Announcement

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 12:50

---
The Ideas
---

----
1.0.0 Types of Civs
----

1.1.0 Barbarian Civs
*Barbarians, through capturing cities, could become civilizations themselves, over time. Thus we start with 8-10 civs on the map at the beginning and can end with 16 simultaneous civilizations.
-narmox

*Barbarians should be able to capture cities like they did in Civ II and start churning out their own units.
-Rasputin

*Barbarians should be able to trade
-Azazel

*Barbarians can be hired as mercenaries (Perhaps without a nationality [Like Privateers])
*Barbarians can rent/loan/sell units
*And if they are mercs there should be a chance (perhaps modified by your cultural strength and/or how much you paid for them (minimum, moderate, or high)or somethn) that they go independent or even turn against you since they are mercs after all (such as what german mercs did to the Romans occasionally)
-Kramerman

*If Barbarian civs don't generate Culture, then perhaps they could gain special Generals (Like Attila the Hun) or a "golden age" which will give them some culture. If they then conquer enough cities they can become a powerful military civ. Then again, if their golden age ends, or the leader dies this empire will likely fall apart.
-ixnay

*Instead of giving the Barbarians no culture, don't give them any Civ Attributes... Therefore they'd be weeded out through normal attrition after a short time
*And if that wasn't enough of a handicap and barbs started overrunning actual Civ's you could give them a slight production handicap.
-wrylachlan

*New civs (like nomadic barbarians with strong armies) should appear at times to destroy weak civs because not only the Mongols, but a great variety of civs came out of nowhere. Those civs could be allowed to receive techs when conquering cities, so they can soon cope with their foes and not continue to live in the Stone Age...
-Wernazuma III

*I think that Barbarian 'civs' entering the industrial age should be given status as a regular civilization.
-Panzeh

*What if the barbs had their own research pool, a small number added to it each turn per settlement on the map.

When the number adds up to a certain amount (average approx every 40 or 50 turns) one barbarian settlement somewhere in the world (determined at random) becomes a full-fledged Civ (using one of the unused Civs -- if all are used, it doesn't happen.) (Thanks to player's use of Barbarian settlements as Worker farms using Conquest's enslavement rules, this would be much more likely to occur.) Then the barb research pool drops back to zero again.

The new civ starts at a tech level determined by the units the barbs are using at the time (Warriors, Horsemen etc...)
-Mojotronica

1.2.0 Civil Wars
*In addition, some civilizations (ex: USSR) can split apart (like in Civ II), through a peaceful coup, or a civil war.
-narmox

*Which Civs are prone to splitting should be balanced with other characteristics.
-Brent

*Could be triggered with a certain chance by certain tech advances like Monotheism, Printing Press, Democracy or Abolishment etc. or by changing government.
-Wernazuma III

*During a Civil war two halves of the civ would be generated and split. They'd have to be in a locked war until one half again controls 2/3rds and then reunite. This would better reflect the temporary nature of most civil wars.
With one or two exceptions: All cities seperated from the capital by ocean or a certain (large) amount of tiles should be considered "colonies". When a Civil War should be triggered, the colonies would revolt and split permanently from the civ. The same goes for cities which once were conquered and are not completely assimilated.
-Wernazuma III

*Civs that can split apart include Spain, England, France, Celts, Romans, Arabs, Germany, Scandinavia.
Spain can split into Portugal, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, etc.
England can split into America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.
Celts can split into Brittany, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Scotland.
Rome can split into Spain, Italy, France, Romania.
Arabs can split into Egypt, Iraq.
Scandinavia can split into Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Faroes, Jutes, Vinland.
USSR can split into Ukraine, Belarus, Siberia, Kamchatka.
America can split into Texas, California, Union, Confederacy.
Germany can split into Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, Saxony, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, West Germany, East Germany.
-Brent

Minor civs associated with America: Confederacy, Yankees, Texans, California, Alaska, Canada (maybe), Deseret (fits as well as CA and TX I think).

Minor civs associated with Germany: Bavaria, Saxony, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstean. Maybe instead of Switzerland: Zurich, Berne, Thurgau, etc.

Minor civs associated with Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Faroes, Jutes, Karelians, Gotland, Sami

You could choose between a Pacific Islands microculture group or a Polynesian major civ. the minor civs would be Aborigines, Maori, Fiji, Tahiti, Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa.
-Brent

Aztecs-Teotihuacans-Olmec
Inca-Tiahuacanos-Moche
English-Americans-Canadians
Russians-Polish-Mongols
Greeks-Romans-Minoans
Egyptians-Assyrians-Babylonians
French-German-Spanish
Sioux-Iroqoius-Navaho
Chinese-Japanese-Korean
Indians-Siamese-Khmer
-The List for Civ III

*All civs should have a chance of revolt if their capital is taken (as per civ2.)
For example: The USA could split into Yankees and Confederates, etc...
-Rasputin

*There should be at least two rebel groups for every civilization
-Stefu

*It would be good if it were possible for a far-flung outpost of your empire to "declare independence". If the player agrees to this, they get serious diplomatic kudos; if they disagree, it's a war of independence. This would be a nice variation to the "civil war" idea.
-Plotinus

1.2.1 Micro-Macro Cultural Groups and Civil Wars
*Some major civs would have associated minor civs which make up a microculturegroup, you choose either the major civ, the microculturegroup, some but not all of the minor civs, or none of the above. Some major civs do not have associated microculturegroups, some mcgs do not have associated major civs, and some minor civs stand alone outside of any mcg. There can be overlap, for instance maybe you can't have both Germany and Prussia. Maybe Karelia will be part of the Slavic mcg one game and the Nordic one the next.

*The player can create his or her own major or minor civs, micro or macro culture groups, and internal provinces. The player can reassign relationships between civs, groups.
-Brent

1.3.0 Combo-Civs
*Close allies should be able to join each others civilization if the civs are much alike (examples: the member-nations of the USSR, or the EU)
-DarkCloud

1.4.0 Civ-Creation
*If we could customize our own civs, then we wouldn't need more civs. The player should be able to add traits, give civs abilities, etc. from the New Game setup screen... Not just from the editor.
-Rasputin

*You should be able to choose attributes, your cultural group (asian, european, arab, mediteranian, african, american), your Unique Units (im hoping there are at least one more UU per civ, if not a UU for each civ for each age), etc.
And all this should be possible because this game is about building a civilization form the ground up, right?
-Kramerman

*Why don't we do it RPG style ? Give us a hell load of points to start with, distribute them over various characteristics (like: agricultural: 1000, militaristic: 2000, scientific: 1500, environment-conscious, religious etc....) which will give you certain advantages and you can improve these characteristics throughout the game (like if you build lots of farms you get more experience in agriculture; if you conquered two continents in less than half a century, you get to a militaristic level when all new units are produced with a +5 morale; etc.). And that will be your own civilization.
And if you're like me and can't make up your mind as how to distribute the damn points, you could choose a 'real world' civ with an all-made-up-just-for-you distribution exactly the way it's done in Empire Earth.
-Kirastos

1.5.0 Renaming Civs
*Give civilizations the option to rename themselves when they advance to a new era. Each civ can have suggested names to switch to for each era. For example:

Babylon -> Iraq
Persia -> Iran
Gaul -> Franks -> France
-ixnay

1.6.0 Voluntarily Splitting Civs
*I'd like to have the option to create civs out of your own civ. So if your nation becomes too rowdy, you can seperate a part of civ and rebuild your nation.
If your Civ is on the verge of revolting against you, you can just cut off the rowdy cities so you can work on making the ones you have better.
-Frozzy

1.7.0 Hardcoded Numbers of Civs
*There shouldn't be a hardcoded max number of civs - just say "over this number, we don't support whatever happens".
-skywalker

1.8.0 Minor Civs/New Tribes

*I think that the reason people started asking for the was that we all want a world full of many, many civilizations, but we realize that our computers would choke on the AI required to run that many civilizations. Plus, it's easier to keep track of trade, diploacy, aliances and other things with only a handful of civs than with dozens.

So giving us 8 to 16 major civilizations keeps AI turn lenght down and makes keeping track of diplomacy and war manageable (though not with the Civ III diplomacy screen). Then, throw a dozen or so "minor" civilizations into the mix to fill in the cracks and make for a more interesting, dynamic, and realistic world.
-Fosse

*I want minor civs to have a completely different set of paramaters for their own goals and abilities, and for our interactions with them:

1) A Minor Civ is a Tribe from the available civs, that can be set as minor by the player or at random. The Player is always a Major Civ. Minor Civs start with one city and a handful of defenders (same as majors).

2) A Minor Civ's cities will work the best food tile in their radius to determine city size growth. They recieive gold from the land they work (or whatever system Civ 4 uses), but no shields
The Reason: Represents agrarian and simple cultures focus of food rather than production. They can use the gold later.

3) Minor Civs do not build units, but instead have them appear in their cities (1 unit each city) every X number of turns. These units will either be military or settlers (much less often)
The Reason: No build orders for the AI to think about, production queues, etc. Settler production won't reduce city size.

4) Minor Civs want two things: Cash and Survival. They get gold from cities they conquer, plus more units per X turns (more cities to get them at).

DIPLOMACY

1) Minor Civs are either at peace or war with everyone else, major or minor.
The Reason: This keeps them out of diploatic relations, and keeps things simple.

2) Majors can demand tribute from Minors. If they Minor can afford to pay and has a weak military, they will pay. If not, they will eithe refuse or declare war.

3) Majors can pay Minors to start a war with a 3rd party, or to end a war.

4) Minors can only be at war if it is declared upon them, if they are paid, or after a tribute demand.

TRADE

1) Any resources in a Minor's land can be traded to another civ for money.

CULTURE

1) Each Minor city generates a small amount of culture per turn (to prevent wholesale absorbtion).

SCIENCE

1) Each minor civ absorbs techs known to majors it has DIRECT CONTACT with (has met their units, are within so many tiles of their border) after that tech has been discovered by 50% of the major Civs. This determines what kind of units they can get.
The Reason: They are always backwards, but will be close to their neighbors. So a minor Civ might be more advanced than an isolated major.

TRAITS

1) Each minor civ has the traits of its Tribe. These traits influence the types of units they generate, the amount of gold they make from land, and their disposition

PROMOTIONS

1) If a major slot opens up, then the most poweful Minor becomes a major. This opens full diplomatic relations (maintaining current war and peace status), and automatically builds several key city improvments in the minor's cities (depending on era, in early game, no improvments, in modern perhaps marketplace, temple). These buildings can be influenced by traits.
-Fosse

*I want minor civs to behave normally regarding building improvements and units, technology, culture, and diplomacy. I favor the disadvantage of no Traits, subordinate characters, or unique units. Minor civs could share culturegroupspecific units with their entire culturegroup. There would be no civspecific graphics. If major civs have more than one available ruler, minors have one or none if none makes sense.
-Brent

*New tribes should probably appear periodically
-Mercator

*The more I think of it, the more "minor civs" seem to be a good idea. Imagine having them start with two settlers, but without the possibility to build new ones. They still could conquer foreign ones however. Thus most of them would die over time, but in some occasions they might develop into good foes.
*Those minor civs, as I said, would require little work, as there'd be no UUs and no need for time-robbing leader graphics.
-Wernazuma III

*In reality, many civs arose in the passage of time- therefore, should not some Minor civs start later than the major ones with already established cities- or in breaking off from an already-existing empire and establishing their own suzeraniety much like the Barbarian takeovers in Civ I,II?
-polypheus/DarkCloud

*I do like the idea of minor civs. These would be 1 city civilizations randomly scattered about the map, having 1 or 2 military units. I think you should be able to convince them you join you via diplomacy, though conquest could always happen too.
-Drachasor

*Let the normal gameplay decide what is a major and what is a minor civ. A tribe is stuck on a small island? -- Likely to become a "minor civ". I don't like the designation of a civ being "minor" because of the earth history.
-Shogun Gunner

*Minor Civs are good an all, but let's get our priorities in order here- the AI programming is going to have to be much better before the number of civs is increased significantly.
-Shogun Gunner

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 12:51

1.9.0 Nomadic Civs (A type of Minor Civ)

1. Nomadic settlers are like mobile villages
I think a nomadic civilization should use its settlers in a very similar fashion than a sedentary Civ uses its cities. A settler would have a name (just like a small tribe), it would gather shields, food, gold and knowledge just like a town. It could produce units just like a town.
This way, nomadic Civilizations could discover techs, build military units, constitute a treasury etc even before they settle down.

2. Settlers do not have all the attributes of a town
OTOH, to compensate for the added bonus of mobility, nomadic settlers are limited, in that they can not build city improvements, their civ can not build roads or other tile improvements, and the population of a settler unit is capped.

OTOH, the first Settler should be the "palace", so that corruption can be calculated in a nomadic empire spanning on several settlers (One can also imagine that an early King unit can be used to build a palace in the city he pleases, and acts as the center of the empire until then).

Additionally, to prevent nomadic settlers from living in hostile terrain, they should not get the "flat" production a city enjoys in the city-tile. In Civ3, a newly found city will always enjoy at least 2 food, one shield, once commerce from its city-tile; a settler should only get the food / shields / commerce the tile normally produces. As such, if the settler stands on a mountain, the "city tile" doesn't produce any food.

3. Settlers produce another settler automatically once the population gap is reached.
This is the main reason why a Civ would want to remain nomadic despite the advantages of sedentary cities.
When the population cap is hit, the nomadic settler loses one-two citizens, and it spawns a new settler without having to pay the shield costs. The new settler will have to find grazelands somewhere else (either nearby or far away, just not on the same tile, as it would already be in use by its mother unit).

This gives nomadic Civs a great boost in territorial expansion at the beginning over their sedentarian counterparts, but at the cost of population growth, infrastructure, culture, and improvements.

4. Settlers and culture / borders
Settlers can not produce culture. And their borders can only span on the minimal radius. If a nomadic settler enters another Civ's territory, the offended Civ may go to war. Same if another Civ founds a city / pushes its nomadic settler in the nomad's territory.
Since nomadic Civs cannot produce culture, and if culture continues to become the driving force behind borders in Civ4, these civs will quickly be more and more pushed back by expanding sedentary cultures. Nomadic civs end up unable to defend their holdings, or only through war.

5. The shift to sedentarianism
The main idea is that all Civs start as "nomadic", and they all become sedentarian when they choose.

I think a Civ should become sedentarian when it founds its first city. The specific attributes of nomadic settlers disappear from then on, and will never come back. However, the remaining settlers act normally where they stand: they are not forced to settle on the spot, nor are they destroyed. They just move to find a good spot (if they hadn't found one already) just like they always moved in Civ series.

Also, it may be useful to restrict the ability to settle all at once. It may be a good idea to force the player to wait one turn before the foundation of each new city. This is a balance issue that has more to do with playtesting.

Lastly, it may be a good idea to require a tech (such as Alphabet or Masonry) before the settlers become able to found a city. This is also a question of playtesting.
-Spiffor

*Nomadic settlers produce higher food/shields in certain squares(tundra, steppe, etc) than cities but need to move around constantly so not to deplete renewable resources(like how nomads stayed in different places in each season). ideally you want nomads lasting a long time(just like in real life) in steppe areas while cities would spring up in fertile areas. so on the map of earth civs would do best to go straight to sedentary cities in areas like the indus valley while others areas would stay nomad cities longer(iran, germany, etc?), and places like siberia would have nomads for a very long time. nomads should definately be a more powerful civ type in certain environments especially if they are located next to a sedentary civ they can raid
-pg

*Each nomadic settler acts as a cityworker and you can stack them for increased production. that would make it easier since a settler with 3 population points would be confusing. Instead, just have 3 settlers walking together, producing together and feeding eachother. Then you just cap the number of nomadic settlers you can have in one square. If there are 4 nomadic settlers in an area and they reach the max food no new settler is made until the group splits. nomads wont grow over a certain point.
-LzPrst

*I assume nomads wouldnt need to support their units since they are hunter/gatherers...
this would be good for the warmongers as they could stay nomadic in nomansland a long time and then suddenly explode and conquer enemy cities with their vast, but horse-smelling troops
-LzPrst

*If nomads conquer a city and do not raze it to the ground- then they immediately become sedentary and lose nomadic bonuses, but gain bonuses that regular civilizations posess.
-DarkCloud

1.10.0 Civ Break-Offs
*When you start a new game of Civilization IV; only a few large, major civs are available to start with, such as Chinese, Semites, and Indoeuropeans.
To keep from having the same exact group of civs for the whole game, there would be breakoffs. Indoeuropeans can split into Romans, Celts, Germans, Slavs, Indians, etc.
-Brent

1.11.0 Proto-Civs (Relates to Minor Civs)
*The Civilizations should start as tribes, and aren't really considered civs before they complete their palace. This would allow the game to start earlier.
Before the palace is built, the tribes won't create any culture, though they would be able to create warriors, archers, and such. However, they will also have no scientific advancement since they are little more than nomadic herdsmen who have finally settled down and are just starting to adjust to the rigors of civilization and farming.

Once palaces are built, the civilizations will overtake the near tribes rapidly, with the villages and encampments turning into small cities
-Azazel

----
2.0.0 Rulers
----

2.1.0 Choosing Rulers
*Every civ could have two different rulers available for being chosen as the civ's leader.
(Example: Americans - George Washington and Woodrow Wilson.)
-Rasbelin

*There should be (Like Civ II) both a Male and a Female Leader for each nation
-POTUS

2.2.0 Ruler Traits
*Each ruler should have his or her own traits which affect the way they play the game.
-Brent

*Each ruler's traits should effect a civilization's traits. For example:
Stalin could have an Authoritarian trait to add to Russia's hypothetical Merchant/Green traits.
-DarkCloud

*Basically, what I was thinking was that the leaders could work much like they work in Europa Universalis...
Each Civ would have an infinite number of leaders that possess certain traits such as:

Admistration (1-5 Star) [Increases Tax Efficiency, Cheapness of Buildings, Reduces Corruption]
Military (1-5 Star) [Increases Cheapness of Units, Reduces Penalty for War and Distance from Home city]
Diplomacy (1-5 Star) [-25%,-10%,0%,+10%,+25% Relations with all computer civs; Decreases the cost for purchasing merc units from other civs, Allows you to transgress borders for an extra 2-3 turns]

Some of the leaders can be historical, but perhaps there are not enough famous generals/politicans for every time period in every nation, therefore a random name generator will be necessary for the game.

I believe that this will add a lot to Civ-strategy.
However in contrast to the List's previous suggestion, I would like to posit forth that these 'Leaders' should not be able to "run the civilization" for the player since we don't want to take too much power out of the player's hands by letting the AI take over management.
-DarkCloud

2.3.0 Changing Rulers
*Like in the game Europa Universalis, the Leaders for each civilization should change after x amount of years (to be randomly determined).
*The names for these rulers could be randomly generated.
*Each ruler would have traits like civilisations do in Civ III. For example: one ruler could be conservative and pressing (ala Margaret Thatcher), or changing and friendly (ala Mikhail Gorbachev), or militaristic and fascist (ala Adolf Hitler).
-Fozzy,DarkCloud

2.4.0 Ruler Graphic Design
*If animated leaders are used, add support for static leaderheads in picture format, as opposed to the still-flcs necessary to make static leaderheads in civ3.

2.5.0 Different Civ Rulers for Different Governments
*I want some different rulers available to represent some different governments.
-Brent

2.6.0 List of Rulers
America: Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy

England: Coel, Brutus, Henry I, Mary, Victoria

France: Charlemagne, Hugh Capet, Napoleon, Joan of Arc

Israel: Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, Zedekiah, Ben-Gurian, Golda Meir

Egypt: Seti, Rameses, Tutankhamen, Cleopatra

Polynesia: Kamehameha, Hawaii-Loa, Queen Lilliolikauna

Rome: Romulus, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Vespasian, Christantine
(Ed: Although personally, I really do not like the idea of there being non-historical personages leading nations- such as Romulus who can be considered as never leading a 'nation' per se and perhaps even being entirely fictional, like Moses or Aeneas [Also reputed to have founded Rome.])
-Brent

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 12:52

-----
3.0.0 Colonies
-----

3.0.1 Colonies As Air Bases
*Colonies should be counted as air bases. You own them, they're outside of your territory and they are semi cities...so why can't you land planes there?
-Jer8m8

3.0.2 Combatting ICS With Colonies

*If the colonies, for example, contribuited toward corruption costs but couldn't grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved useful to the player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would fit a nice civ-game niche.
-DarkCloud

-You can only build it on top of a resource. However, you can build one on the coast as long as it's on an island, across a sea, ocean, etc, and connected to a resource (with a colony on it).
-You can only build one colony per resource tile, and you must declare which resource it is connected to (any of them not already claimed by another colony).
-You can only station (and build) smaller boats there (galleys, privateers, caravels, galleons, transports, destroyers).
-You can station up to two air units there, but only if you have an airstrip (same functions as an airport).
-You can station as many ground units as you want until you hit tanks (you can only station 5 or so).
-You can build a barracks, so that you don't have to transport back obsolete units to upgrade them.
-A colony only has influence on the square that it is located on.
-Colonies act as population 1, and may fall into civil disorder (which may eventually force the disbading of the colony). There is always a specialist, however, and it may be any of the normal kind (so as to make it specialized in some sort of way).
-A colony will disband if captured or if someone elses boundaries encircle it.
-Bob Rulz

-----
4.0.0 Immigration
-----

*Immigration/ Emigration. I once sent a post on another pre-CIV3 forum somewhere where I wanted this issue debated. CIV3 already has parts of it: if you conquer an enemy city, e.g the Greeks its inhabitants will still be greek for some while, happy or not. Now what would happen if the greeks could actually send people into your cities as workers whenever you're not at war, for example if your city is close to the greek borders. What if any civilization could do that? The city status window could show a diagram of the city population demographics, saying "90% Romans, 5% Greek, 2% Babylonians" or so. Those cities with more than, say, 20% foreign inhabitants could likely fall into disorder when a war erputs, or anytime on higher difficulty levels... restrictive/repressive governments (Communism? Despotism?) might throw out "unwanted" foreigners, thus decreasing city sizes... of course, YOU (the player) could send your own people to foreign cities... they would leave anyway if they don't like the way you govern the country, adding up to your competitor's city sizes... spies could only plant propaganda in cities holding inhabitants of your civilization (they can barely hide with people which language they don't speak or so)...
-Cozy_22303

*Migration between cities of the same Civ
-Brent

*Allow some sort of ethnic purging, or allow some ability to expel ethnic groups from your civ if they grow too rowdy.
-Shogun Gunner

----
5.0.0 Nation's Compositions
----

5.1.0 Minorities
*You should be able to set up specific policies concerning how you treat your minority populations - do you tolerate them, promote a multicultural society, try to assimilate them or persecute them?
*Perhaps you should only be able to set policies about minority groups comprising 20% of any individual city's population or 5% of your civilization's population, just so that this system does not become too unweildly.
-Stefu

5.2.0 Dual-Heritage
*As for citizens, they should be able to have at least a dual heritage that affects the relative levels of happiness and corruption in the cities you conquer... and also, this could introduce problems of immigration- for example: if too many Assyrians come into Babylonian cities- then perhaps the city will 'culture flop' into Assyrian when the next war occurs.
*I would also like to see nationality levels for all citizens.
-Drachasor/DarkCloud

----
6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
----

6.1.0 More Balanced (Asian, Africans Included) (37 civs)
Americans
Iroquois
Aztecs
Mayans
Incas
French
Germans
English
Celts
Spanish
Romans
Greeks
Russians
Norsemen
Dutch
Portuguese
Hungarians
Turks
Arabs
Hebrews
Babylonians
Assyrians
Persians
Egyptians
Carthagians
Ethiopians
Mali (or possibly some other West African civ of the era - Songhay, Dahomey etc.)
Zulus
Mongols
Indians
Vietnamese
Siamese
Koreans
Chinese
Khitai
Japanese
Javans
-Stefu

6.2.0 Add-on to Conquests' Civs
*Besides the civs that are in Conquests, I strongly agree on including the Hebrews and Ethiopians. Many small ancient Middle Eastern civilizations can be added.
-Brent

*The first thing period should be: every civ in civ3+ptw+conquests should carry over.
-Q Cubed

6.3.0 The Grand List of Proposed Civilizations (61 Civs) (39 if the 'maybes' are taken out)

The Americas (11)
Iroquois
Americans
*Sioux/Lakota
Mayas
Aztecs
Incas
*Nazca (maybe)
*Inuit (maybe)
*Utes (maybe)
*Anasazi (maybe)
*Mississippians/Mound Builders (maybe)

West Europe: (11)
English
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands/Dutch
Vikings
*Sweden
*Ireland (maybe)
*Italy (maybe) (ed: We already have Rome)
Celts

Eastern Europe: (3)
Russia
*Poland (maybe)
*Austria (since they had alot of slavs) (maybe)

Mediterranean: (4)
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt
Byzantine (maybe)

Africa: (7)
*Shonghai
*Ashanti
*Mali
*Ethiopia
Zulu
*Xhosa (maybe)
*Bantu or Kenya or Tanzania (maybe)

Middle East: (9)
Arabs
Turkey/Ottoman Empire
Persia
*Israel/Hebrew (maybe)
*Numbia (maybe)
Babylon
*Assyria
Sumeria
Hittite

South/Southeast Asia (6)
India
*Harappa (maybe)
*Khemer (maybe)
*Indonesia/ Majaphit empire
*Thailand (maybe)
*Champa (maybe)

Far East Asia: (6)
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
*Tibet (or should this go with south asia?) (maybe)
*Dai Viet (Vietnamese civ) (maybe)

For Oceania: (3)
*Polynesians
*Maori (maybe)
*Aborigiese (ed-Can we really count this as a 'civ'... from my understanding, they weren't that civilized... and Plotinus backs me up on this: "I'd have thought that the definition of a civilisation - at least from the point of view of this game - involves some degree of urbanisation." And frankly I think that Civilization has to do with movement from Hunter/Gatherer to Farming.

*All Civilizations marked with a * are new civilizations not already in Civ3, PTW, C3C
-civilleader/Nuclear Master

6.3.1 Anti-Byzantine
*I hate to say it but I really don't want Byzantium again, they are Greeks in the location where the ottomans need to be
-civilleader

6.4.0 More than just names
I'd favour more civs, so long as its not just a CtP style list of names that makes your eventual choice meaningless
-joncha

6.5.0 Criteria for the Inclusion of Civs
Civs should be included not just did because they played a role in the history of civilization (because which culture hasn't?) but can you give them a specialization that has some historical importance and add to game play in a unique way
-joncha

6.6.0 Adding Israel Should Open Doors/ A Mandate for Adding Civs
*But if Israel were to be included then the mandate for including other civs which were not dominant or don't rule their own territory would be opened. How about a Kurd, Basque, or Rom/Rum civ
-EnduringBlue

6.7.0 The "Overkill" Civ List (64 Civs)

American (11)

USA
Inuit
Sioux
Iroquois
Hopewell
Mississippian
Anasazi
Aztec
Olmec
Maya
Inca

Europe (15)

Portugal
Spain
Basque
France
Dutch
Germany
English
Scandinavia
Celts
Ukranians
Lithuanians
Rome
Russia
Austria
Greece

Africa (4)

Carthage
Egypt
Ethiopia
Zulu

Near East (12)

Egypt
Israel
Moab
Canaan
Arabia
Hittites
Phoenicians
Assyria
Babylon
Sumer
Persia
Crete

Central Asia (4)

Turkey
Turkmenistan
Mongolia
India

Far East (8)

Tibet
Tocharia
China
Korea
Japan
Harappans
Ainu
Java

Oceania (3)

Australian Aborigines (ed: see my comments on this in 6.3.0)
Maori
Hawaiians
-Brent

6.8.0 A Civ-Creating Philosophy
To me the most important reason for more civs is to have thew designers pregenerate names for the cities. Different abilities are not so important to me, and maybe if we do get 200 civs we should do away with abilities. If there aren't 200 pregenerated civs, at least makke it easy to store that many and use them conveniently, and if there are 200, have space for 100 custom ones.
-Brent

6.9.0 Adding Too Many Civs
CON
*Each civ, if Included, should have Unique Units, Unique Traits, Unique City Names and Unique Ruler Names (although some face-heads could possible be grayed out... therefore, since we want each civ to be unique-
Why bother putting in fifty redundant civs?
-DarkCloud/skywalker

PRO
*Frankly, if there are dozens and dozens of Civs, then I'm not concerned if some are just like others. I can pick a group of Civs out for their strategic pros and cons, and then select among that group for less tangible reasons.

*What I would like to see in Civ 4 are a greater spread of Civ traits and their effects (even degrees... a little agricultural or a lot?), and a huge number of Civs that I think are "cool" and "deserve" to be in. Any ancient Civilization that we know about should be in, no matter how minor they wound up being. Those Civs deserve a place long before America, anyhow.
-Fosse

6.10.0 Solve Diverse Civ Problem with Minor Civs
*Maybe the controversy of how many civs and whether unique or not could be solved with the concept of minor civs.
Have one one hand side a number of premade "unique" civs and then "non-player" minor civs. Not barbarians, really independantly acting civs with the handicap that they aren't allowed to build settlers and don't have unique units etc.
-Wernazuma III

6.11.0 The 100 Civs List

North America (7)
Cherokee*
Iroquois*
Americans
Hopewell/Mississippi
Anasazi/Hopi/Pueblo
Sioux*
+Ojibwa*

Central America (5)
Mixtecs/Zapotecs*
Maya
Aztecs
Olmecs
Toltecs

South America (8)
Aruak*
Inca
Chibcha*
Mapuche*
Tupi*
Chimú*
Nazca
Guaraní*

Africa (14)
Zulu
Egypt
Carthage
Ethiopia
Mali/Songhay
Nubians/Meroe*
Haussa*
Berber*
Ashanti*
Lunda/Luba*
Bornu-Kanem*
Kongo*
Yoruba*
Bantu*

Near East (13)
Babylon
Arabs
Persia
Ottomans
Hittites
Sumeria
Israel/Hebrews*
Phoenicians
Assyria
Armenians/Urartu*
Kurds*
Lydians*
Nabateans*

Middle East/Central Asia (12)
India
Mongols
Kushan*
Indus Culture
Tibetans*
Choresmians*
Tamils/Chola*
Khazars*
Tocharians*
Sikhs*
Uzbeks
Uygurs*

Far East/SE-Asia (10)
China
Korea
Japan
Khmer*
Thai/Siam
Annam*
Javans*
Malayans*
Champa*
Arakan/Burmese*

Europe (27)
Spain
Portugal
France
Germany
England
Vikings
Celts
Romans
Netherlands/Dutch
Greeks
Byzantines
Russians
Hungary
Poland* (Ed: Personally I would combine it to Poland-Lithuania)
Bulgarians*
Lithuania*
Minoans*
Etruscans*
Bohemia*
Austria
Serbia*
Croatia*
Scotland*
Finland*
Cordobese *
Thracians*
Bosnia*

Oceania (2)
Polynesians*
Maori*

(Ed: Personally I have issues with all the starred civs and think that, if included, they should only be minor civs)

*The list was never meant as a list of 100% worthy fully developped civs. Most of them wouldn't make good large civs. However, it should be possible to find one personality for most of them, and at least two cities/sites for each, thus being ideal for "minor civs".
-Wernazuma III

*(Ed: Here's Enigma_Nova's comment on the whole 'Many-Civ's idea')

There are plenty of historical civs, but some of them are closely aligned.
It would be pointless to have clone civs - even if they have different graphics.

Some of those civs mentioned would be pretty close to one-another.
It's not worth making a new facade for the same underlying principle.
-Enigma_Nova

6.12.0 Great Rulers/Unique Units/Unique Traits Needed for Civ Inclusion
*Firaxis really shouldn't add a civ unless it could put up at least 2 Kings/Queens/Rulers for each of the nation (2 rulers that are VERY GREAT) and well known
*And possibly each civ should only be allowed in if it could have some unique trait or attribute that no other civ on the face of the planet possesses
-DarkCloud

6.13.0 Another Way to Add Civs To the Game: Themed Expansions
*How about each expansion has a theme for the civs it includes, such as minor ancient civs, minor modern civs, ficticious/ mythological civs. Maybe let there be a small amount of content in each expansion that doesn't fit the theme.
-Brent

6.14.0 Civ-Engineering
*This would work similar to Civs "traits", but could include more a la Alpha Centauri
A player could distribute a numer of points on special abilities of his civ.

Like:
Scientific 5
Industrial 6
Religious 6
Expansionist 4
.
.
.
Obdient 3 --> less riots, war weariness
Diplomatic 6 --> improved AI negotiations
Isolationist -3 --> worse trade negotiations
Repulsive -5 --> bad AI relations
Unique Unit 10 --> chose name, which unit to replace, which graphics, then distribute a bonus point on A, D or Movement
Slavers 2 --> all units can turn enemy units into slave workers
Peaceful -10 --> no barracks, high war weariness
etc. etc.

In the same screen you'd be able to set how your people stands towards certain governments which, in turn, could determine chances of civil war at govt. changes
-Wernazuma III

6.15.0 Imperial Civs
*In no way should Israel be a Civ. Nor should any proposed Civ that was not at some time for want of a better term "Imperial". If this isn't the criterion, then we might as well have everyone and I don't believe the programmers want that.

By that I mean a civ which was militarily and culturally dominant over a large amount of territory at some time in the past.
-Agathon

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 12:53

*Space Placeholder for Overflow*

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 13:04

---
7.0.0 Civilization Traits
---

*Perhaps One Trait should be able to fill two slots?
-Brent

*Perhaps there should be some civs that have a bonus 3rd trait?
-DarkCloud

*Some wonders of the world can either give the trait, or give opportunity to add one, or freely change the traits for some time.
-MxM

*Each civ should have like 4 or 5 or 10 special attributes out of a list of as many as they can come up with, instead of just 2
-Kramerman

*It'd be cool if resources were somehow attached to civs. Like maybe there are like 3 times as many iron deposits in the game but only a one in 3 chance of finding them, and the chance is higher for certiain civs.
Therefore if the xxx civilization had a good Mining Trait, then it could discover more iron deposits whereas the civ with the Hunting trait could only find 1, the miner would find 4... Sort of a "Search and Discover" sort of thing.)
-wrylachlan

*Or how about horses that tend to migrate towards a "horse-friendly" culture like the mongols. If there is a mongol city within 5 tiles of horses they'll move one tile every ten turns to get within their radius. Or maybe if you take care of them (irrigate their tile) they have a percentage chance of generating a second herd, and that chance is higher for the Mongols.
-wrylachlan

7.0.1 Give the AI a Target Philosophy
*Please, give the AI a target to follow. Everyone wants to win, but some civilization prefers to win by domination, others by diplomatic achievements. They should be intelligent enough to determine if their starting position makes this way of winning possible at all - starting in a huge swamp will not actually give you a huge bonus. I would have expected the Zulu, for example, to be a very aggresive people, giving you with one hand and threatening you with the other, regardless of their current strategic and financial situation.
-Cozy_22303

7.0.2 Switching Off Traits
*I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO. So long as they give you an option to switch them off.
-Sandman

7.1.0 Specific Trait Ideas
*Authoritarian/Obedient - Cheaper courthouses and police stations. Reduced corruption. Less unhappiness from forced labor. War weariness is reduced.
*Fecund (couldn't come up with a non-pejorative sounding word. "Breeder" doesn't sound good either) - cheaper granaries. Possibly cheaper workers, settlers, harbors, aqueducts, and/or hospitals. Cities (pop 6-12) generate extra food on city square. Metropolises (pop 13+) generate even more extra food on city square). Workers possibly irrigate faster (but no other terrain improvements are faster).
*Pacifist/Green/Tree Hugger - non-military based (no barracks, units, etc.) production is cheaper (10-20%). Population produces less 10-20% pollution. Cultural improvements are 10% cheaper. Extra resources from jungle and tundra tiles. Military Morale is VERY LOW. People riot if there are more than 2 military units per city.
-sophist/DarkCloud

*Growth Oriented civs, with following bonuses : Extra food in town / city / metropolis. Growth oriented improvements twice cheaper.
-Spiffor

*Offensive/Defensive
*Sedentary/Nomadic
*Forest Dwellers/Mountain Dwellers (Ed: Personally I think this is more of a scripting issue than a civ attribute)
*Urban/Rural
*Industious/Environmental
Kramerman

*Scientific
*Religious
*Militarilistic
*Industrious
*Seafaring
*Agricultural
*Expansionistic
*Commercial
Nuclear Master

7.2.0 Altering Traits
*With each change of government, the civ can change the traits (like social engineering in AC). Example: communist revolution in Russia, made that country be militaristic, industrial, may be scientific as well.
*Different governments might allow a different number of traits
*Some of the traits should be fixed even with changes of government.
Example: Communist government must have militaristic trait, can not have agricultural trait, and can chose to other traits
-MxM

*You could possibly alter during gameplay slightly by using the SMAC-like social engineering and government: (Choosing which would give penalties and bonuses)
-Kramerman

7.3.0 Modifications to Traits
*The Scientific trait: Instead of one free advance for each age(which does little good with so few ages), I'd like to see a bonus when researching, or a bonus for scientific buildings.
-Nikolai

7.4.0 Differing Degrees of Traits' Effectiveness
*Perhaps the traits should differ in degree and effectiveness as well... For example: a civ can be VERY agricultural +++ (as in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or GOOD agricultural ++ or just ABOVE NORMAL agricultural ++.
-Fosse/DarkCloud

7.6.0 Barbarian Civ Traits
*Barbarian Civs should have traits
-Brent

7.7.0 "Hardcoding" Traits
*I would like the Traits to not be hardcoded. So instead of a "Commercial" trait you could simply assign different civs different bonuses, like commercial building bonuses, an extra road bonus, extra trade in the city center, etc. etc. This would allow a lot more differentiation of civs.
-wrylachlan

7.8.0 Option to "Turn Off" Traits
*There should be an option to "turn off" traits.
-DarkCloud

7.9.0 Selectable Traits
*Maybe you should type in your civilization's name at the beginning of each game, and then choose your attributes from a list.

(Or at least have an option to as well as picking one of the pre-programmed civilizations.)

This way, the people who want to play as the Scientific / Religious Faroe Islander nation can do so.
-Mr. President

7.10.0 Golden-Age Bonuses for Traits
*In order to add more variance to traits I believe that Traits should gift extra bonuses during civilization's golden ages.
In addition to the usual one extra gold and shield per tile during a golden age:

Scientific:
Increase the chance of scientific leaders appearing to ten percent, culture from scientific buildings doubled

Militaristic:
Increase the chance of Military leaders to 1/8 (1/6 with Heroic epic), one extra hitpoint for each unit

Agricultural:
Food from city square increased by one

Commercial:
Less corruption, one additional extra gold from city square

Industrial:
Workers take one less turn to complete tile improvements, one extra shield from city square

Expansionist:
Land units which have two in movement + workers and settlers, have movement increased by one

Religious:
Two extra content citizens per city, culture from religious buldings doubled

Seafaring:
Ship movement increased by one, one additional extra gold per coastal city square

These are only suggestions. Some might be unbalanced, while others might suffer from lack of imagination. I am especially unsure of the expansionist trait. Agricultural is such a strong trait, that I think one golden age benefit will suffice, and I could not think of another anyway.
-Tripledoc

7.11.0 Faction Editor
*Rather than have traits, how about have something about as involved as the SMAC faction editor?
*This editor would be mainly for the benefit of scenario designers, and game setup, not something that would get used in-game. Of course, the civs that get shipped with the game will be designed using the full potential of this editor.
-lajzar

7.12.0 Role-Playing Traits
I really like the idea of taking a bit from RPGs and having the traits decided by points, such as:

Ag 6
Sea 2
Exp 3
Mil 5
etc.

Therefore, the game is more customizable and as a culture evolves, it can gain points in specific traits.
These points can lead to benefits such as cheaper building, faster ships, etc.

If you look at the game Europa Universalis and note how the leaders of each culture and the generals gave their Empires different bonuses- you can get an idea of how RPG-development of a civilization might work.
-JamesJKirk/DarkCloud

7.13.0 Political Traits
*Using a similar system to GalCiv, have standard traits for each civ plus the player chooses extra traits for a political party or a specific leader, and these bonus traits could be lost with a change of politics. The player can set a number of points for all civs in the game.
-Brent

7.14.0 Dynamic Traits
*In thinking about Civs for Civ 4, I attached an Excel spreadsheet "showing" what I think would be cool. Instead of a hard coded civ, like "England" with pre-defined traits, I think it would be fun if you were a blank slate and you either choose to meet your playing style, or these traits grow as you follow a tech tree or by your actions in game.

The spreadsheet is cool because it is interactive. I also wish for some form of legislative body because the chocie might be cool, but that is another topic.

But dynamic civs would be reaaaal cool. Because that is the next step (to me) fof the franchise.

Mafa Games

http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/61738/CivIVIdea.xls

Play 1000+ free games online on PC, Mobile and Tablet. Every day you can find the newest and best games at Mafa.Com

*I would like to see the Civ as a concept, not as a type. You could actually make your "own" civilization each game, as you might pick different starting traits each time, and then throgh out the game tweak the Policy of your civ to specific circumstances.

*But as a meta-idea there are categories, people would have their own personal perfences, but some might like a Authoritative Plurist Plutocracy (maybe South Korea in the late 80's), others a Democratic Regional Aristocracy (kind of like Wales)

*With this system, you could make the change, giving you flexibility. For example, if you start Medieval times as peaceful, but as resources get tight, your neighbors start attacking you; then overtime you would become more open to military options because your people's attitudes change from war.

Therefore making a goverment policy to support the military would be more acceptable. Giving you better combat units, prodcution or zeal to not go into unhappiness. Those effects would be particular to the game mechanics.
-Mr. Orange

7.15.0 Civ-Uniqueness
*Maybe in the main game there would be only a few Civilizations with uniqueness, but the editor could be designed in detail to allow players to implement new civilizations and traits.

This would give us the large number of civs that apparently we all want, and could provide our own uniqueness for the civs we use.
-Brent

----
8.0.0 Civ Placement
----

*I like the idea of Civs being more at home in a specific terrain. They should tend to start in a particulat terrain and be able to use that terrain better than other civs can. I want some civs to be at home on the coasts of continents, some on islands.
-Brent

----
9.0.0 Unique Units
----

9.1.0 Unique Traits For ALL The Units of a Civ
*I'd like a lot more unit based differentiation (not UU's).
Things like maybe the inca units travel along mountains as if they were grasslands.
It still costs as much to climb a mountain or come down, but moving from one mountain to the next is just like grasslands.
-wrylachlan

----
10.0.0 Other

10.1.0 Corruption and Golden Ages
I think the effects of corruption need to be seriously downplayed (I'll get to how this connects to the topic in a moment). While corruption would still be there, it would be a LOT weaker, and each civilization would have an "instability number". The higher the number, the more unstable. If the number passes a critical threshold, the civ breaks into several smaller civs. The threshhold is effected by two main factors - research rate and civ size. A large civ cannot afford much research, because it would break up. Thus, large empire will eventually either a) break into pieces (though retaining its core) or b) be overrun by smaller empires that have more advanced militaries from their faster research. Those two could even be sort of combined - make significant military losses increase instability.

This would not result in the destruction of the previously large civilization, though. As the civ retains its core, it now becomes another small civilization. In addition, we could have it so that when a civ loses cities it gains some of the research of the conquering civ (this would speed up the collapse). Thus, we get a true "rise and fall of empires".

A few other things about this - first, you wouldn't get much instability from having a large nation, but rather a large empire (the difference being that the latter is formed through the conquest of other states). So having people of other cultures (and even more so people of other culture groups) would add more to your instability than people of other cultures. Second, the government you are in could modify the effects of research and size and cultures on your instability number.

Oh, and finally, Golden Ages would work differently under this. A golden age would be brought on by certain conditions in your empire, such as a powerful economy and such, and would vastly increase the critical point for the instability number (so that it's pretty difficult to collapse during a golden age). However, when it ends you've got to watch out - if you've expanded beyond the point where the critical point normally is, the end of a golden age will result in the collapse of your empire. However, golden ages don't have a fixed time (like 20 turns)
-skywalker

Conclusion

Well, I guess that about does it. The general consensus on Civilizations seems to be for Firaxis to either give players more Civilizations or for Firaxis to let people modify their civilizations more... Along with a substantial lobby for 'Dynamic-Civilizations' that develop based upon starting position and what the player tends to utilize most in his/her game.
For example, the English wouldn't have been good 'natural' seafarers if they were stranded inland. Therefore, players hope that civilizations develop skills based upon what they tend to use- much like how characters in RolePlaying games such as Arcanum (for the computer) and White Wolf/Vampire:The Masquerade (for pen and paper) evolve based upon player decisions and preferences.

In addition, the general trend on the wishlist is for more customizability and modability... Generally more 'player-friendliness'
Personally, I would be happy if the company kept the Civ-List at 32, or even if it downscaled it to 24... but only if the dynamic option for civilization growth and the modification option for civilization growth were implemented.
Also, there seems to be a good-sized lobby to bring back the dual-gendered rulers for graphical rendered images.

Immigration/Emigration was an intriguing system that should be looked at.
And Minor Civs were also quite popular as were the Civil Wars and Civilization-Splitting.

The suggestion of Nomadic Civs by Spiffor was an intriguing one that could perhaps be added in part. The general consensus on the Nomadic Civilizations idea was that although many would "prefer the developers to spend their time making the overall game richer than adding an extra bit to the start." (Plotinus), that they did actually enjoy the concept of nomadic civs.
Indeed, perhaps some of the nomadic traits and ideas could be adapted into Barbarian Civilizations. Who knows?

Also, the idea of Colonies could be used to combat ICS (Infinite-City-Sprawl) problems. If the colonies, for example, contribuited toward corruption costs but couldn't grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved useful to the player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would fit a nice civ-game niche.

There were also a few innovative ideas for the functioning of rulers.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to consider this humble list.

Respectfully Compiled: DarkCloud
With special thanks to: Asmodean

**DarkCloud** · May 16, 2004, 13:07

*Final Placeholder*

**Tassadar500** · May 17, 2004, 11:02

Are we still allowed to post in this thread? I would do, for the sake of organization, only talk about one "Civilization" issue. That way it will get settled without talking about three things at once. Let's do the Civilization List first!

**DarkCloud** · May 17, 2004, 23:26

Yes, you are still allowed to post in this thread if you like.

That is a good suggestion, but I'm not sure we have enough posters really to get some good discussions going. I'm just hoping that people drop by and levy their suggestions. Maybe if this forum section were moved to the top, then more peopel would see it and voice their opinions.

Just wondering, as a News Editor, could you post an announcement along the lines of:

"The List for Civilization IV, being organized under the direction of DarkCloud, Nuclear Master, and Rasputin is soliciting all interested parties to come and contribute to it before its deadline of January 2005 for submission to Firaxis.

In the grand tradition of the List for Civilization III, we implore you to come and voice your opinion and help in the development of a new Civilization game in an attempt to make the Civilzation series better than ever before!

And indeed, the designers at Firaxis DO read your opinions. In fact, many of them post at this very forum. Therefore, your opinion WILL matter. So, if you are interested, please visit FORUMSECTION LINK

-Listmaster DarkCloud"

(Note: The deadline is just a rough estimate)
(and FORUMSECTION LINK needs to be filled in.)

Thanks!

**Tassadar500** · May 18, 2004, 00:13

I'll try but at the moment I need to talk to Dan about some things...

**DarkCloud** · May 18, 2004, 21:58

Okay, that's all right.

I guess I'll raise the issue about moving the forum section to the top, but I'm waiting for markos to respond to another one of my PM's first.

**Brent** · June 1, 2004, 16:30

Linking Minor Tribes to Specific Playable Civs

Place minor British Isles Celtic Tribes as close as possible to the English. The number of linked minor tribes would vary greatly from one playable civ to another.

Linked to Romans: Etruscans
Linked to Russians: many Siberian civs
Linked to Scandinavians: Sami, Karelians, Jutes
Linked to Americans: native peoples from throughout the Americas
Linked to Spanish: Basques

**Panag** · June 2, 2004, 13:54

hi ,

so how would the middle east be linked , ....

just a small Q , ....

have a nice day

**Brent** · June 3, 2004, 12:23

I guess all the Minor Tribes in the Middle East would be linked to the Arabs: Kurds, Midian, Edom, Berbers, etc.

**Panag** · June 3, 2004, 14:42

Originally posted by Brent
I guess all the Minor Tribes in the Middle East would be linked to the Arabs: Kurds, Midian, Edom, Berbers, etc.

hi ,

well what about the Jews and the phoenicians , ....

have a nice day

Announcement

{The List} Civilizations ver. II

{The List} Civilizations ver. II

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment