2K Games Announces Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Warlords.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
Depends on what you want. If you want some frantic cutthroat action, take Rome on a world map and try to fight it off with the French, Greeks and Germans. Or take English and be stuck on the island for a while, loved doing that in Civ1.

While in the meantime, America and the Incans are developing huge empires that you don't stand a chance against after you've eliminated your nearby neighbours. There's such a huge land area in the Americas, the two current civs there don't have much to worry about. They can just keep expanding with little concern about oppostion. I'd like to see at least two more civs in that area to balance it out.

And yes Africa could use another civ too, in the south. With Mali, Egypt and Carthage to be in the game, it should be a lively contest for control of the north at least. I wouldn't mind trying out a world map, but with the current distibution, it doesn't seem worth playing any civ other than the Americans or Incan. Though Russia is well positioned too.

[potoroo]

By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down,
And yea we wept
When we remembered we'd forgotton to found a major religion.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Willem


While in the meantime, America and the Incans are developing huge empires that you don't stand a chance against after you've eliminated your nearby neighbours. There's such a huge land area in the Americas, the two current civs there don't have much to worry about. They can just keep expanding with little concern about oppostion. I'd like to see at least two more civs in that area to balance it out.

Well, with the Mayans in, that might shift the balance a little.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Well, with the Mayans in, that might shift the balance a little.

It will help, but that will still give the Americans a clear field to expand. I'd like to see a Pacific-Northwest civ in the game, like the Haida, to counter their northern presence. I think they'd be a good choice for another North American civ.

[Charles_Bronson]

Clear field?
Try expanding with raging barbarians. That´s MUCH harder.

On a high difficulty level, if you expand too much, you got no tech. You cannot colonize All north america until start or middle of industrial age (State Property). Until there, settlers from all the world will arrive. Even an organized Civ like de americans will have a lot of city manteinance troubles.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Charles_Bronson
Clear field?
Try expanding with raging barbarians. That´s MUCH harder.

On a high difficulty level, if you expand too much, you got no tech. You cannot colonize All north america until start or middle of industrial age (State Property). Until there, settlers from all the world will arrive. Even an organized Civ like de americans will have a lot of city manteinance troubles.

True, but compare the territory they'll have available to the European civs, especially now that the Vikings and the Carthaginians will be in the game. The Incans and Mayans will counter each other, but there's going to be very little competition for space for the Americans. They can merrily expand all they want, or at least can afford, while the other civs have to battle it out for territory.

[Alexander I]

At least, I'm assuming the Mayans are in...

[Charles_Bronson]

True, but compare the territory they'll have available to the European civs, especially now that the Vikings and the Carthaginians will be in the game. The Incans and Mayans will counter each other, but there's going to be very little competition for space for the Americans. They can merrily expand all they want, or at least can afford, while the other civs have to battle it out for territory.

Truth indeed.

Larger groups generate more commerce, and techies faster than small groups. Civ3 in arquipelagos maps show us that.

Technically, the europe group will be more advanced in technology, and the american group will be more... big.

What´s the purpose of expanding, if you have no lead in technology and nobody near to trade/conquest? You must have a objective, even if is a difficult one.

Competition is healthy. I learn to play much more and have more fun when I play under pressure.

And, if the europe has no space, you need to play as japan (or england, in Civ1, was a lot of fun)!

[OzzyKP]

I don't understand the obsession with middle east civs.

Babylon? Fine.

Sumeria, Hitties, etc? No way.

First does not equal best.

Hebrews would be interesting though. Unlike the Sumerians they actually lasted for a bit, and indeed are still around today.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I don't understand the obsession with middle east civs.

Babylon? Fine.

Sumeria, Hitties, etc? No way.

First does not equal best.

Hebrews would be interesting though. Unlike the Sumerians they actually lasted for a bit, and indeed are still around today.

Well, the Sumerians lasted for thousands of years, but they were so early in relation to everyone else that they can't really fit in, and I never really advocated their entry anyway. I think Babylon is much more preferable.

As for the Hebrews, I think they would be very interesting to include, especially since they had such a profound cultural impact on the world (after all, 3 of the 7 religions in the game were heavily influenced [or founded] by Jews!). Bring on King David!

[Son of David]

The irony of it is that modern America probably wouldn't exist had it not been for the literature produced by the ancient Hebrews - talk about ungrateful for Firaxis not to include them!

In fact, maybe much of Europe too. And only God knows what would be the state of the Arab world had it not been for that other famous Jew Mohammed. He really pulled them together and turned them from savages into a proper civilization to rival that of Europe.

Call me romantic but I'm still hoping ancient Israel is in this expansion pack.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Son of David
Call me romantic but I'm still hoping ancient Israel is in this expansion pack.

No kidding!

Originally posted by Son of David
that other famous Jew Mohammed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Muhammad an Arab who was heavily influenced by Jewish religion and culture?

[Martinus]

Since I like playing on historical maps, I am against stucking the game up with civilizations that occupied more or less the same territory at different times in history. For this reason Babylon rules out Summeria or Hittites (in fact, I hope they take the approach from Civ 3, where Babylon symbolised all Tigris/Euphratus civilizations).

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Muhammad an Arab who was heavily influenced by Jewish religion and culture?

Uhm, of course he was an Arab. In fact saying he was a Jew is probably the most outlandish statement I have heard on the Apolyton forums so far. I mean wtf.

[Martinus]

As for the Hebrews, I think they would be very interesting to include, especially since they had such a profound cultural impact on the world (after all, 3 of the 7 religions in the game were heavily influenced [or founded] by Jews!). Bring on King David!

Well, one could argue that you have the religion concept to influence that. Outside of the religious aspect, though, the Hebrew influence on the world was rather miniscule.

Of the three religions you mention, only Judaism is based on Hebrew philosophical thought and it is the least wide spread. Christianity was much more heavily influenced by Hellenic philosophy, for example.