Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc

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

Go ahead. Whatever it is, I can guarantee you that I'll have seen worse.

[Virdrago]

Niall: I can only guess.

Welcome, BTW.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


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.

More I think about it, I think they might be a good choice. And marketable. Definitely Yaqub al-Mansur with warmonger/religious traits. I think if you're thinking about any Almoravids/Almohads, rather than "Moors" native to Iberia or from another period, those would be the traits.

Originally posted by Alexander I
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.

No it wasn't, I agree. I don't mind that so much either, as long as people don't think that it is a balanced game. When they think that, it becomes rather insidious.

[Jaybe]

Insidious is Good! "One more turn" is insidious, as is Civving.

[Dis]

Originally posted by 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?

good point about ancestors, it's the reason I play native american civs. If the aztecs had a better uu, I'd play them more. I know they never had any kind of civilization, but what if they were able to develop one? I think it would be cool. this is a what if game after all.

So the point of new civs is not how significant a civilization they were (native americans were never significant except as conquered foes), but how widely identified they are, and if people actually want to play them.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Go ahead. Whatever it is, I can guarantee you that I'll have seen worse.

Originally posted by Virdrago
Niall: I can only guess.

Welcome, BTW.

Thanks.

Well, you asked for it.


Civs I'd like cause I'd like to play them:

* Gaels
* Great Perm or Mordva (I'd like either)
* Khazars (Jewish Turkic state )
* Lithuania
* Mapuche
* Polynesia (with ocean going slow moving early galleys )
* A Siberian civ
* Several Native American civs
* Aboriginal Australians (yikes, not a civ I hear you say!)
* Also, Seljuks and Uighurs would be great

But I'm just me. There are 12 Civs I'd like to increase and balance the historicity of the game, making some concessions to my own desires :

* Armenia
* Gaels
* Hittites
* Israel
* Kanem
* Lithuania
* Mapuche
* Mwene Mutapa
* Polynesia
* Sogdia
* Srivijaya
* Tibet

Also, the Moors would be good, maybe replacing Mwene Mutapa. I'd be happy with an XP that included 3 of these. I'd definitely be willing to sacrifice the Hittites and Armenia (they'd make Western Asia too full) for geographical balance, but I still think they'd be good appreciated additions.

[Alexander I]

For the Gaels, were you thinking of an Irish/Scottish composite?

Who would lead, Robert the Bruce?

[Virdrago]

I forgot about the Khazars.

Some interesting choices. Some I like, as well.

Maybe we should try some modding, so people can understand what we're talking about and appreciate some of these civs? A SE Asian mod could work, same with Sub-Saharan Africa and North America. Central Asia would be a bit harder, but the inner workings of the Middle East between 1500 and 650 B.C. wouldn't...

Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew here...

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I
For the Gaels, were you thinking of an Irish/Scottish composite?

Who would lead, Robert the Bruce?

Yeah, kind of; although Robert the Bruce was a native Gaelic speaker, and a Gael by the maternal line, most people don't know that because of his Norman name; he'd thus be a bad candidate for leader. Also, the golden age was the dark ages, when Gaelic missionaries converted the Picts and the northern English (several Northumbrian kings became fluent Gaelic speakers), Gaelic scholars were the greatest in Europe (filling the courts of the Franks and the English) and when the Gaelic language became Europe's most written in language other than Latin and Greek.

My preferences for leader would be the semi-legendary Niall Noigíallach; but Brian Boruma, Imperator Scottorum (High King/Emperor of the Gaels), Cináed mac Ailpín and Áedán mac Gabráin (popularly the first European king to be consecrated, though that is misleading) would also be a good candidates. Mael Coluim II of Scotland would also be good, as would Flann Sinna. King Oengus mac Fergusa,a Gaelic-speaking King of the Picts, was prolly the greatest Dark Age king from the Celtic world (see Good wiki article ), and although the Pictish aristocracy were highly Scoticized at this point, Gaelic/Scotic identity wasn't accepted by the Picts until the 9th century.

I'd personally go with Niall Noigíallach, which is also the king the modder who added this civ on civfanatics chose.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Virdrago
I forgot about the Khazars.

Some interesting choices. Some I like, as well.

Maybe we should try some modding, so people can understand what we're talking about and appreciate some of these civs? A SE Asian mod could work, same with Sub-Saharan Africa and North America. Central Asia would be a bit harder, but the inner workings of the Middle East between 1500 and 650 B.C. wouldn't...

Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew here...

Regional mods would be great. Maybe the greatest value of more "obscure" civs would be for that kinda thing.

[Alexander I]

I'm biased towards Robert the Bruce.
He's famous, and I'm his descendant.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I
I'm biased towards Robert the Bruce.
He's famous, and I'm his descendant.

Well, it prolly doesn't matter in any case, as they'll almost certainly never add them. The best I think that can be hoped for is the Irish or a more insular orientated Celtic civ, which atm is almost simply the Gauls and is purely pre-Roman.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc

Well, it prolly doesn't matter in any case, as they'll almost certainly never add them. The best I think that can be hoped for is the Irish or a more insular orientated Celtic civ, which atm is almost simply the Gauls and is purely pre-Roman.

Well, the addition of Boudica adds the Britons to the mix, making them contemporary with the Romans. And personally, I'd have chosen Vercingetorix over Brennus anyway.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Well, the addition of Boudica adds the Britons to the mix, making them contemporary with the Romans. And personally, I'd have chosen Vercingetorix over Brennus anyway.

Adding a well-endowed southern British female leader late in the day is one thing, changing the Gaulish city list is another. The southern Britons were practically Gauls in any case, and there's no more connection between Gaels and Gauls/southern Britons than between Russians and Poles.

I happen to like Brennus (btw this name just means "king", and was prolly his title rather than his/their name) more than Vercingetorix, because Brennus represents independent aggressive Gauls, and Vercingetorix is famous, like Boudica, only for unsuccessfully "rebelling" against the Romans.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc

Adding a well-endowed southern British female leader late in the day is one thing, changing the Gaulish city list is another. The southern Britons were practically Gauls in any case, and there's no more connection between Gaels and Gauls/southern Britons than between Russians and Poles.

I happen to like Brennus (btw this name just means "king", and was prolly his title rather than his/their name) more than Vercingetorix, because Brennus represents independent aggressive Gauls, and Vercingetorix is famous, like Boudica, only for unsuccessfully "rebelling" against the Romans.

There's not just Gaulish cities in the list. There's Verulamium and Camulodunum and Isca, for example (though those all have Latinized names). I would've wished for more Briton towns, but oh well, I'll take what I can get.

Yes, Brennus is likely a title, possibly originally "Brenin." And there were two of them, at least two going by "Brennus" that were famous. IIRC, one sacked Rome, the other invaded Greece.

I still like Vercingetorix better, as we simply know more about him, and he's got a good personality for the game, cantankerous and independent.

But you're right, the "continental" Celts came to Britain much later than the earlier Gaelic Celts.