Expansion Pack Civs: One more thread... (Let's do this right)

[Colon™]

Locotus, it’s Ghanaians, citizens of Ghana, not Ghanese and certainly not Ghaians!

You can’t translate the Dutch “Ghanees” too literally.

Regarding the Turks, I don’t think the distinction between modern Turkey and the Ottoman, Empire matters a lot, because the most essential difference is the fact that the Ottoman dynasty has been removed.
In the previous civ editions they neglected such distinctions too, between royal and republican France for instance, or imperial and communist China.

You can just give those 7 points to the Mongols.

[Alantus]

Originally posted by Locutus

Alantus,
Maybe I'm just stupid but you could just give twice as many points to the Innuit and not vote for Eskimos at all...

I wanted to point out that many would think of them as the same thing, but there are many other complementary civs getting votes as well.

I'm strange, don't worry about me

Alantus

[Buck Birdseed]

Although I vaguely feel it should be "Ghanans", the CIA World Factbook has it down as Ghanaians.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gh.html

[Mercator]

20 Mongols
20 Spanish
20 Vikings
15 Inca
15 Maya
15 Arabs
14 Khmer
14 Koreans
10 Ottoman Turks
8 Mali/Songhai
4 Kushites/Nubians (overshadowed by Egyptians)
3 Olmec (predates Maya and Aztec civilizations)
2 Khwarizm (overshadowed by Mongols)

[Sava]

I'll keep it simple

1. Vikings: 20 points
2. Mongols: 20 points
3. Spanish: 20 points
4. Dutch: 15 points
5. Incas: 15 points
6. Mayans 15 points
7. Assyrians 15 points
8. Turks 10 points
9. Slavs 10 points
10. Hebrews 10 points
11. Carthaginians 5 points
12. Arabs 5 points

Some people have some really stupid choices up there. Australia? Australia is not a civilization. America isn't a civilization either, but that's in the game. I really think that Americans SHOULD NOT be in the game, but the game is primarily American, so I don't think that will happen.

This is what I think Civ 3 should have done, and this might be possible in an expansion.

Have a core group of civilizations based on timeline.
Egyptians, Chinese, Norse, Persians, Romans, Greeks, and Babylonians start out early in the game. Then, as the game progresses, there could be minor civilizations that would not be as powerful as the other major ones: Hittites, Sumerians, Magyars, Huns, etc.

Then have other civilizations spawn from the minor ones based upon the time period.

Third, you could have a system where colonies revolt and become seperate civilizations, i.e. Americans, Australians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians

That way the game would be random and different while still being relatively historically accurate.

Also, if you wanted to start out as the Americans, it would be similar to the accelerated start in Civ 2. You would start as the 13 colonies and would have to fight for your independence. If you think about it, that's how the Americans came to be. It would add a new twist to the game, and I think it would add more depth to the game. You're not just starting out in 4000 BC with a settlers unit anymore.

Give me some feedback.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Tomasz Wysocki
Where is Poland ? - The most martial and patriotic nationblue arial small

How's that experimental submarine working for you guys? You know, the one with the screen door?

lol

[Colon™]

Snapcase, thank you.

Locotus, HAH!

SoulAssassin, I think you better theorise about that in another thread, however interesting it is. I have done enough to clutter this thread, you don’t have to assist me in it.

[jsw363]

Locutus- Any possibility of a summary of where the civs are so far?

On the Ottoman/Turk issue. I think that the Ottomans represent a much more significant civ in terms of their role in world affairs. By voting for the Turks, you vote for a modern country which hasn't had any geopolitical importance in relation to the other civs. So my vote's for the Ottomans.

I also would like to see Phoenicia/Carthage in, but I don't know who to vote for. I don't want my vote to get split up from the majority and not have it "count".

Ottomans - 20
Dutch - 20
Portuguese - 20
Austria-Hungary or just Austria - 20
Brazil - 20
Inca - 20
Arabs - 20
Maya - 20

[lockstep]

In any case, there are more name issues like this (FE Ottoman/Turkish, Ethiopia/Axum, Carthage/Phoenicia, Austro-Hungarians/Hungarians/Magyar) and to avoid any trouble I treat every name as a seperate civ.

I also would like to see Phoenicia/Carthage in, but I don't know who to vote for.

Locutus, while it is questionable to reinterprete votes, somehing needs to be done about the Carthage/Phoenicia issue. (I don´t know how many voters view Carthage and Phoenicia as different civs, but the combined "C+P"-votes would make it into the top-ten of your list.)

[zeh]

Ok, here goes:

1.Spanish 20
2.Mongol 10
3.Viking 20
4.Turkish 5
5.Portugal 20
6.Brazil 20
7.Sioux 10
8.Mexican 10
9.Scots 20
10.Inca 10
11.South Africa 10
12.Assyrian 10
13.Dutch 5
14.Israelis 10
15.Vietnamese 10
16.Koreans 10

[Vlad Antlerkov]

I motion to have all of Carthage's and Phoenicia's votes be lumped together... After all, Carthage is just an offshoot of Phoenicia that got famous because it fought Rome. If the Phoenicians had decided to actually resist Alexander the Great (hire mercenaries, try to fight off the Greeks), and ol' Alex still beat them, they'd be at least as well known as Carthage is...

One problem, though- who would be the leader of the Phoenicians? Hannibal might be acceptable, though if anyone has other ideas...

[Gangerolf]

20 Vikings
20 Incas
20 Spanish
20 Arabs
10 Celts
10 Norwegians
10 Swedes
10 Danes
5 Dutch
5 Mongols
5 Portuguese
5 Phoenicians
5 Ethiopians
5 Turks
5 Finns
5 Sámi

[Locutus]

I know what you're all thinking: WTF is taking this guy so long to update the ranking? Well, contrary to some of you (or so it seems) I actually have a life and have to work to pay my phone bills and be able to be online in the first place, so I did some sleeping and working and other chores that are part of a 'normal' person's life (you should try it some time if you haven't, it can really be quite interesting )

BTW: OMG! I'm offline for a few hours and look what happened: the thread was topped, moved to a new forums, almost tripled in size and a news item was posted about it (Leave it up to Markos to make news items about (almost) all my threads )

Before I'm off to update the summary (judging at the sheer number of votes casted since the last update this could take me a couple of hours), I'll address one issue (others can be addressed later if needed). Everyone seems to agree that my policy of treating each name as a different civ is a bad idea. Since I'm a reasonable man so I'm willing to change this policy but only if you guys are willing to help me out a bit: which civs should be combined? Israeli/Hebrew, Ottoman/Turks and Phoenicia/Carthage (perhaps Kush/Nubia as well?) are easy but how about others? There's a couple of civs in that list of which I know very little so I have no idea if combining might be in order there (FE Eskimo/Innuit?, Hmong, Tunguz). And there's other problems as well: what do I do with Americans/Yankees/Confederates or Scandinavian/Danish/Viking? How about Polynesian vs Maori/Hawaiians or Native Americans vs Sioux/Hopi/etc? Merge those or keep them seperate?

[Colon™]

Locotus,
Well, I’m of the opinion that in the civ context, the Ottomans Empire and modern Turkey can be lumped together, since the previous civ games had plenty of similar cases. (China, France, Russia etc)

I guess the problem boils down once again what defines a civilisation, IRL and in civ context.

[redfox74]

Finnish 20
Polish 20
Serbs 20
Dutch 20
Turks 20
Hebrews 20
Polynesians 20
Eskimos 20