Probably been done a bajillion times before but...new civs in xpac/civ4?

[HuntrIsGod74831]

What new civs should be in an xpac/civ4? personally, i vote for:

Spanish
Assyrians
Britain (I'm not too good with world history, but...aren't England, Britain, and United Kingdom the same thing? if so, then disregard this stupid comment )

and probly more that i cant think of now

[Ming]

And was there a specific reason why you needed to include all the smiles at the end of your post

I wouldn't recommend doing that many more times

[Spec]

Re: Probably been done a bajillion times before but...new civs in xpac/civ4?

Originally posted by HuntrIsGod74831
...and so on....

Ahhhhh newbies.


Anyway yes there are.

Spanish, Mongoles, Colts, Inuits, Turqus and Vickings.


Spec.

[PsionicMind]

Isnt the Civ3-Civilizations forum all about what civilizations to include in an expansion pack? Check out there for all sorts of discussions/debates

[HuntrIsGod74831]

umm...dude, im not a newbie, and your spelling leaves something to be desired. It would be

Spanish, Mongols, Celts, Inuits, Turks and Vikings.

as opposed to

Spanish, Mongoles, Colts, Inuits, Turqus and Vickings.

[Spec]

Originally posted by HuntrIsGod74831
umm...dude, im not a newbie, and your spelling leaves something to be desired. It would be

Spanish, Mongols, Celts, Inuits, Turks and Vikings.

as opposed to

Spanish, Mongoles, Colts, Inuits, Turqus and Vickings.

Ooooooo. I see that you're insulted. I'm sorry I thought that 16 post was still newbie but you know......my mistake.

Oh, and I'm also sorry that english is not my first language. Thank you for correcting my stupid stupid miss-spellings...

As long as you get my point you crazed smiley dude you.

Spec.

[molly bloom]

Re: Probably been done a bajillion times before but...new civs in xpac/civ4?

Originally posted by HuntrIsGod74831

Britain (I'm not too good with world history, but...aren't England, Britain, and United Kingdom the same thing? if so, then disregard this stupid comment )

This is a very important distinction that the game-makers chose to ignore, or fudge; England is that part of the United Kingdom defined by the old kingdom of Cornwall and the Anglo-Saxon state formed out of the Heptarchy of the Germanic invaders. Britain/British refers to England and Wales and Scotland too (as part of Great Britain), and the United Kingdom was formed out of the kingdoms of Ireland, England and Scotland, and the principality of Wales.

However- James VI and I was the first to refer to a 'Great Britain' meaning the state formed out of his ascent to the throne in England on the death of Elizabeth I and his occupation of the throne of Scotland following the exile and death of his mother, Mary. True union with Scotland did not occur until 1707, and then from 1707 until 1800, the political entity thus formed was known as the united Kingdom of Great Britain. From 1801, the state was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and from 1922 onwards, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There was also the Commonwealth and Free State of England, Wales and Ireland, which lasted from 1649-1654, which was succeeded by the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Ireland, upon the destruction of the Covenanters in Scotland, which was also known as the 'First British Republic.'

To confuse matters further, the Saxon Aelle of Sussex (died 491) is the first to refer to himself as 'bretwalda' meaning the primus inter pares of the Germanic rulers (basically, king of the Britons, or Britain) and Offa (died 796), ruler of Mercia, is the first to refer to himself as 'rex anglorum'- king of the English.

Anyway- English is not synonymous with British- that's the main thing.

[Beren]

Mongols, Koreans, Thai, Khmer, Javans, Medians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Turks, Hittites, Lydians, Phrygians, Spartans, Atticans, Macedonians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Arabs, Crusaders, Hebrews, Byzantines, Huns, Yugoslavs, Polish, Czech, Swedish, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Zairian, South Africans, Angolans, Cubans, Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mayans, Incas, Olmecs, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Sioux, Cheyenne and everything else they can come up with.

[Ribannah]

We already had a democratic vote on the subject, the result is in one of the topped threads.

Arabia, Ethiopia, Tiahuanaco, the Dutch and the Maya are some of my favourites.

[siredgar]

The Scots, Welsh, and Irish were all CONQUERED by the ENGLISH and that is why their identity is so important to them. Thus, it is not a true union. The "British" are not like the "Americans" in that sense.

[Constantine]

The Cherokee were an advanced tribe in America and would be a nice addition. The goths (Ostro or Visi) would also be good. An Austrian civ would be good, but tough to elaborate with cities unless the entire Austro-Hungarian empire is included. Nubians would be a great addition to Africa, maybe the Berbers as well.

[dunk]

Yes. Any civ is a good addition.

[siredgar]

LOL.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Constantine
Nubians would be a great addition to Africa, maybe the Berbers as well.

There should absolutely be more African civs. But why they ever chose Zulu...

[Constantine]

Ghana and Mali were once great african kingdoms, Africa needs to be filled up! The Americas too. Incas, Olmecs, Maya, Toltecs, Sioux, Cherokee, and Inuit should all be included...but won't.