Which Civs should be added after PTW?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Australia WAS a prison colony. Maybe that's why they're so hot on kicking immigrants out of their country, exterminating the aborigonies, etc. Actually, Australia might be an interesting country to include... militaristic and industrious? There's only one so far... maybe militaristic and commercial?

hi ,

, not militaristic , they are definatly not , ....

commercial they are , ......

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

, not militaristic , they are definatly not , ....

commercial they are , ......

have a nice day

Um, to you, militaristic they are... they've been modernizing and beefing up their navy for the last 10 years, in an attempt to project their power in the South Region, and their talk, at least, is often warlike.

Then again, hey, any of you Australia experts feel free to criticize us... I'm just going off of what I've read in the news... I haven't read much about the history of Australia.

Although "militaristic" is the best fit for a bunch of former prisoners, wouldn't you say?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


Um, to you, militaristic they are... they've been modernizing and beefing up their navy for the last 10 years, in an attempt to project their power in the South Region, and their talk, at least, is often warlike.

Then again, hey, any of you Australia experts feel free to criticize us... I'm just going off of what I've read in the news... I haven't read much about the history of Australia.

Although "militaristic" is the best fit for a bunch of former prisoners, wouldn't you say?

hi ,

they really dont fit the profile , .....

as for the aus navy , well huh , they are still small , very small they have a large area and simpl dont have all the ships they realy need , they dont even have tank divisions , ...... so no a far cry from "militaristic" , .....

have a nice day

[Sparkle]

Hi, I would add definitely these

Israel (don´t understand why it isn´t in the Civ yet)

Slavs (better than just Polish because there are millions of slavs in the world, Ukraines, Serbs, Czechs... these deserve their place too).

Cuba (with Fidel Castro) yes they are ugly but they should be there too, they are famous and active

Eskimos (Inuit) because they are a popular and famous civ.

Byzantines because they were extremely powerful civ.

Maya or Inca (they were powerful too), but one of them should be enough

Portuguese or South America (Brazil...)

Normans (Normandy was not Scandinavia and it was powerful in medieval times. Norman army was very successful in the 1st crusade)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Sparkle... your ideas for new Civs cover a lot of ground, but I disagree with some of them for various reasons:

Normans: yes, these WERE "vikings". They are represented in the game by the "Scandanavians" and "English". Norman civilization outside of the context of England is not that compelling, though it was a swell invasion (Thanks, William!)

Between Portugal and Brazil, take Brazil. It's a huge country with the potential to be a superpower (not anytime soon, of course) and it would add another "Amer-Indian" civ. A winner!

Maya or Inca? Sure! But how about the Sioux? Just for old times' sake?

The Byzantines WERE powerful indeed, but their power or cultural contributions never rivaled Rome's... they were the "leftovers" from the Roman empire and their main contribution to the world was to provide a buffer between the Black Sea, Southeast Europe, and expanding Islam. Lots of good intrigue in Byzantium, but worth a whole Civ?

Eskimos or Inuit would be awesome! "Kayaker" as a UU?

Cuba!!! Their UU could be the cigar or the Son band! (I'm joking, of course. No offense meant to any Cubans around here)

I have to disagree with Slavs. They're just too diverse to lump into one group. After all, the English, French, Germans and Spanish are really just a cross-breed of "Scandanavians" and "Germans" anyways... why should they get their own Civs while Poland and Serbia are lumped together?

ISRAEL!!! ADD IT DAMMIT!!!

[Sparkle]

Yahweh Sabaoth

Why Sioux and not Apache? Leader Vinettou :-))

I think that Normandy was not located in England but in France and that´s a bit far from Scandinavia :-) And Normans in Italy were not insignificant, Roger I. united the separate city states...

One Slavonic nation is already separated in the Civ and that is Russia. Slavs are usually divided into western Slavs and eastern Slavs. These nations are quite similar. A Western Slavs civ would be best imho, with Belgrade, Zagreb, Laibach, Prague or Warsaw the capital.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Sparkle

Well, maybe I'm just warm on the Slavs. I find the nations of Serbia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bosnia, Greece, Lithuania, etc., too distinct to just lump into one group... especially if Incas and Maya are to be separate from Aztecs! I mean, after all, we do have a good deal more recorded history of Serbia, Hungary, et al, than we do of the Mayas, Incas, or Aztecs.

As for the Normans, true, they have had a very important role in history, but their rule in Northern France was less significant than their rule in Italy, which you correctly point out they unified (more or less), and in Britain, which they conquered, laying the foundation of "modern Britain".

But since we already have England, and we have the Romans, the most I could see would be a modern "Italian" Civ seperate of the Romans.

Perhaps a Papal State? That would be cool...

As for them being from Scandanavia, they are related to the scandanavians they swept from the North into Europe c. 900 AD (that era). I see the Normans as a passing phase, albeit an important passing phase.

Don't get me wrong though: I'd love to see a William I, Roger I, or what-his-name... "The Weasel" who caused so much trouble for Byzantium...

you got good ideas, though, keep 'em coming...

Has anyone given any thought to new African civs? I would like to see:

Yoruba
Ethiopia
Nubia
Mali
Sigilmasa
Almoravids
and best of all
BERBERS! For pete's sake! Great horsemen!

[Panag]

hi ,

there is one "civ" that we should not forget , the barb's , they should be able to take over cities , work land , etc , ...... (!)

have a nice barbarian day

[sabrewolf]

nubian and ethiopean have been proposed a few times.

however your definition of "slavs" is amusing ... hungarians, the baltic states (estonia, latvia, lithuania), greece and romania aren't slavs at all. some of them might have been under the control of the soviet union for a long period, but slavs? ....

but you're still right that another slavic civ beside the russians would be good. and you're right, that there are a lot of slavic countries (serbia, bosnia-hercegovina, croatia, slovenia, slovakia, czech republic, poland, bulgaria, ukraine, white russia (belarus), moldavia and some other smaller former-soviet countries i forgot in this list)

[sabrewolf]

otherwise
- polynesians (instead of aboriginees or australian)
- inuit
- ethiopean
- inca (better than maya. the mayans didn't control a big are, just a small part of central america. the inca were far larger and start in a better place (peru). however, i like mayan temples more than any other sacred things in the world )
- maybe nigeria
- not cuba, but a "caribbean" civ would be cool. give 'em luxuries like tobacco & marihuana uniquely and they'll rule the world in peace )

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
nubian and ethiopean have been proposed a few times.

however your definition of "slavs" is amusing ... hungarians, the baltic states (estonia, latvia, lithuania), greece and romania aren't slavs at all. some of them might have been under the control of the soviet union for a long period, but slavs? ....

but you're still right that another slavic civ beside the russians would be good. and you're right, that there are a lot of slavic countries (serbia, bosnia-hercegovina, croatia, slovenia, slovakia, czech republic, poland, bulgaria, ukraine, white russia (belarus), moldavia and some other smaller former-soviet countries i forgot in this list)

Hate to break the news to you, but Greece is overwhelmingly slavic. The slavic migration to Greece occurred in the mid 2nd millenium. As for the Baltic states, yes, I suppose those are mixed Slavic-Germanic. And as for Romania, I plead ignorance: I have always assumed as they are surrounded by Slavs that the Romanians are themselves slavic.

But as for the "Greeks" the ancient Greeks that are depicted in Civ have gone the way of... well... the ancient Romans! I.e., they have assimilated utterly. Thus, while Greece is distinct from Russia, it has perhaps more in common with Russia ETHNICALLY than it does with Italy... which was certainly not the case in the ancient world.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

one thing I forgot, too: Greece has been slavic much longer than the Soviet Union was ever around, and Greece was never a soviet sattelite.

[South killer]

I think this civs shuld be included:

--Tibet--
UU: Tibetan Monk
--Incas--
UU: Llama rider
And we need more latin american civs:
--Brazil--
UU: ???
--Mexico--
UU: Mariachi ???
--Argentina--
UU:Gaucho

What do you think?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by South killer

--Argentina--
UU:Gaucho

What do you think?

That would be appropriate for a Steely Dan civ, but I'm not sure about Argentina.

[Sparkle]

Yahweh Sabaoth

the Norman warriors who did so much harm to the Byzantines was Robert Guiscard and his son Bohemond de Tarente. Bohemond then conquered Antioch and for a short period before he wes slaughtered by Egyptians, he was ruler of Jerusalem. Not an unsignificant historical figure, could make a good leader :-)