone in say... China, or India, or Australia, or South Africa who the current Prime Minister of say... Canada is... would they be able to tell me? Probably not. Would they be able to name ANY prime minister of Canada? Again, probably not. My parents lived there for two years. They loved it. But when we think of a game as EPIC as Civilization, having a "nice" country is one thing, but playing a country that has made an impact on the world is another.
I am not a US resident, but I know so much about the USA through its cultural domination in the last 50 years. I have never been to Rome, but I can see the impact of the Roman empire in its spread through Europe, and in the use of Latin as the basis for English, the language I am typing now. If not for the English empire, I would not be writing this, let alone seeing advertisements in English on billboards in downtown Jakarta, Tokyo and Singapore. The Arabian empire developed mathematics which has led to the development of science and technology throughout the world.
I sincerely appreciate everyone being passionate about their own country. I love my country too, but I know it has not done enough on the world stage to deserve a spot in the Civilization Olympiad.
I confess I am ignorant of the achievements of other countries, especially ones that have been mentioned multiple times, but when people suggest their homeland, and I cannot name one leader or think of one contribution to the global psyche, I will often be a little dismissive.
Anyway, food for thought. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Feel free to dump on my homeland as much as you like
Good luck and good gaming.
Crazed_Cousin_Dougal
That was a well-thought out post. Beautiful. I fully agree with you when you say that people are usually very passionate about including the civ (country) that they live in.
Overall, great insights and it was nice to read your post.
People, don't worry about why this or that civ is not in the game. You people who've been playing these games for years should know by now that the other major civs will come in the later game expansions.
If they still don't come out or you can't wait for an expansion to play as Spain, or whatever country you don't see here, then the modding community will almost definitely make that civ. That's what's great about these games. We can mod the game. Nobody plays the vanilla game after good mods come out.
If the amount of civs is increased to 50 (like EnigmaCode and I want) then all the major civs will be included, and also some that aren't as major. So if they are increased to this amount, then expect some civs that you think didn't have a huge influence. In fact, there's probably about only 40 or so civs that have had a major influence on the world. But civ5 needs 50 civs!
ĄOh my God! Spain is not in... bah, itīs not really new. Another once the anglo-saxon historial point of view itīs like a bad joke, the fact is that Spain deserves to be in instead of any other nation, itīs just like that.
Why? 1-One of the largest empires in History in land extension, 2- The main discoverers & conquerors of the New World, 3- The totally main occident power for 150 years (all the early modern age, ignored an reviled in every "historical" game just because that absolute dominion) & first order european power for 150 more, 4 - Spanish is one of the top three languajes in the world. Obviusly it seems not enough to put Spain in the game xd, ancient history and XX century seems more important to you... an abosolutely shame.
"England Special Ability: Sun Never Sets" Are you kidding me? Remember that Spain was the empire of which the sun never set (not me, Felipe II). May be others got it... later.
Last edited by Espaņol; 07-27-2010 at 07:31 PM.
I agree with you that Spain should be included, but we don't need to see post after post about why Spain should be included.
Here's a quote from one of my past posts on this forum:
The majority of that post helps to address your second and fourth points. It doesn't matter how many speakers a country for a country to be included in Civ (if they based it off of language then Portugal would've been included long before Germany or Japan). Language can show the reach of an empire, but it is only one out of many considerations that must be made when considering a civ (country) for the Civ series.First of all let me make this clear - I support adding Spain into Civ. They were one of the first truly global empires (as a result of the Iberian Union and the unification of the two crowns). However qrolpater, I believe that your supporting Spain for a lot of the wrong reasons. Let me point out a few logical/historical errors in your post.
First of all were not basing which civilizations are added into the game by number of native speakers, but if we were basing it off the number of native speakers of a language, then why did you not include Portugal? It's the seventh most spoken language in the world and is spoken more than either Russian, Japanese, or German, yet those civs are in the game. Civilizations should be added to Civ if they were very culturally/historically important on the world.
The Portuguese established a very large empire (and it wasn't just exploratory). The Portuguese Empire stretched from Brazil to Angola to India to the East Indies. They had a very established trade route system across its vast empire and only fell due to constant attacks on trade/colonies by the three major European powers of the day: England, Spain and the Netherlands.
That is just so wrong on so many levels. Christopher Columbus did not discover America, he merely rediscovered it. The first peoples to discover America, according to the New World migration model, were early Paleo-Indian tribes who migrated from Eurasia to the Americas through the Beringia land bridge around 12,000 years ago. They then diversified, settled in different areas, and some had relatively large empires (Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs - more on them in a moment).
Then, if you want to talk about the first European to reach America, then that would be Leif Ericson. Leif Ericson (c.970 - c.1020) made his historic first landing on the mainland of North America nearly five-hundred years before Columbus. He landed on the northern tip of Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows, which is an actual Norse village and therefore evidence of his landing. Christopher Columbus then "discovered" America nearly five hundred years later on October 12, 1492
Now about the whole "a few hundred Spanish conquistadors conquered the largest empire in South America." I'll use the Inca Empire as my empire. At 1528, when the Spanish landed in South America, the Incas had a nearly 380,000 square mile (980,000 square kilometer) empire. The Inca Empire had expanded dramatically under the reign of Emperor Huayna. As a result, many "conquered" Inca peoples still mantained their cultural identity and were passive citizens at best.
One crucial aspect of Huayna's reign was that he had two sons, both of which claimed heir to the throne. This resuted in dispute between the two sons, Huascar and Atahualpa. When the Spaniards arrived in 1528, the Inca Empire was in the midst of a civil war between the two. Huayana and his appointed heir then died suddenly because of smallpox (a disease introduced by the Spaniards). Huascar, because he was in the Inca Empire capital of Cuzco, then declared himself emperor of the Inca Empire. However, the Inca army remained loyal to Atahualpa. This lead to the Inca Civil War.
When Pizzaro arrived, a weakened (by both war and disease) empire, was easier to conquer (with the help of the Inca peoples. So Pizzaro could not have conquered the Incan Empire without 1) the devastating Inca Civil War, 2) the disease that spread among the Inca, and 3) help from disgruntled Inca peoples in the Spanish conquest of the Incan capital.
Britain did not become an empire solely from "British pirates" (although they were technically privateers). Privateers are private peoples/warships who are authorized by a country to attack a foreign ship. Although England did use privateers.
In case you forget, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, was a crucial turning point of the British and Spanish Empires. Granted, the majority of the Spanish Armada was destroyed by natural forces (gales caused as a result of the Little Ice Age), but it still marked the beginning of a slow and gradual decline for the Spanish Empire.
I've been a Civ fan for several Civs and I've played Civ games without the Spanish Empire and it does not detract from playability of the game. It would be nice to add Spain but it doesn't result in a "crippled and pathetic 'civ'". It will probably be added in either a mod or expansion pack anyways, so I wouldn't worry.
One final thing. Why Spain? You see many posts on "why Spain should be added." Did we forget about the Koreans? Incas? Portuguese? We should add the those civs listed above as well as the Mongols, Anasazi, and perhaps the Assyrians (they are a distinct culture from the Persians/Arabians and invented the first practical war chariots).
Others, which I don't view as important as the former listed civs (although I'm sure there are those of you who disagree) are: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, Polynesians, and perhaps Australia and Canada. However, there are a lot of Europeans civs already.
Overall, just wanted to correct you on a few points and suggest a few civs. Not trying to start a fierce debate here, but I just thought you should know. We should really be talking about other civs other than the most obvious ones. If you have any ideas, then post away.
And Spain didn't discover or conquer the New World. People make it sound as if Coulmbus was the first to discover America and then a group of 300 conquistadors single-handedly defeated one of the largest empires in history (Incas). They didn't conquer them single-handedly, but history books fail to mention that the conquistadors were aided by a variety of things including the local population.
I support adding Spain, but they'll probably be added to Civ sooner or later (they also might be in the double civ D2D DLC). Of course people will create a mod for Spain soon enough, but we don't need post after post on why Spain should be included. We know they were important and we don't need to see a constant reminder every week.
We should think about adding civs that aren't so obvious (such as Vietnam or the Zulu) and think of new civs to add instead of suggesting the same civ time and time again.
Note: The text quoted was already in orange bold print. I did not highlight the text specifically for this post.
EnigmaCode's above post is pretty much 100% right. In fact, much the same sentiment about the Incans can be applied to many pre-Columbian civilizations, in my opinion. The Native Americans generally fell prey to disease and disunity, of which I would argue disease was the greatest contributing factor to their downfall. In the past it was argued that the biggest native american weakness was technological. I would contend that this point is fallacious. Several native american groups proved willing to adapt to European armaments and horses.
In my opinion the Spanish were able to both conquer and rule their Empire primarily because they carried an enormous biological weapon: disease. One only need compare the population estimates of the Aztecs and Incans before and after Spanish conquest to observe this fact. It is not an exaggeration to say that millions of Native Americans were killed off by diseases. The extent that they were killed off by such problems is almost incomprehensible. Their death tolls are comparable to the most modern genocide death tolls of the 20th century. Disease was the greatest catalyst possible for rapid European colonization. The Native Americans had no immunity to such a deadly weapon.
Given this fact, the ease that the Spanish overthrew the Aztecs and Incans (and other indigenous groups) does not demonstrate inherent weakness of those latter Empires. The swift Spanish subjugation in the West, in fact, does not even demonstrate Spanish military strength. The only thing the expeditious Spanish occupation of America demonstrates is the importance of disease in history. The Aztec and Incan Empires were very vigorous and robust. Unfortunately, no matter how tough they were, they didn't stand a chance against diseases. Supposing that the disease exchange was more favorable to the Native Americans, and the Europeans were the ones inflicted by rampant disease (something more substantial than merely syphilis), European colonization would have been shut down with extreme alacrity. If you take disease out of the equation entirely, I also believe that the Native Americans would have repelled Europeans. Before sickness came, the Native Americans were numerous and European colonists were few. European powers would not have had the manpower or logistical strength to sustain a presence in America were it not for their epidemics taking root.
Thus I believe that the Incans and Aztecs and other Native American groups as well are certainly worthy of consideration. Simply because their Empires fell fast or they eventually fell prey to conquest does not mean they did not have worthy civilizations (it merely means that they had a considerable weakness to foreign illness). The Incans made incredible advances in civics using a brilliant mit'a system and conquered a huge amount of territory. They had great leaders in Tupac/Thupac Yapinqui and Huayna/Wayna Capac. Along with Ethiopia they pretty much top my list of worthy additions to the game, even moreso than Spain itself.
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 07-28-2010 at 07:14 AM.
Great post SlickSlicer. Great points on disease and how it affected the Native American empires/populations that I didn't cover.
I agree that without disease, European colonization in the Americas would have either crawled to a halt or (more likely) been abandoned. The Incas were just an example in my post (because they were the most advanced Native American empire in South America).
Now, many empires in the Americas fell not through war, but through disease. The "European conquest of the Americas" was made possible because of 1) internal dissent (and in some cases civil war) within the empires conquered and 2) disease which ravaged the Native Americans.
I also agree with you on adding the Incas, Mayans, and Ethiopians. Adding them would be a great addition to Civ.
Last edited by EnigmaCode; 07-28-2010 at 08:21 AM. Reason: Clarification Added
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_civilizations.html (scroll down to city-states)
No!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vienna and Budapest are both city-states!
I guess that ruins the attempts for Austro-Hungary
I suggested thqt earlier, I dont know why but people prefer to biker about their own nationalism than supported this brillant idea.
Well, then this would cut into Firaxis's profits. The main reason that expansion packs are bought are for scenarios and civs. Now, scenarios are easily supplied by mods, but new civs aren't that readily supplied.
I believe that Firaxis probably won't add that feature lest they get rid of expansion packs.
This thread is entirely too long for sane people with ought else to do (to my credit I made it to the 7th page). Perhaps an entire forum section is warranted, with separate threads for each disputed cultural/societal entity?
Anyhow, I was fantastically pleased to find Scandinavia finally represented as something other than the originator of random barbarians with which to contend. They became my go-to civilization. There are two distinct ways to see Scandinavian countries, 1) As National entities which have retained identities and spurned conquest for a thousand years (save to each other at various times) and 2) As the source of conquering tribes and prolific traders; having had an enormous influence through trade and especially memorable war throughout Great Britain, France (Normandy [North-Man]), Russia (as another noted, Rus = Sweden), Spain, Italy, and others.
I do not see how Germany would somehow qualify as a greater influence in contemporary development (especially insofar as its own development was influenced by Scandinavia), and it is a far newer political entity. Granted the significance of their modern wars and industry, but it's short-lived and in great part derivative.
I suppose it is important to remember that whoever ultimately decided on which civilizations would be implemented had mostly money and poorly categorized demographics to motivate them. The US being obviously the largest market would be incontestable (Canada has a smaller population and arguably fewer significant international contributions than the lone state of California, by the by.), then there is the UK, Germany, Japan, India, France. There was obviously some general rule about fitting in at least one original and predominantly ethnic nation per continent (excepting poor Australia). Anyhow, the root is typically money. It would cost less to develop and balance fewer starting nations for a polished product, also.
I'm sure that ultimately we'll see more nations in expansions...for more money.
Wow! yeah agreed, Inca was the most powerful in south america, with an army of way over 100,000 ? or more can't remember i read it somewhere.
I think they believed the disease was an act of god, and yeah basically messed up there entire network and farming industry, i also believe there was a power struggle at the time, when the spanish arrived.
Aztecs, Incas and North American indians (Sioux, and/or others) are all worthy additions that SHOULD be included in this game
They are no less than other civilizations of the past, just because they don't exist as such anymore doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the game, i beleive they deserve a place, moreso than some of the current nations on the included list
I see the Vikings as like a more aggressive version of the Phoenicians. They were skilled sailors and pillagers, but like the Phoenicians, they were also apt colonizers. They colonized Greenland and made it as far as America, which they called Vinland. They also, of course, settled in all the places you mentioned, founding permanent settlements in Normandy, the Kievan Rus, and in various places in England for a time. I consider them a classic civilization to add in games like this because of the wholly unique Norse culture, style (clothing, armaments, etc.) and religion. Their religion for instance, I feel, is just as intricate and complex as...say...Greek religion. Just as Japan is a classic addition because of the Samurai, so too are the Norse a classic addition because of their long-prowed dragon ships, vikings, beserkers, etc. As far as European additions, I like them much better than Spain as well. Rise of Nations is one of my favorite games and I always felt that it was missing something by lacking the Norse.
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 07-30-2010 at 06:20 AM.
I know iv ranted about the devastation of the native americans before, but id just like to remind people about the british. First record of biological warfare was when the british gave 'gifts of peace' like blankets etc after making sure they were contaminated with small pox.
And i to hope they add the norse, they had a great knowledge of the stars and in my opinion were the first great astronomers. (you could argue about the mayans...) Not to mention during their height their influence stretched from the coast of canada to the arab empire.
I believe that a few of the Byzantine Emperors used Vikings for their elite troops/honor guard. Just a little funfact.
Yep. They had a division of Viking bodyguards drawn from Scandanavians that settled in Eastern Europe.
Starting from page 22, I've posted ideas for UUs, UPs, UBs, leaders and default city names. I just figured I'd post some of my rationale for these selections as well.East Asia & Oceania (7): China, Japan, Siam, Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, Australia
West Asia (7): Arabia, Persia, Ottomans, India (India is in between West/East), Babylonia, Israel, Assyrians
Europe (7): England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome, Russia, Spain, Norse/Vikings
Americas: (7) United States, Aztec, Iroquois, Incans, Navajo, Canada, Sioux
Africa (6): Egypt, Songhai, Bantu/Zulu, Phoenicians (Carthage being the most obvious example; note that Phoenicians originated in the Middle East), Ethiopia, Morocco
Most Important
Incans: If the Aztecs are the most iconic Mesoamerican Civilization, the Incans are the second most iconic. A unique unit wielding bolas or slings would be different, at least aesthetically, from any other UU in the game. For a UP, I mentioned Mit'a earlier because it was an original and effectual labor system the Incans employed. As a whole, I believe the Incans are greatly diverse from any other civilization. Above all else, this diversity makes them the top inclusion in my book alongside the Norse.
Norse: The Vikings are even more iconic than the Incans, and just as unique in terms of UUs, culture, religion, etc.
Mongols: They are just as distinctive, but will need some reworking so that their UU doesn't overlap with the Arabian "camel archers." Still, they could have pillage bonuses aplenty.
Ethiopia: The Christian Axumite Kingdom lasted for hundreds of years. In modern times, Ethiopia/Abyssinia has also been impressive, surviving European colonialism until World War 2. In my opinion at least, Ethiopia is just as classical an African kingdom as the Egyptian and Nubian Empires.
Spain: So that people stop whining.
Israel: Two main Israeli kingdoms existed in history. Both did not last more than a couple centuries. Oddly, the Jewish Khazar kingdom of the Crimean Peninsula, which few people know anything at all about, outlasted both of them combined.
In ancient times, Israel was most important for founding Judaism and, under Roman rule, Christianity. In modern times, Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world and has invented numerous weapons and military technology. They have a great intelligence agency in Mossad, an effective air force, paratroopers....the list goes on. Finding a modern UU for them, separate from all other modern uus, would not be difficult. I think the focus for Israel should be on the modern age.
'Nam: Vietnam has been neglected for far too long in strategy games. The same is true of all of Southeast Asia really. The Vietnamese people resisted and eventually repelled China, the Mongols, the Khmers, the French, Americans, etc.The country has had several great dynasties and an illustrious history.
Phoenicians: Phoenicians should be added to give the game a real early naval power, preceding even the Norse. They could also have a good early expansion game, with cheaper settlers or something. The most notable Phoenician settlement was Carthage, but prior to Carthage, Phoenician settlements dotted the ancient world. The Phoenicians were skilled sailors and colonizers.
Morocco/Moors: Somebody stated in this forum once that they felt the Persians, Arabs and Turks blended together. In fact, this couldn't be further from the truth. The Turks come from Central Asia. The Arabs come from the Arabian Peninsula. The Persians pre-date Islam entirely and had several ancient kingdoms (ranging from Persia itself to the Hellenistic kingdoms post Alexander to Parthia and the Sassanids).
The Moors, as well, are totally different from the Arabs, Persians and Turks. Geographically they come from Africa. Ethnically, many of them are of Berber or other African stock. While the Moors were initially tied to the Arabs, they later gained their own independence, conquered Arab holdings in Spain and founded several substantial dynasties. For a UU they can have the historically prominent black guard.
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 08-01-2010 at 04:55 AM.
If your going to add 'Nam, you should also add the Afghans for the same reasons.
I believe that 'Nam is included in the general Siam umbrella, correct?
Also, a plus for Israel: When World War Z finally comes along, they'll be the first to get their act together and recognize the threat, and act correctly.
we can only hope for sanity in such dark times...
to be honest a massive world war is something the world might need, a radical extreme one but a solution non the less...
heres a small list of civs i think would be cool
1)Austria, major impact on europes history, major rival to prussia in the domination of germania, so it would make a nice counter to german civ
2) Hungaria, such a unique and bizare culture compared to the rest of europe certaintly worth a look
3) Some kind of celtic empire, i dunno i think it would help justify a "england" civ rather than a "british" civ *Shrugs*
4) Canada, only country to actually have an econoimic GROWTH during the current recession, because of how well organized and operated their banking systems are, i certantly would be ok living in canada, but whatever...
can't think of any other civs... but it doesn't matter im sure firaxis will do well in adding good civs in the future.
Nope. Vietnam and Thailand are totally separate and have little influence on each other.
Historically, Vietnam has been the "stronger" nation (resisting three Mongol invasion attempts and numerous Chinese ones as well). Vietnam has been a point of contention for centuries (Mongols, Chinese, French, Soviets, Americans, etc); Thailand hasn't been fought over as much as Vietnam.
They have totally separate histories, governments, peoples, languages, and cultures. A quick Wikipedia or Google search will be able to tell you that.
I would go into more detail for you, but I'm somewhat busy at the moment. Perhaps I'll edit this and add more details for you later.
Last edited by EnigmaCode; 08-01-2010 at 04:08 AM.
This is not a bad point at all. In fact, the Afghans may very well be a good add. The main reason I have not included them in my reasoning is that I personally suffer from ignorance on the subject. Most of my knowledge of Afghanistan comes from modern times, i.e. the Cold War and beyond. What I know of pre-modern Afghanistan comes from books about the Mongols, which frequently reference the Mongol conquest and butchery of the Khwarezmian Empire. The Khwarezmian Empire was an esteemed kingdom of the region, but unlike Vietnam, it was not fortunate enough to survive the depredations of the Mongol invasions. In fact, the Mongol invasions of that state devastated both the Afghanistan and Khorassan regions. Sadly prior to the Mongol invasion, I know nothing about either the Khwarezmian Empire or its predecessor kingdoms within the region.
Vietnam has a history separate and apart from Siam. Vietnam historically often found itself torn between Chinese and Southeast Asian spheres of influence. The country, as it looks in modern times, was in fact often split into two different distinct kingdoms. Naturally, North Vietnam often found itself closer in relations to China, given its geographical disposition. From a military perspective, certainly the Vietnamese utilized white elephants in ancient times, similar to their Southeast Asian neighbors. However, the two kingdoms of the peninsula also adapted to using gunpowder/cannons/etc. in pre-modern times. By the point of Dien Bien Phu, they also received modern artillery, such as katyusha rockets, from Russia. The geographical position of Vietnam meant that it was never far on the periphery of civilization outside Southeast Asia. I think Vietnam would benefit most from a UU not related to elephants, as those are already covered by Siam and India. Rather, they could have artillery UUs or some kind of infantry UU that specializes in woodland/jungle combat.I believe that 'Nam is included in the general Siam umbrella, correct?
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 08-01-2010 at 04:28 AM.
Can someone dig up that post by NobleHye explaining why Armenia would be the best choice? The first one he made, not the one about the crusades, though if you get that one that would be epic too. It's too far back, and 41 pages is a lot to dig through for me. XD
Also, if you're going to recommend Austria AND Hungary, you might as well just go with the empire that combines both.
this one?Omg Armenia played a Big role in Crusades ...did yo know that most of the engineering were done by Armenians?All the god dam siege weapons we build by Armenians...For love of god we got symbols like more ancient from zvastiga..we also have contributed big for the Ethiopians..did you see what Armenians have invented?Or what big personality Armenia had...
And i also support Israel civ......pls support for an Armenian one..or i gonna mod them if they are not in....
Really convincing argument (no offense to Armenians; they are actually a dignified and historically important people).
Ooh, now what have I stumbled onto here?
First off, let me add mine to the already countless posts here in favor of Spain needing to be in the game. Their exclusion borders on absurd to me, especially seeing some of the civs that did make it in (and no, I'm not Spanish). In terms of sheer size, their empire at its height was only rivaled by a few throughout all of history (the Romans, Mongols, and British are the only ones that come to mind). They probably merit inclusion more than France or Germany - mind you, I'd be arguing in favor of those nations just as much had they been excluded instead. Other, much less strange but still fairly notable omissions, IMO, would have to include the Vikings and the aforementioned Mongols (and despite all the attempts at "continental diversity" in the civ selection, where's South America represented, not to mention Australia?).
Unfortunately, there's not much to be done about it - the expansion pack model has clearly proven to work well in past iterations of Civ, so Firaxis is content with releasing a game with a relatively lackluster civ selection ("relatively" = to previous Civ games, and all IMO, of course), and milking more money out of it later with expansion packs that players have already learned are inevitably coming with more civs to choose from - to the point where people are told not to argue about Spain's exclusion because it'll be in the first expansion.
I must also say, though, that if the civ selection is the most disappointing thing about this game, I'll be happily playing it for months - I don't think it'll detract from the game experience all that much, despite all the sometimes-heated discussion.
A few people here have pointed at modding as a way to get omitted civs included... well, I must say that this'll probably be easier said than done [well]. This isn't Civ2 anymore, where even I could make unit graphics and such - good luck to anyone trying to make those leader animations look even remotely close to those that ship with the actual game, for example. And then there are the unique units/buildings, voices, etc. Not that I'm trying to discourage anyone from trying, mind you...
Now there's such a wonderful list - I could maybe argue for the omission of a few of those civs, but as you said, better too many than too few. If you need a 50th, maybe the Celts? I can only dream of such a selection, though...Here's the different civs I would like to see:
Africa (8): Bantu/Zulu, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Mali, Phoenicians, Songhai
Americas (11): America, Anasazi, Aztec, Brazil, Canada, Inca, Inuit, Iroquois, Navajo, Maya, Sioux
West Asia (9): Arabia, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, India, Israel, Ottomans, Persia, Sumer
East Asia and Oceania (9): Australia, Cambodia, China, Japan, Korea, Mongols, Polynesia, Siam, Vietnam
Europe (12): Austria-Hungary, England, France, Germany, Greece, Norse/Vikings, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romans, Russia, Spain
This makes for a grand total of fourty nine civs! The more civs the merrier.
Last edited by MikhailM; 08-01-2010 at 04:49 AM.
Yeah, that's one of them. What page was that on? There was one earlier that was only a page or so, maybe four, behind it. I can find it now probably if you gimme a page number.this one?
Really convincing argument (no offense to Armenians; they are actually a dignified and historically important people).
Thanks a bunch.
It was on page 12. I found it by clicking on his username and searching through his posts.
Thanks, lemme go search some.
edit: Found it. I'll give you a copy in PM if you want, it's golden. '_' Apparently, Mesopotamian civilization originated from Armenians.
Last edited by Politus; 08-01-2010 at 05:11 AM.
Such a brilliant, original and unappreciated thesis. Sure, drop me a PM. I need to get my jollies for the day.Thanks, lemme go search some.
edit: Found it. I'll give you a copy in PM if you want, it's golden. '_' Apparently, Mesopotamian civilization originated from Armenians.
Canada has spent their entire military history A. fighting for Britain B. fighting with the US or C. Peackeeping.
Culturally your to British to be your own civ, I mean you have the QUEEN on your coins. We gave you a chance to revolt with us we said "Hey guys we've got a eccentric French nobleman and everything! Wanna have a revolution with us?" and you said "Na' were good" and then we said "Well if you ever change your mind..." and you said "No, no, were cool".Haha! Both of these really made me laugh.
My opinions on various suggestions for Civs:
Canada - no
Spain - yes (no brainer!)
Vikings - yes
various Balkan states - no
Mongols - yes
Israel - probably not
Maori or similar - maybe
Celts - yes
Zulus - yes
Poland - probably not
Poland-Lithuania - maybe
Lombardy - no
Assyrians or another Mesopotamian civ - yes
Mayans or Incas - yes
Phoenician - maybe
Although it probably wont ever get in an expansion or even a later game, I think Brasil should be a civ. There capital would be either Brasilia or Rio de Janeiro. The leader could be Dom Pedro II or maybe a president. Unit could be a capoiera fighter or maybe a hero-ish unit to represent the military Junta. As for buildings I am not really sure. I hope they can get in to another civ game, but if not I am going to scour the web for a mod.
BRASIL!
The problem with the Austria-Hungary civ is that both Budapest and Vienna are city-states. wouldn't this mean neither can survive?
Rio de Janeiro is a city state in Civilization 5, I think.
You're correct about that, Rio de Janeiro is a city state in Civ 5. Here's a link below:
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_ci...ml#city-states
Portugal would be a better option than Brazil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote