Expansion Pack: Civs that MUST be included

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are they really going to add more civs now that we can create our own at will?

Yes, they are, because adding civs is the easiest thing to do for an expansion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'd rather have another Mesoamerican civ than artificially boosting up Sioux or Iroquois. Maya or Moche, perhaps? Finding a leader for them would be difficult, I suppose.

I think I'd rather have the Sioux or Iriquois over the Maya or Olmecs. And besides, the Sioux were in CivII .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Yes, they are, because adding civs is the easiest thing to do for an expansion.

And?

People buy expansions to have access to things they don't have or can't make. This is not the case for civs. Modules and scenarios are warmer. An expanded tech tree with new stuff is even warmer.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
People buy expansions to have access to things they don't have or can't make. This is not the case for civs. Modules and scenarios are warmer. An expanded tech tree with new stuff is even warmer.

But a lot of people who plays this game doesn't go around and search for mods, and it does sell more if it on the package to the XP also mentions that you can now play as < insert civ names here >

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Luigi de Mérida

Or the SPANISH LEGION (As Infantery):

Looks more like cavalry to me.

Weird horse though

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are they really going to add more civs now that we can create our own at will?

Originally posted by LordShiva
Yes, they are, because adding civs is the easiest thing to do for an expansion.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
And?

And so if they make an expansion, they are going to add civs,

Originall posted by Adagio
and it does sell more if it on the package to the XP also mentions that you can now play as < insert civ names here >

Seriously, do you really think they won't just because we can edit xml files to make our own? Why didn't that stop them in Civ3?

[Alexander I]

Firaxis had a poll on their website asking fans which civs they'd like to see in an expansion. Therefore, I must conclude that they were at least thinking about it.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Turks.

[LzPrst]

hear ye hear ye!

There are a few civs that IMO should be in the game.
I will give the names then the explanation.

Vikings
Carthagians
Iroquis
Turks
Babylonians

Additional civs:
Portugal
Zulus
Korea
Khmers
Holland

Civs that shouldnt be in:
Byzantine
Sioux
Maya
Israel
Sumer
Assyria

And now: The explanation.
I will base my reasoning on some easily agreable ideas.
Civ must have had a strong cultural, military, scientific, political or explorational history. preferably all of the above, though all is not a requirement to be on the list. I have 3 lists. one for must have civs. one for could put in civs and one for civs that are right out.

Note. I will to a large extent require the civ to have been an Empire. as all civs in civ4 are in fact classified as.


Vikings.
In one form or other, preferably a modern adaptable name. Why? Because they have made a significant impact upon all of northern europe from 800 to the present. Among its merits are counted: Short discovery of america in the 11th century. Conquering the british isles. settling in russia, france and the mediterranean. (though their settlements were small and absorbed into local culture). Famous people involve scientists, diplomats, explorers, traders and conquerors. Sweden and denmark were both important power players in the european stage until the end of the napoleonic wars and resources in norway and sweden along with the formers shipping power were very important in WW2. They are also highly technologically advanced and industrially well developed.

They should be in as a single civ with one danish and one swedish leader (preferably switching flags when switching leaders if possible) as these have been the dominant groups in the "civ". A lot of danes, swedes and norwegians will protest at this, but the fact is. despite 1000 years of on and off infighting, scandinavian culture, religion, geography, law and language has remained so close that by many it would be considered the same. In addition they have been united and several times swapped territories between themselves and had differing unions between them. also they have had and still have a very close relationship, closer than most other neighbouring countries.

Finally, on the account that they are separate, so were the greeks. The greeks in ancient times were divided into separate city states that only allied occasionally when threatened from without. the greeks under Alexander were in fact conquered by alexander from macedonia and used to further his conquests. In the way ancient greek citystates are counted, let so the scandinavian countries be counted.

Carthagians.
As mentioned, they were an offshoot from the phoenicians. however, the phoenicians never made an empire. carthage did. they were also a technologically advanced civ in their time and in fact managed to circumnavigate africa and build colonies on its west coast, though they didnt last. they also conquered large parts of the western mediterranean, dominated the seas and traded with all civs in the meditarreanen and some outside as well. militarily they rivalled the roman empire in its youth.

Iroquis.
The Iroquis resemble the ancient greek city states in the way that they were different "tribes" with similar cultures and traditions that united under a single political rule. they were the most advanced independent non-european civilization in north america. they were trading partners with the french and english and allies in war. they controlled a fairly large area and dominated several smaller less organized societies in an ever larger area. they contributed strongly to american political thinking and to a certain extent local culture.
they were only defeated because the union was split in the choice between fighting with the english or the americans in the revolution. although not as strong as some other civs, they were as mentioned the most powerful and well developed non-euro independent nation in north america.

Turks
The turks were originally a nomadic people from the steppes of central asia. several times turkish peoples left their plains and impacted the more settled civilizations in the middle east. eventually they would develop into the Ottomanian turks that came to dominate most of the middleast, then Mesopotamia, consisting of modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey and Egypt. they were highly advanced at their height, had magnificent cultural developments and militarily came to threaten europe by several times attempting to take Vienna and control most of eastern europe and destroyed the Byzantine "civilization".

Babylonians
Babylon went from being a citystate to an empire, dominating the entire lands around the eufrat and tigris river. their civilization was in many ways similar to the contemporary egyptians. they were the leaders of technology and science, highly developed political systems and powerful military. Babylon was attacked and sacked several times, but always rebuilt and prospered anew, until finally the mongols made an end to it. (though Saddam Hussein rebuilt it "recently"). One of the earliest and most influential empires in the region at its time.


Now for the civs that I have set in the additional list:

Portugal.
As mentioned before, great history on exploration. somewhat lacking militarily, scientific, political and economic. highly specialized civ focusing very much on naval expansion during a "short" time during the age of exploration. leading at the time in naval technology, but not much more.

Zulus
Love those wackos in every game. or rather love to hate. historically however the Zulus were a minor african kingdom in the 1800s that for some time successfully managed to fend of european (british) colonization. they had one king who was a military leader, Shaka, little cultural developments of mention, no scientific advantages, poor economy (despite wealth of resources) and never impacted the regional history like an empire. Zimbabwe on the other hand was a strong civ in early times, but the lack of historical sources make it difficult to determine their qualifications as an important empire.

Korea
ok. they qualify. they have just about everything. military history, scientific development (in older and modern times) cultural strength and the lot. a little weak on the exploration (i think) but missing exploration doesnt preclude them from being a civ. what does however speak against them is that they havent had an empire in the same way that their neighbours have. also they have been dominated by these stronger neighbours for most of history. regardless, i put them on the 2nd priority list. sorry to all koreans.

Khmers.
I have to admit that my knowledge of them is slightly limited. I do know that they are known for building great temples and having an advanced and well developed political structure. dont know about military, scientific (though must have been ok considering the engineering) or commercial\explorational exploits. this one is simply on the not-priority because of my own ignorance. I apologize.

Holland
another civ that should qualify, extremely strong economic performance in early days, noteable political and cultural developments. explored and conquered a vast naval empire. the argument against is much the same as the koreans. they have been dominated by other nations until the 1600s and their empire days were relatively short. also, their national lands are by comparison very small (but tightly populated and highly prosperous and industrious). and lastly, europe would become very crowded with vikings, germans, french and english AND dutch just in the area around the north sea.

Civs that should NOT be in.
Byzantine.
despite me having a crush on theodora from civ3 they dont belong. the reason is this. they never existed. byzantine civilization is a term that we use for the surviving eastern roman empire. despite them having greek as the main and official language they did consider themselves romans, or at least heirs to the roman empire. the emperors title was Basileous Romaion, greek meaing King of the Romans. what happened was that the roman empire split into 2. and the weaker poorer western part collapsed. byzantines were never a separate civilization in their own right, they were merely a surviving extension of the roman empire.

Sioux
these were never a city civ. they were semi-nomadic riders that were wiped out before they could form a proper civilization or empire. despite some military achievement they lack most qualifications for empire status and thus civ status.

Maya
perhaps they should qualify. but they died out mysteriously and never impacted the rest of the world in a lasting manner. also theres not room for 2 civs in the mesoamericas.

Israel
despite incurring the wrath of zionists and the like, I will state that israel does not belong in the empire\civ category. reasons can be best shown by referring to David Ben Gurions own words concerning the development of the state of israel. this is paraphrased a little, but the meaning is the same: We want israel to be a large, democratic and jewish state. however since we cannot be large without including non-jews we cannot be a jewish state. if we chose to be large and jewish we cannot be a democratic state and if we choose to be democratic and jewish we cant be large.

As this illustrates, israel has always limited its ideas of empire to its own ethnic population. also, their kingdom in early age or in the modern has never been a size of importance. they do qualify in most other terms, but their share size and limitation of population to only its own ethnic groups torpedoes their desire to be a civ4 empire. IMO also, they are included as a religion.

Sumer
Although Sumer has many similarities to Babylon it never became a great empire as babylon did and it ended in the very earliest days of civ time (after 1000 years gametime). not worth bringing in IMO. they also have had a very small impact on history in the region, comparable of course.

Assyria
Now heres a contender. the assyrians were probably the first great empire of the iron age. they conquered much of mesopotamia and had one of the roughest regimes the region has ever seen, and that says ALOT. regardless, their exploits were mainly military and once they were defeated on the battlefield they disappeared. not really worth dragging into the 21st century IMO.


now. that is my opinion. I only spent an hour and a half formulating it, but considering that I know everything, you can sell your encyclopedia and stifle the debate.
also, it should be mentioned that I may have forgot something or left someone out. but thats what I can gather from "the top of my head".

[LordShiva]

Hey, if the artists at Firaxis can turn fugly Catherine into such a hottie, imagine what they can do with Theodora!!

Byzantines!!!

[Shaka II]

Who knows, maybe she was.

[xenophile58]

Originally posted by potoroo

Lessee, that would knock out the English (the Angles and Saxons not settling that part of the world until the 5th century AD); "America" obviously; possibly Germany since there was no Germany until 1871 (that's when Bismark became Chancellor) and the term Germanic tribes covers a territory from eastern Austria to England to Scandinavia; possibly the French, since the Franks didn't enter Gaul from Germania until the 3rd century AD; Russia since the Kievan Rus didn't emerge until the 10th century AD; the Incans since their empire wasn't founded until 1438AD; the Aztecs since they were the last major tribe to settle in the Lake Texcoco region and their empire didn't emerge until the 14th century AD; Mali, since the Mande peoples didn't settle that area until after the 1st century AD and the Malinese empire itself didn't emerge until the 14th century AD; and for that matter possibly even the Mongols, since their nomadic tribal system didn't become any sort of major power until Ghengis Khan united them in the 13th century.

That would leave us with Arabian (arguable), Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Japanese, Persian, Roman and Spanish (also arguable) empires in the game.

Just some thoughts.

I'm sure everyone is aware that there is no possibility of Firaxis cutting the modern civilisations so any argument is really about the aesthetic of mixing civilisations from such different eras. I prefer the anachronism of Cyrus with modern armour to that of Frederick with chariots, that's all.

I do think it's a little over-enthusiastic if you are suggesting that there aren't enough older civilizations to choose from. Could we not have Gauls or Celts? Olmecs? Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians? Harrappans? And at a pinch I wouldn't mind too much using precursors to later Civilisations either.

But in the end it is just about which anachronisms you prefer.

[Luigi de Mérida]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


Looks more like cavalry to me.

Weird horse though

No, because Millan Astray, the creator of the Legion, created the Tercio de Extranjeros (the Legions popularly) at the 1920s, after the Desaster os Annual in Morocco War

Then, they were the principal Spanish infantery with Franco

They continues exist nowadays such as one of the principal militars of Spain with a big representation (in the 12th of October we can seen it with other soldiers)

Maybe, I put an old picture, but now I'm putting a actual photo



Clear now?

[johnmcd]

Why no love for the Minonans?

[Crossfire]

We need the Canadians. Blame Canada!