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

[potoroo]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
First does not equal best.

Quite so.

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

Define lasted. Except for a brief expansionary period under kings Saul and David, ancient Israel spent most of its existence either as a vassal state of Egypt or getting the crap kicked out of it by variously the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Romans, who ended up destroying it. There's rather a large gap between AD70 and AD1948, and the existence of modern Israel is an historical accident.

[Solver]

Not the state of Israel, but it's the Hebrew *civilization* that lasted. Jews have been around for thousands of years.

One more reason to include them in the game would be, in fact, that Judaism is the only religion in Civ4 without the civ who founded/practices it included.

[Paddy]

yeah it is a shame that the Nation was left out

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Solver
Not the state of Israel, but it's the Hebrew *civilization* that lasted. Jews have been around for thousands of years.

Well, the same can be said about Armenians or Tibetans.

One more reason to include them in the game would be, in fact, that Judaism is the only religion in Civ4 without the civ who founded/practices it included.

This is actually approaching the issue upside down. Unlike the other 6 religions in game, Judaism is neither a "world religion", nor it is an evangelical religion (i.e. a religion you can simply join without any additional prerequisites). For these reasons it shouldn't be in the game at all - its presence in the game is therefore a rather weak reason to include Israel as a civilization.

[potoroo]

Originally posted by Solver
Not the state of Israel, but it's the Hebrew *civilization* that lasted.

No, it didn't. The minor kingdom founded by the Hebrews (nee Habiru) was destroyed in AD70 by the Romans. That the Jews survived the Diaspora is not at all the same thing as preserving their civilisation.

Originally posted by Solver
Jews have been around for thousands of years.

Not the same thing.

[Solver]

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with the Tibetans. Armenians I don't quite think would be in the first group of my candidates, but there's no problem with them either.

In fact, I really think that most such civs who have been around for quite some time would be worthy for the game.

[Martinus]

While I think Hebrews would be an interesting choice, my main objection to them is that the region from which they come from is already quite overcrowded.

[Solver]

True, but it was also historically a region crawling with different civilizations.

I don't know, I like to make the point that the many European civilizations included (Spain, France, England, Germany) are, in fact, quite similar among themselves, if you compare them to Polynesians, Mayans, Hebrews, Maori or such civilizations. But in each civ game, these relatively similar European civs (of course, very different but similar in the greater picture) are a signficiant portion of the game's civs.

[Paddy]

Many peoples started in that region, and moved on and out - many civs start small and move on

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Martinus
While I think Hebrews would be an interesting choice, my main objection to them is that the region from which they come from is already quite overcrowded.

I used to like to play Thamis' excellent "Ancient Med" variant for Civ3, (the Civ4 version is finished now I hear, but I haven't tried it yet.) as sort of a "survival of the fittest" elimination for the Med/Near East region. This sort of influences which civs I'd like to see in the Civ4 XP.
Thanks to great research, the mod had some great UU for everybody and generally accurate starting positions on a very detailed map, so there is some method to rating civs this way.

In the mod, I'd plug in all 16 civs and see who came out the best.

The Results:

Assyria and Hittites had a tendency to get pigeon-holed from early on, unless played carefully by the SP. Ditto for, surprisingly, Greece, Rome and Egypt, as well as the Sea Peoples, Troy, Scythians, Britons, Picts and Etruia. Israel would be around most of the game in most of the games, but always as a minor influence.

Minoa, Phoenecia, Carthage, Dacia, Macedon, Lydia, Kolchis, Mede and the Germanic Tribes, all had a tendency to get penned up in the middle, but still were generally major players. The big winners were Persia ("rocks!"), Huns, Gauls, Iberia, Saba, Berber and surprise, surprise BABYLON! Honorable mention to the Goths and Nubia, who'd pull it out some of the time, even if I wasn't playing them. Now, as this shows being on the edge of the playing field helped some of the time, as did experience points from early contact with "raging barbarians," but this varied and the totality over about two dozen games played, still I think offers sensible influence to some extent as to what civs are the most viable in that early environment and thus should be included in the new game.

[Alexander I]

I'm still hoping Babylon is in Warlords.
I don't know what I'll do if they're not!

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Alexander01
I'm still hoping Babylon is in Warlords.
I don't know what I'll do if they're not!

maybe we could start a collection towards a new AV if they fail to supply Babylon

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot

maybe we could start a collection towards a new AV if they fail to supply Babylon

Firaxis: On behalf of Civ gamers around the world, we beg you to bring back Babylon!

[Alexander I]

I think that Hannibal of Carthage's leaderhead should be designed to look like Anthony Hopkins! (With a mustache and beard)

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Firaxis: On behalf of Civ gamers around the world, we beg you to bring back Babylon!

rumour has it they even read these threads...