Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Alexander I]

@ Niall
Who knows about the Buryats, Champa or Rozvi? Granted, I do, but I am the exception rather than the rule -- most people do not have history degrees. Most people want to play a Civ game and interact with the Chinese, Romans, or Egyptians, not the Mapuche and Mandara.

The Celtic and Native American issues have already been hotly debated on this and other forums, so I won't raise the age-old arguments again. Personally, I feel that the reason that both are included is because there are a lot of Civ players with ancestors from either of these groups who want to play as them. Can the same be said about your list?

[Kuciwalker]

WTF are Buryats? (Or Champa or Rozvi?)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Damn, I hate it when I agree with Kuciwalker.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
WTF are Buryats? (Or Champa or Rozvi?)

Exactly.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Who knows about the Buryats, Champa or Rozvi? Granted, I do, but I am the exception rather than the rule -- most people do not have history degrees. Most people want to play a Civ game and interact with the Chinese, Romans, or Egyptians, not the Mapuche and Mandara.

Having two history degrees already, I'm very much in a certain camp. But my list post was not saying that all should be included. I said four of those plus four more famous civs would work, or at least three of each, preferably five. You give the examples of the Chinese, Romans and Egyptians ... well civ also has the popular Zulu and Mali, not to mention the Dutch.

I'd suggest to you that the following list - not my favorite by a long shot - would be highly marketable:

*Hittites
*Huns
*Israel
*Poland
*Polynesia
*Srivijaya

Originally posted by Alexander I

The Celtic and Native American issues have already been hotly debated on this and other forums, so I won't raise the age-old arguments again. Personally, I feel that the reason that both are included is because there are a lot of Civ players with ancestors from either of these groups who want to play as them. Can the same be said about your list?

Oh, I'm sure they have. Point is, they're there. Only the Polynesians I think of my list are a similar suggestion, and they are quite a popular suggestion looking at the other threads on civfanatics (where I normally post).

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
WTF are Buryats? (Or Champa or Rozvi?)

Hey, I posted links for a reason.

And how many normal gamers had heard of the Mali before Civ 4 (righly) brought them in?

BTW, are you and Alexander the same person or something?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc

BTW, are you and Alexander the same person or something?

Actually, he and I usually don't see eye-to-eye on much of anything at all. This is actually something of a first, or rather, a second (after the agreement on the fact that the Hebrews should be included).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
BTW, are you and Alexander the same person or something?

Yes. (Ignore the above post.)

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
Having two history degrees already, I'm very much in a certain camp. But my list post was not saying that all should be included. I said four of those plus four more famous civs would work, or at least three of each, preferably five. You give the examples of the Chinese, Romans and Egyptians ... well civ also has the popular Zulu and Mali, not to mention the Dutch.

I'd suggest to you that the following list - not my favorite by a long shot - would be highly marketable:

*Hittites
*Huns
*Israel
*Poland
*Polynesia
*Srivijaya

Oh, I'm sure they have. Point is, they're there. Only the Polynesians I think of my list are a similar suggestion, and they are quite a popular suggestion looking at the other threads on civfanatics (where I normally post).

Don't get me wrong. I think you might be under the mistaken understanding that I am diametrically opposed to you on all counts. This is not the case. I am actually in favor of adding more civs and leaders to the game, I just feel that if they are going to do it, they should do it in a manner that diversifies the current content without making it esoteric.

That being said, I think your list is interesting. My thoughts:

*Hittites - Probably not. There are more worthy middle-eastern civs (read Assyria), and the middle-east is too full anyway. The precedent from Civ3 is not enough to make them worthy in Civ4.

*Huns - No, unless it's under some new barbarian horde feature. They didn't build civilization, they tore it down. A civilization had to have lived in cities for some portion of their history. The Huns burned them.

*Israel/Hebrews - Yes! I've argued this ad nauseum. I know that they only thrived as an independent nation for a short time, but their impact on the rest of the world is tremendous! Plus, they're extremely popular in the Civ community.

*Poland - Maybe. Eastern Europe is relatively empty, and they'd be better than the Magyars, Bulgars, or any other potential group. That being said, Europe is already over-full.

*Polynesia - Maybe. There's no Oceanic civ, but Polynesia fits the same category as the Native Americans. I don't really object to having the NAs in, but too many tribal groups would make the game feel like CtP. And that's bad, at least in terms of civs.

*Srivijaya - They're a definite iffy. They were powerful and influential in their time, but the rest of the world has virtually forgotten them. Maybe if there were to be another Far East Asian civ. Maybe. I might pick Tibet over them though, if for nothing else than just the name recognition.

And personally, I would add the Moors. They fill a gap in North Africa. I used to think they were just a carbon copy of the Arabs. And then I studied them extensively and decided I was wrong. I think they're diverse enough, and big enough in their own time, to warrant inclusion. Some may disagree.

And aside from the notable exceptions of the Hebrews, Moors, and maybe the Polish, I would agree with Locutus that the only three civs left out that could go in the game are the Assyrians, Nubians, and Phoenicians. And they're IMHO too similar to the Babylonians, Ethiopians, and Carthaginians, which would rule them out in my book anyway.

I say add a few new civs with the emphasis on new leaders this time around, if there is a third XP.

[Kuciwalker]

I say Civ 5 already.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I say Civ 5 already.

Heh, they'll probably take a break first. Who knows what they'll come up with next?

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Don't get me wrong. I think you might be under the mistaken understanding that I am diametrically opposed to you on all counts. This is not the case. I am actually in favor of adding more civs and leaders to the game, I just feel that if they are going to do it, they should do it in a manner that diversifies the current content without making it esoteric.

I don't disagree with that. But I think you misunderstood that little list. Those are not the 6 civs I want or think should be added ... just a 6 civ list that would sell and not confuse people.

Originally posted by Alexander I

That being said, I think your list is interesting. My thoughts:

*Hittites - Probably not. There are more worthy middle-eastern civs (read Assyria), and the middle-east is too full anyway. The precedent from Civ3 is not enough to make them worthy in Civ4.

I don't think fullness of the middle east is really a problem. Look at Western Europe ... it's chockablock. Ultimately, fullness is only a concern for makers and players of world maps, who will have to mod it in any case unless they wanna play with 40 + civs on one map.


What you mean by more worthy I can only guess ...

And I'd suggest to you that their inclusion in Civ 3 will be enough. Why on earth d'you think the Zulu are in?

Originally posted by Alexander I
(read Assyria),

Ah, Assyria, I knew there was a marketable one I forgot.

Originally posted by Alexander I

*Huns - No, unless it's under some new barbarian horde feature. They didn't build civilization, they tore it down. A civilization had to have lived in cities for some portion of their history. The Huns burned them.

That's not entirely true. Read Priscus of Panium's account of Attila's court (here); for the growing importance of the Hunnic Empire in early medieval/late antique European history, see works of Peter Heather. I'd point out to you too that the Romans liked to burn cities, as indeed did the Mongols (who have pretty much every vice the Huns had).

Like I hinted above, the reason I added the Huns was not because I actually want them in the game - I don't - but because they'd be popular with the ordinary salt of the earth civer.

Originally posted by Alexander I

*Poland - Maybe. Eastern Europe is relatively empty, and they'd be better than the Magyars, Bulgars, or any other potential group. That being said, Europe is already over-full.

I disagree with almost everything here. Eastern Europe is not relatively empty ... the Greeks, Byzantines, Ottomans, Romans, Germans/HRE, Russians fill about 4/5th of the territory of Eastern Europe (defined as Europe east of Italy-Austria-Germany-Sweden). Relatively empty is South America, central Africa, south-east Asia, Indo-China, Central Asia, Siberia! And the Magyars/Hungary are at least as important as the Poles ... but I generally strongly dislike that kind of argument.

I put the Poles in not because I want them - I'm not opposed to them, but wouldn't argue for them - because of their popularity.

[SIZE=1]
*Polynesia - Maybe. There's no Oceanic civ, but Polynesia fits the same category as the Native Americans. I don't really object to having the NAs in, but too many tribal groups would make the game feel like CtP. And that's bad, at least in terms of civs.

I don't think the Polynesians, Native Americans and Celts constitute too many of what you label "tribal" civs in a game which we are suggesting would have 40 + civs. Bare in mind these will have one leader, whereas the normal civs like India, China, America, Russia, etc, will have two leaders each +, making it highly unlikely you'd get more than two of these in a 7 civ map.

Originally posted by Alexander I


*Srivijaya - They're a definite iffy. They were powerful and influential in their time, but the rest of the world has virtually forgotten them. Maybe if there were to be another Far East Asian civ. Maybe. I might pick Tibet over them though, if for nothing else than just the name recognition.

The rest of the world didn't know about them any more than the rest of the world knew about the French, Germans or English before the modern period. What you mean is the Western world. Well, the western world has never known about them. That's really a pretty bogus reason for someone who claims to want "diversification". And I mean no offense by that.

Originally posted by Alexander I

And personally, I would add the Moors. They fill a gap in North Africa. I used to think they were just a carbon copy of the Arabs. And then I studied them extensively and decided I was wrong. I think they're diverse enough, and big enough in their own time, to warrant inclusion. Some may disagree.

You mean like the Almoravids and Almohads? The pre-Islamic inhabitants of "Mauretania"? Modern Morocco? Or all of them?

If so, I wouldn't be against that for what it's worth. What leader were you thinking of?

Originally posted by Alexander I
And aside from the notable exceptions of the Hebrews, Moors, and maybe the Polish, I would agree with Locutus that the only three civs left out that could go in the game are the Assyrians, Nubians, and Phoenicians. And they're IMHO too similar to the Babylonians, Ethiopians, and Carthaginians, which would rule them out in my book anyway.

Frankly, I think that's silly. Europe and the near/middle east may be the only areas westerners are familar with from school, but it's only a small area of the world.

And BTW, the Nubians are no more similar to the "Ethiopians" than the Celts are to the Russians. Man, if you applied the same standard you're using for non-Europe to Europe, you'd prolly only have one or two European civs. I mean, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, but the Dutch and Germans ... the Spanish and Portuguese?!?!

Anyways, thanks for chatting. Enjoyed it.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I say Civ 5 already.

We still are waiting on BtS!


Others that may be worthy (to me):

No more Europe. Only Poland.

Moors. Siam. Hittites. Srivijaya. Hebrews (Israel). NA's split into Mississippians, Iroquois. Uighers. Harappans. Songhay. Assyria, Phoenicia. Benin. Kanem-Bornu. Hausa States.

If:
HRE ---> (spawned) France, Germany,
England ---> America,
Sumeria ---> Babylon, and
Rome ---> Byzantines, then

Phoenicia ---> (can spawn) Carthage,
Harappa ---> India,
Babylon ---> Assyria, and
Mali ---> Songhai, and no-one should complain.

Polynesians are too much of a blanket civ, see NA's. Would have to be island inclusive.

Celts should include original settlements in Central Europe and later ones in Britain, or be called the Gauls.

No Canada, and I'm Canadian. No Brazil.

That being said, what do I know?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
You mean like the Almoravids and Almohads? The pre-Islamic inhabitants of "Mauretania"? Modern Morocco? Or all of them?

If so, I wouldn't be against that for what it's worth. What leader were you thinking of?

Specifically, I was thinking of the Almoravids/Almohads. Which leader was chosen would depend on what you want the behavior of the civ to be. I thought of either Yusuf ibn Tashfin or Yaqub al-Mansur, depending on whether you want an aggressor or a builder.

Originally posted by Niall Becc
Anyways, thanks for chatting. Enjoyed it.

Me too. I think really we're just looking at the same issue from different paradigms -- after all, Civ is a game marketed to mostly Westerners. It was never intended to be a perfect cross-section of the Earth's population.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Virdrago


We still are waiting on BtS!


Others that may be worthy:

No more Europe. Only Poland.

Moors. Siam. Hittites. Srivijaya. Hebrews (Israel). NA's split into Mississippians, Iroquois. Uighers. Harappans. Songhay. Assyria, Phoenicia.

If:
HRE ---> (spawned) France, Germany,
England ---> America,
Sumeria ---> Babylon, and
Rome ---> Byzantines, then

Phoenicia ---> (can spawn) Carthage,
Harappa ---> India,
Babylon ---> Assyria, and
Mali ---> Songhai, and no-one should complain.

Polynesians are too much of a blanket civ, see NA's. Would have to be island inclusive.

Celts should include original settlements in Central Europe and later ones in Britain, or be called the Gauls.

No Canada, and I'm Canadian. No Brazil.

That being said, what do I know?

Oh, I wouldn't dare show them the list of civs I'd want in the game.