New Civs for BTS, Part II

[joncha]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT.

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

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

I voted Polynesia just for you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree, America should be removed and replaced with another native American Civ.

And the Native American civs should get some sort of Sims minigame with teepees and buffalo.

[DrSpike]

Touche.

[Will9]

Originally posted by 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.

We could start the counting at Clovis. That's about 300 years.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree, America should be removed and replaced with another native American Civ.

I cannot buy thees record.... eet ees scratched.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Will9
We could start the counting at Clovis. That's about 300 years.

I'd count from Clovis (c. 466) all the way to Charles the Simple (d. 929). That's closer to 500 years.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Alexander I
I'd count from Clovis (c. 466) all the way to Charles the Simple (d. 929). That's closer to 500 years.

Better to end with the Capetians in 987...

But of course, the modern French trace their national ancestry farther back than that, like Mitterrand at Bibracte (where he said the "first act of our history took place"). I think you could really draw the line wherever you saw fit to draw it; there's not necessarily a clean break at any one place.

I think more "Dark Ages" civs might be good, but I'd rather have more eastern civs to fill up the Asian/East European leagues - Huns, Goths, Magyars and so on. I'd just as well leave the Franks to the French, even if that's problematic in some ways.

[Alexander I]

A good question to ask in this thread is: "Can we think up a good leader for this civ off the tops of our heads? A leader that's famous/quality enough to be in the game?" If the answer is no, then chances are they won't make it in.

So...

Yes: Hebrews, Ethiopians, Hittites, Khmer, Polynesians, Moors, Assyrians, Polish, Austrians, Sumerians, Scots, HRE, Timurids

No: Bulgarians, Olmecs, Minoans, Brazilians, Congolese, Magyars, Nazca, Harappans

And in case people didn't believe me about that 'yes' list, here's some leaders:
Solomon, Haile Selassie, Mursilis, Jayavarman, Kamehameha, Yusuf, Assurbanipal, Jan Sobieski, Maria Theresa, Gilgamesh, Robert the Bruce, Frederick Barbarossa, Tamerlane

[Cyclotron]

You can think up "Mursilis" and "Jayavarman" but not "Arpad" or "Simeon"?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
You can think up "Mursilis" and "Jayavarman" but not "Arpad" or "Simeon"?

Yes. Mursilis and Jayavarman both ruled over fairly large empires. Arpad and Simeon were petty lords of small kingdoms. Most people know nothing of Balkan history except where it intersects with other western history.

If it's down to a Slavic nation, I'd pick Poland hands down.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Yes. Mursilis and Jayavarman both ruled over fairly large empires. Arpad and Simeon were petty lords of small kingdoms. Most people know nothing of Balkan history except where it intersects with other western history.

If it's down to a Slavic nation, I'd pick Poland hands down.

You make it sound all about size - the Netherlands is in the expansion, you know. Besides, you asked "Can we think up a good leader for this civ off the tops of our heads? A leader that's famous/quality enough to be in the game?" I don't see how Mursilis and Jayavarman fit those criterion in a way that Arpad and Simeon don't. I wouldn't even say Mursilis is the most "famous" of the Hittite Kings (as if any Hittite Kings are especially famous ).

I'm not saying they deserve to be in any more than the civs you've listed, but it seems like your criterion for selection is just whichever leaders you personally have read more about... but then, the same is probably true for me. Oh well.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
You make it sound all about size - the Netherlands is in the expansion, you know. Besides, you asked "Can we think up a good leader for this civ off the tops of our heads? A leader that's famous/quality enough to be in the game?" I don't see how Mursilis and Jayavarman fit those criterion in a way that Arpad and Simeon don't. I wouldn't even say Mursilis is the most "famous" of the Hittite Kings (as if any Hittite Kings are especially famous ).

I'm not saying they deserve to be in any more than the civs you've listed, but it seems like your criterion for selection is just whichever leaders you personally have read more about... but then, the same is probably true for me. Oh well.

Well, for being small, the Dutch have had a phenomenal impact on the world as a whole, as a colonial power, as the forerunners of religious freedom and republicanism, heck, even as the founders of the original New York.

You're right about Mursilis though. I'm sure he was renowned in his own time, but he hasn't left a lot behind. Suppiluliuma and Muwatalli are somewhat more famous, if a Hittite king can be called such. But Mursilis is popularized in the Civ culture because of his inclusion in C3C. And I don't think the Hittites really belong in Civ yet. I think they, along with the Olmecs and Minoans, are fascinating civs about which we still know fairly little -- maybe it would be better to wait to add them until we know more.

Jayavarman VII on the other hand is quite famous in the east, for both the considerable monuments he left behind, and his considerable military victories as leader of the Khmer Empire.

Anyway, I think Europe has enough civs as it is, and there are IMHO better choices than the Bulgars or Magyars. Maybe we could clump the Slavs together in a combo civ like the Native Americans. Vlad the Impaler could be the leaderhead and the Hussar could be the UU. Kidding.

But I do agree, we have preferences for what we're familiar with. That being said, I still think my "yes" list contains the most likely options.

[Alexander I]

What, no Tibet?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Alexander I
What, no Tibet?

Where's Palestine ?

They ve got strong leaders too !

[joncnunn]

I would guess that if Tibet were included, Civ IV would be banned by the Chinese govt.

Modern Palestine never was a nation state; pre 67 The West Bank was ruled by Jordon (then called Trans-Jordon) and the Gaza Strip was ruled by Egypt.