Which civs/leaders should be in the expansion?

[Lumpkin]

Celts : They were always good in Civ 2. Firaxis say they don't want tribals so no celts or native Americans by that route but WTF- We have Mongolians. They were never a civilization either, they just conquered and assimilated themselves into others.

I really hope the Celts or other "tribals" make it into the game. The Celts were just a very broad cultural group. They were never united as a single political entity at all and it's quite hard to define exactly who they were. The Mongols at least conquered cities and formed empires. There has never been anything remotely approximating an empire/kingdom/federation of the Celts. Scotland or Brittanny would be a better choice since they were unified Celtic nations. Though personally I think there are other European nations that should be included before them.

For Vikings maybe have Sweden instead then we could have Gustav Adolphus in as well as Vikings (even though most of the cool vikings were Danish or Norwegian...)

Or Denmark. Both countries actually formed significant empires. Greenland still belongs to Denmark.

SE Asia is not represented at all. These are the people who built Angkor wat after all.

Yep, it's strange that this region has been completely ignored.

[Alexander I]

I think the best option for the European tribal civs is the two civ combo idea I've been bandying around.

You could have Scandinavians: Vikings (Cnut or Ragnar) + Swedish (Gustavus Adolphus)

or

Celts: Gauls (Vercingetorix) + Scots (Robert the Bruce) + Irish (Brian Boru).

[Mao]

Originally posted by CyberShy


Mao is actually the biggest murdere in history.
He is responsible for more deaths then Stalin or Hitler.

Was NOT! *neener neener neener!* :P

Seriously though, that is true enough. However, it could be argued that Mao's objective wasn't necessarily to kill people (the famines/bad weather/crappy decision-making/delusions didn't help of course...) whereas Hitler meant to start the war and knew it would kill many and Stalin meant to kill all those in the gulags, etc. At least that's how I've viewed it.

On Argentina: Fine, include them, *shrug* But then you'll also have to include Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Canada, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, etc. Because quite frankly, there isn't a reason to include a "civilization" like Argentina, and not the other ones.

One important part seems to be missing as well, you notice that all of these civilizations were ancient and have been around for ~1,000 years or so (or so I am led to believe). This seems to be their test, and by using this, there's no way Argentina, Brazil, or ANY New World country is going in. The only exception to this is the American civilization, which, quite frankly, has to be included for marketing if nothing else. Besides, we like playing as ourselves once in a while.

On another note, when the hell did all this "reporting" start? God...back in MY day...

[terje439]

Originally posted by Lumpkin


I really hope the Celts or other "tribals" make it into the game. The Celts were just a very broad cultural group. They were never united as a single political entity at all and it's quite hard to define exactly who they were. The Mongols at least conquered cities and formed empires. There has never been anything remotely approximating an empire/kingdom/federation of the Celts. Scotland or Brittanny would be a better choice since they were unified Celtic nations. Though personally I think there are other European nations that should be included before them.



Or Denmark. Both countries actually formed significant empires. Greenland still belongs to Denmark.




Yep, it's strange that this region has been completely ignored.

Hmm sorry I cannot let this pass (goes to national dignity )
Denmark only controls Grenland because a swedish diplomat FORGOT to include it into the peacetreaty at Kiel in 1814 (after the danes lost us after the Napoleonic wars). Same goes for most the Island nations in N.-Atlantic.

Just to make things right :P

Anyway I think the swedes or the danes would be the better choice if the civilization is not to be called vikings.

[Hobelhouse]

Originally posted by terje439



Anyway I think the swedes or the danes would be the better choice if the civilization is not to be called vikings.

Call 'em Scandinavians.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Bolobob



You have also been reported. And read your history please before you make stupid remarks on things YOU THINK YOU know.This goes to everyone.

Noob trying to sound like a mod:

[Venger]

Well, nice to see the same thing happened here as over at Apolyton - uesr recommends Argentina, someone says "Huh?", sensitive Argentinian gets into a ranting lather without actually addressing why Argentina deserves a Civ...

As to leaderheads - Rome needs Octavian (Augustus), America REALLY needs Abraham Lincoln. Nothing against FDR, a fine wartime President, but after Washington and Lincoln, there is a notable drop...

Venger

[Node]

I really want Augustus to become Rome's second leader. Julius can be their aggressive leader, while Augustus can be their peaceful leader.

Byzantium and Babylon are essential. Since it seems Civ4 has UUs for land only, I wonder what Byzantium could have. Vangarian guard, unique macemen?

[redazncommieDXP]

Originally posted by Mao


Was NOT! *neener neener neener!* :P

Seriously though, that is true enough. However, it could be argued that Mao's objective wasn't necessarily to kill people (the famines/bad weather/crappy decision-making/delusions didn't help of course...) whereas Hitler meant to start the war and knew it would kill many and Stalin meant to kill all those in the gulags, etc. At least that's how I've viewed it.

On Argentina: Fine, include them, *shrug* But then you'll also have to include Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Canada, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, etc. Because quite frankly, there isn't a reason to include a "civilization" like Argentina, and not the other ones.

One important part seems to be missing as well, you notice that all of these civilizations were ancient and have been around for ~1,000 years or so (or so I am led to believe). This seems to be their test, and by using this, there's no way Argentina, Brazil, or ANY New World country is going in. The only exception to this is the American civilization, which, quite frankly, has to be included for marketing if nothing else. Besides, we like playing as ourselves once in a while.

On another note, when the hell did all this "reporting" start? God...back in MY day...

The people Stalin killed had to die for one reason or another. Some of them to protect the security of the state and to maintain his power (absolutely necessary in a time like that), others had to be worked to death in order to modernize Russia. It doesn't matter who killed how many people, life is cheap- it's who brings the greatest improvement to their country that matters. Before Stalin, Russia was a 3rd-rate nothing country. He transformed Russia into a first-class industrial and military power, the equal of any in the world. He fought and defeated the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen. Too often, westerners forget his great accomplishments and his great services to his nation and to humanity, and focus on purges that were necessary for him to maintain his power.

Stalin is a clever cat.

Btw, governments by definition cannot murder. They can "execute", "kill" etc, but murder is defined as a criminal act, and because governments set the law, they cannot act illegally.

And international law is bs anyways, so don't bother bringing that up.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Venger
Well, nice to see the same thing happened here as over at Apolyton - uesr recommends Argentina, someone says "Huh?", sensitive Argentinian gets into a ranting lather without actually addressing why Argentina deserves a Civ...

As to leaderheads - Rome needs Octavian (Augustus), America REALLY needs Abraham Lincoln. Nothing against FDR, a fine wartime President, but after Washington and Lincoln, there is a notable drop...

Venger

Wait...wha? Aren't I at Apolyton??? What??? Where am I? What year is it??? Why does it hurt when I pee???

Yeah, erm...redazncommie, that's quite...what's the word I'm looking for...I'm not sure. You should post that in the off-topic so we can have a real debate about it. Come now, you believe those things, so they must have basis in fact, right? So prove your points in the OT. Please?

Just as a preliminary shot across the bow because its's a pet peeve of mine, calling something "bs" because you think it is isn't a valid argument by *any* stretch of the imagination. There are reasons why international law isn't effective and doesn't mean anything to some, but you thinking it's bs isn't one of those reasons.

[Nelis]

Belgium should be included !! Belgium is an important civilization that rules the world for a long time ! The leaders could be Ambiorix (Aggr. Org.) and Léopold II (Exp. Ind.). Really, Belgium SHOULD be in !

... just kidding guys ;-)

[Josquius]

Originally posted by Maidel


Not really greece didnt become rome - it was conquered by them.

In the same way that you wouldnt group the bizantium empire with the ottoman empire, one conqured the other (or what was left of it...)

'Greece' did become Rome. Or at least a Greek colony did.
You don't really think all the similarities are coincidance do you?

Mao is actually the biggest murdere in history.
He is responsible for more deaths then Stalin or Hitler.

1: China has a lot more people. Its a lot easier to get a bigger body count.
2: Hitler is the most evil man of all time due to his intent for killing. He was removed from power before he suceded however.
3: How do you figure this about Mao? The cultural revolution? That was hardly under his control.

[Josquius]

Damn can't edit posts here...

If Stalin was good for transforming Russia into a 'first rate industrial power' from nothing then you can not look down on Mao. He transformed China from less then nothing into a 'first rate industrial power'. Stalin made Russia look nice to the outside but he certainly didn't help the people all that much. Mao on the other hand- China made brilliant progress especially considering all the upheaval.

I'm not saying Mao was good but he is just not in the same league of evil as Stalin and Hitler (and Pol Pot)

[Senethro]

Originally posted by Josquius
Damn can't edit posts here...

If Stalin was good for transforming Russia into a 'first rate industrial power' from nothing then you can not look down on Mao. He transformed China from less then nothing into a 'first rate industrial power'. Stalin made Russia look nice to the outside but he certainly didn't help the people all that much. Mao on the other hand- China made brilliant progress especially considering all the upheaval.

I'm not saying Mao was good but he is just not in the same league of evil as Stalin and Hitler (and Pol Pot)

Disputing this, Mao was an idiot. A colossal idiot. He alternated between sending "rival" high ranking Party members to workcamps and relying on them to save the cluster**** he made of the economy.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by redazncommieDXP
The people Stalin killed had to die for one reason or another. Some of them to protect the security of the state and to maintain his power (absolutely necessary in a time like that), others had to be worked to death in order to modernize Russia. It doesn't matter who killed how many people, life is cheap- it's who brings the greatest improvement to their country that matters. Before Stalin, Russia was a 3rd-rate nothing country. He transformed Russia into a first-class industrial and military power, the equal of any in the world. He fought and defeated the most powerful military machine the world has ever seen. Too often, westerners forget his great accomplishments and his great services to his nation and to humanity, and focus on purges that were necessary for him to maintain his power.

Wow. Just, wow...