8 new civs to appear in expansion pack

[monkspider]

Good to see you again Ribannah banana
In regards to the Sioux debate that's currently raging, I agree that the chances of a Sioux or Cherokee civilization appearing in the XP is very slim. It would be pretty interesting to see a Native American leader in full headdress greeting you at the diplomacy screen, but there is one big factor that makes them so unlikely. In the Civ of the Week section for the Iroquois, Firaxis comments that the Iroquois are to represent the entirety of north-american natives. So I doubt they will rescind that comment.
What do you all think of the viability of Spain being a mediterrenean civ as I discussed earlier? If that is true, it opens the way to a Dutch vs. Celtic battle for the last Euro spot.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ribannah
And my wishlist:
Arabia, Australia, Dutch, Ethiopia, Maya, Mongolia, Polynesia, Tiahuanaco.

Interesting choices. Tiahuanaco is a great pick. Wish I would've remembered it for my list.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by jasev
What about Mecca? It was the first arab Capital, and it was located on Arabia. And Damascus? The second arab Capital is today the Capital city of Siria. Arabs have no direct relation with Babylonians; they conquered the old babylonian cities and stablished their capital there a few centuries later. Arabs took a lot of Babylonian culture, even more than greek culture (through the conquest of a big part of the Byzantine empire) but the roots of the civilization are in Arabian peninsula.

And I think we've discussed about this topic a long time ago.
The arabs are one of the most important civilizations in the history of the world. Even more than (I think I'll regret this) spanish, mongols or french. Their conquests, their scientific advances, their cultural legacy, etc. makes them much more important than a lot of those civilizations nobody are argueing about now.
Babyloneans were an ancient civ that appeared between Tigris and Euphrates rivers and spread through the middle-east, reaching the eastern mediterranen coast.
The arabs were a middle-ages civ that appeared in the arabian peninsula (where the Babylonians never reached) and spread through the middle-east, conquering the ancient babylonean and Byzantine cities, and the sourthern mediterranean coasts, conquering northern Africa and almost all the Iberian Peninsula.

I think there are enough differences between them.

You are absolutely right about most of this. There is only one problem. There are no "Arabs" as we call them. There never has been an "Arab" nation or empire. The closest thing to this is Saudi Arabia. Even still, there is more tribal loyalty involved. Now the Turks did unite the largest part of the region with their Ottoman Empire, which is why I support their appearance in the game. I don't like the "Arabs" group because it is highly inaccurate. For instance, if in this Arab group you include cities from Damascus to Mecca to Baghdad, that would be like making the French cities Paris, Berlin, and Amsterdam.

Now I won't go complaining if the Arabs are in the expansion pack, but I just think that the Turks would be a better choice. Also, I find it highly unlikely that Firaxis would put both the Arabs and the Turks in the game. That is why I support the Turks over the Arabs. But if both civs are in it, that's fine by me. I can change a civ if I don't like it. It's just that darn leader art that I can't change.

[Dimorier Maximus]

My 8 civ wishlist:

1. Spaniards
2. Mongols
3. Vikings
4. Celts/Dutch (I don't know which one I'd like to see more)
5. Carthaginians
6. Turks
7. Incas
8. Koreans

[nato]

My prediction:

1. Arabians: biggest current omission IMHO
2. Mongols: I wish they wouldn't, but they will, covers Asia
3. Celts: Celtic stuff is popular, at least in the US
4. Vikings: they are popular and "kewl"
5. Incans: need an American, and they are only ones in south
6. Mali: need an African, could be Ethiopia
7. Hebrews: small by very loyal following
8. Spanish: big part in history

My wishlist:

1. Arabians: still the biggest current omission IMHO
2. Incans: unique
3. Argentina: odd I know, but I'd like a Latin American pick
4. Spain: big part in history
5. Vikings: even though I hate kewl, darn it, they are neat
6. Vietnamese: SE Asia, a little different from China and Japan
7. Phoenicians: someone from classical antiquity
8. "Mongols": see below

I would rather have the Mongols represented as unusually strong barbarians than a true civ. Like a dense cluster of barbarian encampmants, and a prolonged series of massive uprisings. Lots of Horsemen attacking, but no real civ. I think this is a closer representation of the Mongols than a normal civ. I know, this would require programming and would never happen.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

[Denday]

Come on just dont say the countries which deserve it add the UUs

[Grrr]

IMHO:

Spain,
the Inca,
Vikings,
Phoenicians,
Ethiopians (or someone to that nature),
Arabians,
Dutch,
Finnland.

So what new UUs should we expect?

[monkspider]

If we're going with my Spanish-Mediterranean list...
1. Spain (mediterranean) - Conquistador
2. Vikings (europe) Berzerker! (yeah!)
3. Mongols (asia) Horse Archer
4. Inca (america) Sun Warrior
5. Carthage (mediterranean) Hmm a phonecian trireme I suspect
6. Celts (europe) Hmm that's tough, an upgraded swordsman of some sort?
7. Korea (asia) Turtle Ship?
8. Arabs (middle-east) Camel Warrior

Other possible Civs
Turks- Jannisary
Isrealites- Slingman? upgraded modern armor?

[nato]

Those UUs work for me except I have a suggestion about the Vikings.

I read this book saying Vikings were basically a highly skilled early form of Marines! So how about giving Vikings the Marine ability to attack from ships?

Now I have to come up with an Argentine UU ... this could take a while...

[jasev]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
There are no "Arabs" as we call them. There never has been an "Arab" nation or empire.

What? What about the Ummayyads? They conquered an empire that extended from Persia to Hispania. It was a centralized empire, and the capital was in Damascus.

[monkspider]

well since we have discussed everything else, how about Civ specific traits?
Here's my guesses
1. Spain- religious, militaristic
2. Vikings- Commercial, Militaristic
3. Mongols militaristic, expansionist
4. Inca Industrious, scientific?
5. Carthage commercial, expansionist
6. Celts expansionist, commercial?
7. Korea scientific, industrious?
8. Arabs religious, militaristic

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by jasev
What? What about the Ummayyads? They conquered an empire that extended from Persia to Hispania. It was a centralized empire, and the capital was in Damascus.

The who? Yeah...that's kinda my point. Who the heck has ever heard of the Ummayyads? And in that case, why not call them the Ummayyads instead of the Arabs? The Arabs aren't a nation or empire. They are a race. Why don't we make a new civ called the Blacks? Or we could have one called the Whites.

[nato]

1. Spain- religious, militaristic
2. Vikings- Commercial, Militaristic
3. Mongols militaristic, expansionist
4. Inca Industrious, scientific?
5. Carthage commercial, expansionist
6. Celts expansionist, commercial?
7. Korea scientific, industrious?
8. Arabs religious, militaristic

Civ Specific traits, now thats fun! Good picks, I agree with most. My take...

1. Spain - Religious for sure. Militaristic is good, expansionistic might work though.
2. Vikings - Commercial all the way! That is most important. Militarstic is also good, better than for Spain IMHO.
3. Mongols - Could there be any question?
4. Inca - Industrious is a great choice because they had such a good road system, even over all those mountains. The only other thing I know about them is they had an interesting almost communist economy ... commercial maybe to reflect economy? Hard not to go religious with sun worshippers for some reason...
5. Carthage - Commercial for sure, expansionist ok I guess
6. Celts - Religious instead of commercial maybe?
7. Korea - Right on
8. Arabians - Religious all the way. I would definitely go with expansionist, and not militaristic. They expanded like crazy, but were not actually very great warriors. Commercial would be a great 3rd choice, and even scientific not far off.

About the Arab issue, I have been careful to say "Arabians" instead of Arabs just for the race reason, as someone pointed it out to me.

[siredgar]

My thoughts:

1. Spanish - religious, militaristic
2. Vikings - commercial, militaristic
3. Mongols - militaristic, expansionist
4. Inca - industrious, scientific
5. Carthaginians - commercial, expansionist
6. Koreans - scientific, religious
7. Turks - expansionist, commercial
8. Ethiopians - religious, commercial

[jasev]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
The who? Yeah...that's kinda my point. Who the heck has ever heard of the Ummayyads?

Everyone who studied a little of History.

And in that case, why not call them the Ummayyads instead of the Arabs?

The Ummayads were a Dinasty. Just like the Habsburgs of Austria.
Let's call Austria "Habsburgland", then. No, even better, let´s call France "Carolingesland", becuse Charlemagne belonged to Carolingean dinasty.

The Arabs aren't a nation or empire.

They WERE an empire. And I must say that it WAS a great empire.
They conquered Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Siria, Palestine, Israel, Armenia, Aegypt, Libia, Algerie, Morocco and almost all the Iberian Peninsula. They had a centralized government in Damascus and a big army. The Caliph, in Damascus, had the political and religious authority (just like roman emperors), and the provinces were under the authority of Caids (just like roman governors).