New Civs for BTS, Part II

[Will9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New Civs for BTS, Part II

Originally posted by Cyclotron
But you don't have to take my word for it. Read the description of the Germans in Civ4, which refers to the HRE. Your claim that Germany represents "modern Germany" is baseless. I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion...?

These are supposed to represent civilizations, not states at a certain period in time like "Renaissance France" or "Modern Germany." The only civ that really breaks this rule are the Americans (they've always been an oddball in civ). The civilizations are "England," "France," "Germany," not "Angevin Empire," "Renaissance France," and "Modern Germany" or "the HRE."

I'm referring to the UUs, the UBs, and the leaders.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by joncha
Mauritania

QFT.

Actually, I want them to stop this civ-spam, and start taking away civs instead

Polynesia? WTF? They'd better not be in.

[Thedrin]

I'm referring to the UUs, the UBs, and the leaders.

Except Napoleon and Frederick.

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Civs for BTS, Part II

Originally posted by Will9
I'm referring to the UUs, the UBs, and the leaders.

Which, again, demonstrate nothing. Greece has Alexander the Great and the Phalanx, but the Civ is meant to represent "Greece" all the way up to modern Greece (just read the description). England has Redcoats, Stock Exchanges, Victoria, and Elizabeth - which excludes most of medieval England. Are we to conclude that England before 1500 or so is properly a different Civ? What about Spain after the Age of Discovery, are they also a different Civ?

The UUs, UBs, and leaders are merely "snippets" of a Civ that people recognize. I'm not sure what the average gamer would recognize from the HRE except maybe Friedrich Barbarossa. It certainly doesn't mean that the modern era is the only thing meant by "Germany," any more than the Empire of Alexander was the only thing meant by "Greece." The Japanese civ appeared entirely centered around the Shogunate in vanilla civ - Tokugawa and samurai - and one might conclude that "Japan" just meant the Shogunate, but then they added the Shale Plant in Warlords. Whoops!

I'll say it again, we are playing Civilization and trying to deal with civilizations. The HRE is fully part of the German civ, and if you don't believe me, read the German civ description and figure it out for yourself.

[Will9]

Every time I've mentioned the HRE, I've been referring to Charlemegne's Frankish Empire (not German not, not Franch). I guess referring to it as the HRE is a bad idea. Would calling it Frankland get it in your head that it isn't Germany. I've also been trying to say Dark Age Europe is under-represented. Calling the Franks "French" is stupid because they diodn't speak French and they were barly even Christian.

[Alexander I]

There's no way we'll see Bulgaria, Mauretania, or Congo. I think the Harappans are covered under India. And Morocco and the Moors are the same civ - but they're posted twice in your poll.

I like all your other options.

[Will9]

If someone said it in my other thread, I put in the poll. I trouble deciding whether I would give the Moors their own option.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Virdrago
Ethiopia, Hittites, Siam (and Khmer), Morocco, Sumer.

Assyria and Poland, for Civ 5. Maybe.

Okay, take away Ethiopia/Axum, and Hatti. For now.

I want both Siam and the Khmers.

Will: I remember being flamed after suggesting Frankland and the Harappans in civ 3. I think they would both be good, but they're too closely tied to France and India now... but the Byzantines aren't considered Roman or Greek?

Oh well. I do like most of your civ ideas, though I would choose some over others. Of course, that's the beauty, isn't it? Everyone has their own opinion, and Firaxis decides, until some modders do their own thing

[Will9]

Originally posted by Virdrago


Okay, take away Ethiopia/Axum, and Hatti. For now.

I want both Siam and the Khmers.

Will: I remember being flamed after suggesting Frankland and the Harappans in civ 3. I think they would both be good, but they're too closely tied to France and India now... but the Byzantines aren't considered Roman or Greek?

I'm glad to know I'm alone

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Actually, I want them to stop this civ-spam, and start taking away civs instead

Many civs end up as "Minor Civs." Instead, there should be substantially more barbarian cities. Contiguous barb cities should have the chance of forming a civ (this is done in Hephmod, for instance).

Other barb cities can be forces of their own, with the capability of building early buildings including libraries & markets as well as a full complement of units including mounted & siege through riflemen & cannon, though perhaps not cavalry. Such barb cities can be taken by the "proper" civs and should be subject to being vassals or "peacefully" absorbed.

OTOH (which also has 4 fingers, in addition to a thumb ), additional civs have potential educational value.

[Cyclotron]

I'm not familiar with the term "Frankland." It's true that the Frankish Empire isn't very accurately called either France or Germany, but Charlemagne's empire wasn't terribly long-lived either. I just don't think it's appropriate for Civ in that respect.

I'd vote for civs that fill in areas of the world map - the Khmer, and maybe another African civ (Ghana, Axum, Ethiopia, or something else). Anything else I'd just as soon skip.

...though I think the Polynesians would be interesting. Some kind of outrigger canoe UU?

[Kuciwalker]

LAME.

[Kuciwalker]

Apart from Israel, I'd like to see Ethiopia, Khmer, and Olmecs or two Native American civs (Sioux and Iroquois), to balance out the map.

[DrSpike]

I agree, America should be removed and replaced with another native American Civ.

[Nikolai]

Still, you know it won't happen.