50+ Civilization Civ5

[Kukulcán]

As a Hispanic I have been patient with Civ games since Civ 1 and waiting hoping that one day my ancestry would be acknowledged
Finally I have decided to make a post and i'm sure I will get some hateful replies, but I ask that a Civ be based on hispanics from Puerto Rico , Dominican Republic and the islands for a change, yes it is true that we have had spain but spain does not represent us in any way, and neither does mexico so the aztecs are out. I would be satisfied just to find a Mod for this unfortunately I have no clue how to make a Mod thanks so much for your time and i hope you will consider my request

Well your post is a little confusing in a few ways. But sounds like you a Dominican or of another Caribbean nation.

The Aztecs and Maya do represent a good amount of ancestors whether they may be distant or close for Guatemalans (Which I am half Kaqchikel so have some representation here), Mexicans, etc.

But like others have said sounds like you want a more Caribbean based civ. I believe someone made a mod for the Carib or Arawak (Can not remember which one) for civ 5 which is entirely playable if you look for it the mod download screen in game. It comes in an "Americas Civs" mod which includes other civs like the Inca, Zapotec, Chibchas, Tupi, etc.

So there is a mod at least if you want to try them out.

[Pouakai]

There was a Caribbean civ mod that was based on the tribes with modern city names (Santo Domingo capital)

[Homero]

which was to show Bandeirantes should be considered a Brazilian unit in the game, not Portuguese...And it doesn't matter Brazil was under Portuguese rule at the time

Of course it matters.It seems that you cannot follow the basic logic of my historical argument, Bandeirantes were an important component of the Portuguese expansion in Brazil. Were they or weren't they? the boldest of all bandeirantes was Raposo Tavares, born in Portugal- "they managed to secure, to themselves and to the House of Braganza, the richest mines, the largest portion of South America, of all inhabited Earth, the most beautiful land" (Robert Southey, 1819)
Anyway, I don´t want to "steal" the rich Brazilian historical legacy, and, as a father lends a helping hand to a son,and I will gladly lend you the Songhai caravels. Completely free of charge, a beautiful African ivory, (j/k)
Link

[Shiav]

snip

Crazy colonials, eh?

[Radu]

Of course it matters.It seems that you cannot follow the basic logic of my historical argument, Bandeirantes were an important component of the Portuguese expansion in Brazil. Were they or weren't they? the boldest of all bandeirantes was Raposo Tavares, born in Portugal- "they managed to secure, to themselves and to the House of Braganza, the richest mines, the largest portion of South America, of all inhabited Earth, the most beautiful land" (Robert Southey, 1819)
Anyway, I don´t want to "steal" the rich Brazilian historical legacy, and, as a father lends a helping hand to a son,and I will gladly lend you the Songhai caravels. Completely free of charge, a beautiful African ivory, (j/k)
Link

There was no argument because you were simply trying to patronize me. That and trying to show off. Quite childish, really. Unlucky for you, you were incapable of even understanding what I had said and just repeated all the historical facts I mentioned before.

Then again, if that was your argument, I already responded to it from other people. One more time, try reading it. You might learn something and (finally) understand my argument. But it's quite lame that someone so wise could not come up with something better than that.

[Homero]

, you were incapable of even understanding what I had said..my point, which was to show Bandeirantes should be considered a Brazilian unit in the game, not Portuguese.

Well, its not easy to understand your point of view; don´t confuse opinions and facts. No hard feelings, please..., let's calm down.
Simply put, history explains why bandeirantes are definitely not "Brazilian" units. I am rather tired of repeating the same thing, a) Bandeirantes were colonial units; there were no bandeirantes after the year 1822. The Minutemen is not a good analogy; they were also colonial units, but there is a difference:they fought against the British during the American War of Independence.
Do you really want an historically accurate Brazilian unit? My suggestion: the Tupinambá warrior, led by the Indian chief Guamiaba, "Cabelo de Velha".Indian rebellions haunted Portuguese settlers, and the Indian resistance continued to be a problem throughout the 17th century.

But it's quite lame that someone so wise could not come up with something better than that.

Okay, I admit, excuse my lame sense of humor, but I couldn´t resist.

Crazy colonials, eh?

Indeed...

[Radu]

Well, its not easy to understand your point of view; don´t confuse opinions and facts. No hard feelings, please..., let's calm down.
Simply put, history explains why bandeirantes are definitely not "Brazilian" units. I am rather tired of repeating the same thing, a) Bandeirantes were colonial units; there were no bandeirantes after the year 1822. The Minutemen is not a good analogy; they were also colonial units, but there is a difference:they fought against the British during the American War of Independence.
Do you really want an historically accurate Brazilian unit? My suggestion: the Tupinambá warrior, led by the Indian chief Guamiaba, "Cabelo de Velha".Indian rebellions haunted Portuguese settlers, and the Indian resistance continued to be a problem throughout the 17th century.

The problem is: if you want to be historically accurate, you would have to take more than half of the Civs from the game. Why? Well, for example, an American civilization didn't exist in 4000 BC. You would only have scenarios with the Civs in their respective times.

But sticking to similar situations, as I said before, if we want to historically accurate, we wouldn't be able to put Landsknecht as a German unit or even Cossacks as a Russian unit.

So you see, the game doesn't plan to be perfect in terms of historical accuracy. Considering that, take the following into account:

- Bandeirantes were unique in Brazil: Portugal did not make use of them in its other colonies around the world, like they did with Feitorias, for example. Neither were they of any use in Portugal.
- Many of them were born in Brazil
- Many of them did not speak Portuguese
- Many of them were not White as the Portuguese were, but of mixed ethnicity
- They were not used only in official expeditions organized by the Portuguese Empire, but were constantly hired by local landowners and also organized the expeditions themselves, looking for riches and slaves to be traded. So they were autonomous and not at the service of Portugal.

Finally, the big question: were Bandeirantes more important for the history of Portugal or for the history of Brazil? After all, their deeds shaped most of what would be the Brazilian territory of today. And you cannot consider that Brazilian history starts in 1822, just as you cannot say the same for American history starting in 1776.

That's why, if they were to be included in the game, they should be put as a Brazilian unit. And I'm pretty sure that they will be if they decide to put Brazil in a future DLC.

[PachaMinnie]

What about Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba? All of them could also be put in. I mean Mexico was very important and just putting a couple nations that lived in and around what in now Mexico for me isn't perfect representation. Haiti fought of French rule, and Cuba was a major problem back in the cold war. Atleast Mexico seems deserving. Perhaps I just want some representation for the nations in the Caribbean.

[Radu]

What about Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba? All of them could also be put in. I mean Mexico was very important and just putting a couple nations that lived in and around what in now Mexico for me isn't perfect representation. Haiti fought of French rule, and Cuba was a major problem back in the cold war. Atleast Mexico seems deserving. Perhaps I just want some representation for the nations in the Caribbean.

Mexico is already represented by the Aztecs. It wouldn't make any sense putting them. Like putting Italy, since we already have the Romans. Haiti and Cuba... very unlikely. Only if they decide to create a Caribbean civilization as a whole. But that would be pretty difficult.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Haiti fought of French rule, and Cuba was a major problem back in the cold war.

Haiti has done the same thing that many, many nations have done. This does not warrant their inclusion.

And Cuba's not special. It was a nation near America. So what? Turkey was a nation near the USSR. Both sides had nations that were treacherously close to their borders, but only one almost started a war.

[Homero]

They were not used only in official expeditions organized by the Portuguese Empire, but...

In fact, I wrote about it.

the big question: were Bandeirantes more important for the history of Portugal or for the history of Brazil?

A splendid argument...I can recognize a good book, a good football game or a good movie -and a very good post.

[PachaMinnie]

Mexico is already represented by the Aztecs. It wouldn't make any sense putting them. Like putting Italy, since we already have the Romans. Haiti and Cuba... very unlikely. Only if they decide to create a Caribbean civilization as a whole. But that would be pretty difficult.

Well Mexico has had a very different history, and just throwing the Aztecs in there just doesn't cut it for me. I mean the Aztecs just aren't all of Mexico. When you look at Mexican history it's not just the Aztecs. Aztecs didn't rule over all of Mexico, nor did they create Mexican culture. Sure they helped, but they did not create the culture. That's like throwing in the Native Americans and not America. Sure Native Americans are apart of American history, sure they settled American lands first, and sure they contributed to their culture, but they are in no way Americans.

[Homero]

Mexico is already represented by the Aztecs. It wouldn't make any sense putting them

Lucky Brazil, Tupinambás or ancient Amazon civilizations aren´t included in the game.

[istry555]

Mexico is already represented by the Aztecs. It wouldn't make any sense putting them.

Mexico isn't really represented by the Aztecs, it's the same argument as Native Americans and Americans. The Mexican emperors were French, Spanish, and finally Hapsburg, and much of the traditions, architecture and identity of Mexico was created in the 16th Century as New Spain.

With that said, Mexico is significantly lower on the list of civs that should get in the game. Not that they weren't important, they were just not as important as some other civs that aren't represented, nor do they offer some super unique play style that only Mexico can represent.

[Radu]

Mexico isn't really represented by the Aztecs, it's the same argument as Native Americans and Americans. The Mexican emperors were French, Spanish, and finally Hapsburg, and much of the traditions, architecture and identity of Mexico was created in the 16th Century as New Spain.

It's crazy to compare the influence the Aztecs had in Mexico to the influence Native Americans had in the United States. Even the name "Mexico" has its origin in the Aztec civilization. It's a very different situation. Besides, the game tries to put one civilization from each location. That's why Italy is not present: we have the Romans. The only reason Native American civs are present in the game, while the United States are also present, is simply because the game is American. No other reason beyond that.

[istry555]

It's crazy to compare the influence the Aztecs had in Mexico to the influence Native Americans had in the United States. Even the name "Mexico" has its origin in the Aztec civilization. It's a very different situation. Besides, the game tries to put one civilization from each location. That's why Italy is not present: we have the Romans. The only reason Native American civs are present in the game, while the United States are also present, is simply because the game is American. No other reason beyond that.

It's also crazy to argue that modern day Mexico is a direct unbroken descendant from the Aztecs. Yes, the Aztec culture may have been more influential in modern Mexican culture than the various Native Americans on the US, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Mexican culture, traditions, language, and architecture originated in 16th century New Spain NOT the Aztec Empire. The fact that the name originated with the Aztecs has less to do with a descent of Aztec culture than nationalism in direct opposition to Spain after the country gained independence. Not to mention, there are a ton of American cities/areas named after Native American tribes/words.

Also, your same spot theory doesn't hold up:

Iroquois - America
Byzantium - Ottomans
Celts - England, France, Germany, Spain
Arabian Caliphate - Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Babylon
Huns - Austria, Germany
Mongolian Empire - China, Ottomans, the Huns, Austria
Greece (Under Alexander) - Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Byzantium, Babylon
Persia - Babylon

etc. etc. etc.

(Even if you want to disregard the extended ares of the empire and only focused on their primary or even modern location, you can't deny Iroquois - America, Byzantium - Ottomans, Celts - England, Babylon - Arab and/or Persia)

[PachaMinnie]

It's crazy to compare the influence the Aztecs had in Mexico to the influence Native Americans had in the United States. Even the name "Mexico" has its origin in the Aztec civilization. It's a very different situation. Besides, the game tries to put one civilization from each location. That's why Italy is not present: we have the Romans. The only reason Native American civs are present in the game, while the United States are also present, is simply because the game is American. No other reason beyond that.

Most city names come from Native Americans, Seattle was a famous Chief, Tennessee, Colorado, Mississippi, Tallahassee, etc. Plus Native American culture is still here and present, and it's strong. Many movies have been about native Americans, plus many sports teams are named after Native Americans. In my past classes we used to read books made by Native Americans. I mean we owe a large part of our culture to the Native Americans.

It's crazy to put the Aztecs and Romans in the game and just leave out Mexico and Italy, both of whom where important in the history of things. Italy way more than Mexico, but Mexico was nonetheless important.

It's funny because I live in Tennessee, was born in Colorado, and lived in Seattle.

[Homero]

Mexico and Italy, both of whom where important in the history of things

The history of the things: Mexico versus Italy versus Brazil
Mexico is currently one of the fastest growing retail video game market in the world.
Italy represents the fifth largest video game market in Europe following Britain, France, Germany and Spain.
Brazil- Data is unreliable;video game piracy statistics 81%, PC is the largest installed base,140 million PCs in 2014 (projection) digital downloads will grow exponentially in Brazil -potential for growth is immense.

Who wins?

[Radu]

It's also crazy to argue that modern day Mexico is a direct unbroken descendant from the Aztecs. Yes, the Aztec culture may have been more influential in modern Mexican culture than the various Native Americans on the US, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Mexican culture, traditions, language, and architecture originated in 16th century New Spain NOT the Aztec Empire. The fact that the name originated with the Aztecs has less to do with a descent of Aztec culture than nationalism in direct opposition to Spain after the country gained independence. Not to mention, there are a ton of American cities/areas named after Native American tribes/words.

Also, your same spot theory doesn't hold up:

Iroquois - America
Byzantium - Ottomans
Celts - England, France, Germany, Spain
Arabian Caliphate - Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Babylon
Huns - Austria, Germany
Mongolian Empire - China, Ottomans, the Huns, Austria
Greece (Under Alexander) - Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Byzantium, Babylon
Persia - Babylon

etc. etc. etc.

(Even if you want to disregard the extended ares of the empire and only focused on their primary or even modern location, you can't deny Iroquois - America, Byzantium - Ottomans, Celts - England, Babylon - Arab and/or Persia)

Never said it was a direct, unbroken descendant from the Aztecs. But the influence is far, far greater. Of course, many of the aspects you mention have origin in Spanish colonization, since the Aztec culture was repressed. Nevertheless, you can see a strong influence in the language (ask Spanish speakers how Mexican Spanish is quite different, not considering how many people still speak dialects from native tribes), in the culture (one of the most traditional holidays in Mexico, the Day of the Dead, is celebrated as a Christian holiday, but the rituals are actually native), in the food, and most of all, in the people. I mean, 80-90% of Mexicans descend, directly or not, from the native tribes. How many are the same in the US?

So you see, it's quite incomparable.

As for the same spot thing, let's disregard the extended areas of empires, like you said. Babylon and Persia would be modern-day Iraq and Iran, so they are different. Arabs could be simply Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. Ask Iranians if they are Arabs and they will kill you.

Now, the closest one for your argument would be the Byzantines and the Ottomans. Ottomans would be modern-day Turkey. What about the Byzantines? I guess they are included because of their historical importance and extent. It could be an exception to that, but a reasonable one.

So, all in all, my theory holds up. After all, after 5 games, they haven't included neither Mexico nor Italy. And I'm pretty sure if you asked them, they would say it's because we already have the Aztecs and the Romans. Not that I'm against putting them, but I can see the argument.

[PachaMinnie]

Most Americans do not have Native American ancestors, but America is a nation with 200 years on it. Most Americans have German. Polish, French, Spanish, Asian ancestors. I am proud to be apart of one of the few families with history dating back to the war of independence. America has also grown more rapidly and has a much larger land area. My family has German Russian Polish British Welsh Irish Scottish Native American Kenyan Norwegien. Plus many Americans, atleast in my area, have native American ancestors. The United States of America really doesn't have it's own culture. Different people bring different holidays and customs to America.

My main argument is the fact that Mexico and Italy are more than just the Aztecs and Romans. Mexico has had it's own history that is very different from the Aztecs. So has Italy. You can't say a kingdom that existed hundreds of years ago now represents a modern day nation with it's own culture and history. Italy was a major player in renaissance, modern day religion, Both World Wars, it had many important maritime nations in it's borders, I mean you can't just throw the Romans in and expect them to represent all of that history. Mexico has one of the world's largest economies, it's the 13th largest nation in the world, it is a major trading partner in the Americas, plus it was counqered in 1521. That's 1521 to 2012 that Mexico has been free of Aztec rule. The Aztec's did not rule of of Mexico, only a portion.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

That's 1521 to 2012 that Mexico has been free of Aztec rule. The Aztec's did not rule of of Mexico, only a portion.

However, Mexico's had a horrible rate with wars and loss of territory. Mexico once stretched from Costa Rica to Oregon. Now, they only go from the Rio Grande to the Yucatan. Not to mention, for a lot of that five hundred years you've mentioned, Mexico hasn't been free of Spanish rule.

[PachaMinnie]

However, Mexico's had a horrible rate with wars and loss of territory. Mexico once stretched from Costa Rica to Oregon. Now, they only go from the Rio Grande to the Yucatan. Not to mention, for a lot of that five hundred years you've mentioned, Mexico hasn't been free of Spanish rule.

I never said they where free from Mexican rule, only Aztec. Plus stretching from Oregon to Costa Rica is quite the accomplishment if you ask me. No matter if they lost it or not. The entire country was very unstable back then. The Mexican Civil war claimed 2 million lives I believe.

[Homero]

Nevertheless, you can see a strong influence in the language (ask Spanish speakers how Mexican Spanish is quite different, not considering how many people still speak dialects from native tribes.

Yes, the government of Mexico recognizes 68 indigenous Amerindian languages as national languages in addition to Spanish.

PachaMinnie

Italy was a major player in renaissance,

To be fair,no. The Kingdom of Italy was a state forged in 1861.

[PachaMinnie]

Yes, the government of Mexico recognizes 68 indigenous Amerindian languages as national languages in addition to Spanish.

PachaMinnie

To be fair,no. The Kingdom of Italy was a state forged in 1861.

The Italian states I meant.

[Radu]

Most Americans do not have Native American ancestors, but America is a nation with 200 years on it.

So is Mexico, yet most of their population descends from the Natives.

America has also grown more rapidly and has a much larger land area.

Ehh, let's be honest here. There was a massive genocide of indigenous tribes in the US. That's it. That and it was not a custom to mix races (and in that respect the Portuguese were quite different). That's why so few descend from Native Americans. Not that in Mexico it was very different, it's just that the native population was larger, and it was "easier" to enslave them than to kill them all.

The United States of America really doesn't have it's own culture.

Wha?? So you're telling me all the music, all those movies and all that way of life the US shoves down our throat is not their culture?? Color me impressed.

My main argument is the fact that Mexico and Italy are more than just the Aztecs and Romans.

We agree.

You can't say a kingdom that existed hundreds of years ago now represents a modern day nation with it's own culture and history.

Why not? It's part of their legacy. Mexicans are really proud of their Aztec legacy, and so is Italy of the Romans. Ancient Greece has very little (if anything) in common with modern Greece, but no one suggests putting modern Greece as a Civ too.

Italy was a major player in renaissance, modern day religion, Both World Wars, it had many important maritime nations in it's borders

Well, if bordering important nations was anything, then Luxembourg should be in.

But anyway, like Homero said, Italy didn't exist until very recently. It was more like a bunch of city-states, small Kingdoms, etc, with very little relation with each other. It reminds me of something I read in a history book some time ago about the unification of Italy. One passerby mentions that people were chanting "Viva l'Italia! Viva l'Italia!" on the streets, until one of them pokes another closest to him and asks "but what the hell is Italia?".

Mexico has one of the world's largest economies, it's the 13th largest nation in the world, it is a major trading partner in the Americas

But that argument was not valid for Brazil, why should it be now for Mexico? Even if we use this argument, then we have a list of countries ahead of Mexico, like Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, etc. And I think some of these countries would have priority, since no Civs in the game "represent" them.

That's 1521 to 2012 that Mexico has been free of Aztec rule. The Aztec's did not rule of of Mexico, only a portion.

True, but then it was under Spanish rule and only got independent in 1810. And the Aztecs had a big chunk of it, being the main Civ in the area.

Now, after all of this, I'm not against putting Mexico or Italy. I'm really not, I would gladly play with them both. It's just that I can see the argument for not putting them. Not only because of the presence of Aztecs and Romans, but also because they are modern Civs. Big, bad game devs clearly don't like modern civs, since there are only two present in the game: the US and Germany. Considering that, I think there is a fair amount of Civs that should be in first. But I say, let's put them all. The more, the merrier.

[Homero]

One passerby mentions that people were chanting "Viva l'Italia! Viva l'Italia!" on the streets, until one of them pokes another closest to him and asks "but what the hell is Italia?"

Se non è vero, è ben trovato. As Metternich said, Italy was only a geographical expression.

[PachaMinnie]

Hey I am not arguing that Mexico and Italy should be in right away. I am just saying the Aztecs shouldn't repsresent Mexico and the Romans shouldn't represent the Italians. That be all I shall say.

And yes America has no culture, everything is borrowed. Most of our culture comes from other nations. Holidays, music, we didn't even invent our own language, we added to it of course. Perhaps your version of culture is different from mine. My version of culture is the music language religion ideas habits etc that a nation has. What America is is a Nation that took all of these cultures and people, German Polish African Irish Scottish Welsh French English Danish Swedish Finnish Russian Asian Arabian Italian Greek Spanish etc. put them into a pot, mixed them around, and poured them out all around our country. We have that culture, but Americans have no American culture. I do not consider Movies to be apart of culture by the way. I consider them to be entertainment. I do not think of *insert famous Italian movie title here* when I think of Italian culture, perhaps that's just me.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

If you don't count movies as a part of American culture, than you can't count plays amongst English culture. Therefore, you've just discounted Shakespeare, and many other great parts of culture.

Admittedly, a lot of movies are bad, but that doesn't mean they're not a part of the culture of the nation.

[PachaMinnie]

If you don't count movies as a part of American culture, than you can't count plays amongst English culture. Therefore, you've just discounted Shakespeare, and many other great parts of culture.

Admittedly, a lot of movies are bad, but that doesn't mean they're not a part of the culture of the nation.

I suppose this is true after time. Right now Avatar is just 3D Imax entertainment, but in 60 years it will be art. But now, Avatar or MegaShark vs SomethingOctopus is not art.

[steveg700]

And yes America has no culture, everything is borrowed.

That statement seems predicated largely on your limited notion of what constitutes culture, and this flawed notion that it's patented and trademarked by the place where it originated. America didn't "borrow" its culture. The people of other nations immigrated here and brought their culture with them. They became part of the country, as did their culture.

And not considerign film to be part of culture? That's simple ignorance.

[steveg700]

And yes America has no culture, everything is borrowed.

That statement seems predicated largely on your limited notion of what constitutes culture, and this flawed notion that it's patented and trademarked by the place where it originated. America didn't "borrow" its culture. The people of other nations immigrated here and brought their culture with them. They became part of the country, as did their culture.

What other country stands up and puts its hand over its heart while it says the Pledge of the Allegiance? Or while singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at a baseball game? Who else watches a whole day of football while waiting for the Thanksgiving turkey to finish cooking? And not considering film to be part of culture because it's mass entertainment? The notion that culture has to be lofty or sophisticated is pure ignorance.

But now, Avatar or MegaShark vs SomethingOctopus is not art.

Culture != Art

[steveg700]

To be fair,no. The Kingdom of Italy was a state forged in 1861.

But anyway, like Homero said, Italy didn't exist until very recently. It was more like a bunch of city-states, small Kingdoms, etc, with very little relation with each other.

Oh, so in other words, it was pretty much like every civilization in the world?

Seriously, exactly how many civilizations casually side-stepped the whole lengthy process of unification? Not England, not Scottland, not France, not Germany, not Greece, not Russia, not China, not Mongolia....Pretty much nobody who wasn't a colony of somebody else.

[istry555]

I suppose this is true after time. Right now Avatar is just 3D Imax entertainment, but in 60 years it will be art. But now, Avatar or MegaShark vs SomethingOctopus is not art.

Not every example of a medium has to be art. There are plenty of plays, drawings, songs, etc. which aren't art but that doesn't discredit the examples that are. Avatar and MegaShark may never be art, even in a 100 years. That doesn't take away from films such as Citizen Kane. Also, culture isn't exclusively art. Entertainment is part of culture. There doesn't have to be some sort of intellectual elitism over a piece of culture to have it qualify.

[Homero]

Oh, so in other words, it was pretty much like every civilization in the world?

We are talking about the historical-cultural perspective of Italy since its formation/unification to the present.

exactly how many civilizations casually side-stepped the whole lengthy process of unification?...Pretty much nobody who wasn't a colony of somebody else.

Unification? Portugal, for instance
--
The English culture, according to Elliot,
"Derby Day, Henley Regatta, Cowes, the twelfth of August, a cup final, the dog races, the pin table, the dart board, Wensleydale cheese, boiled cabbage cut into sections, beetroot in vinegar, 19th century Gothic churches and the music of Elgar."

[Radu]

The problem is that, even if other countries went through the same process, they did centuries ago. Italy's was too recent. The only comparable case is Germany, but it's hard to leave them out with no appropriate substitution.

[IrishSamurai]

A little late to the party, but i'd like to humbly submit...

NEPAL

Leader: Prithvi Narayan Shah

Capital: Kathmandu

UA: Shiva's Protection (Bonus faith and/or defense for every city built near a mountain.)

UU: Sherpa (Replaces scout. Able to traverse mountains...albiet slowly.)

UU: Gurkha Infantry (Replaces colonial infantry. Exact stats uncertain, but more emphasis on health/defense than offensive power.)

Strategy: A defensive, faith based civ best used around mountains. Sherpa scouts give an early advantage to exploration, while Gurkha Infantry provide exceptional protection later in the game.

A fairly unique civ that fills an Asian slot. Biggest hurdle is there's only around 30 cities. Feel free to tear my suggestion apart like slavering jackals.

No, seriously. Viva Nepal!

[PachaMinnie]

A little late to the party, but i'd like to humbly submit...

NEPAL

Leader: Prithvi Narayan Shah

Capital: Kathmandu

UA: Shiva's Protection (Bonus faith and/or defense for every city built near a mountain.)

UU: Sherpa (Replaces scout. Able to traverse mountains...albiet slowly.)

UU: Gurkha Infantry (Replaces colonial infantry. Exact stats uncertain, but more emphasis on health/defense than offensive power.)

Strategy: A defensive, faith based civ best used around mountains. Sherpa scouts give an early advantage to exploration, while Gurkha Infantry provide exceptional protection later in the game.

A fairly unique civ that fills an Asian slot. Biggest hurdle is there's only around 30 cities. Feel free to tear my suggestion apart like slavering jackals.

No, seriously. Viva Nepal!

I don't really build more than 6 cities. And dude, you could put Gurkhas as Colonial, or World War 2, either way they fit the scene.

I have no problem with Nepal. I would enjoy seeing them. Something close to Tibet, because it is not like Tibet is ever going to get in .

How about this, Gurkhas have a higher combat strength and/or defensive bonus when around hills or mountians and a bigger defensive bonus on hills. Only con is they cost more to build. [ Not easy training those guys.]

[Shiav]

snip

cities will not be a problem. Many people want the inuit to be a civ, despite the fact that the entire inuit population combined is smaller than, say, Lhasa

[IrishSamurai]

I don't really build more than 6 cities. And dude, you could put Gurkhas as Colonial, or World War 2, either way they fit the scene.

I have no problem with Nepal. I would enjoy seeing them. Something close to Tibet, because it is not like Tibet is ever going to get in .

How about this, Gurkhas have a higher combat strength and/or defensive bonus when around hills or mountians and a bigger defensive bonus on hills. Only con is they cost more to build. [ Not easy training those guys.]

Yeah, with the current aversion towards including civs like Tibet and Israel, i figure Nepal would be a safer bet.

As for the Gurkha, those guys were badass back in the 1800's, and are still in use today all throughout the world. Theoretically speaking, they could replace any infantry unit in the game and still be appropriate. Hell, between WWI and WWII, they were still seeing heavy action in the Third Afghan War and while fighting hostile tribesmen. They were staunch defenders and they scared the hell out of the Germans during WWII with their stealth attacks and khukuris. Hard to translate all that into combat percentages, but i definitely agree with the defensive bonuses. Maybe extra defense while fortifying cities, that stacks with the UA city defense bonus i proposed. Could make them a tad overpowered that way, but they're fierce defenders, not world conquerers.

[Shiav]

Yeah, with the current aversion towards including civs like Tibet and Israel, i figure Nepal would be a safer bet.

As for the Gurkha, those guys were badass back in the 1800's, and are still in use today all throughout the world. Theoretically speaking, they could replace any infantry unit in the game and still be appropriate. Hell, between WWI and WWII, they were still seeing heavy action in the Third Afghan War and while fighting hostile tribesmen. They were staunch defenders and they scared the hell out of the Germans during WWII with their stealth attacks and khukuris. Hard to translate all that into combat percentages, but i definitely agree with the defensive bonuses. Maybe extra defense while fortifying cities, that stacks with the UA city defense bonus i proposed. Could make them a tad overpowered that way, but they're fierce defenders, not world conquerers.

I still really wish Russia had a Red Army to replace infantry. Similar to LK, infinitely spammable. Just like the real thing mwaha