{The List} Civilizations

civilleader · December 30, 2003, 22:53

the nations I want to see in Civ 4

It should be set at 60 nations max
The more the civs the better. I tried to put them all around the globe yet focus on those that were important.

For American culture groups:

USA
Iroquois
Sioux/ Lakota
Mayas
Aztecs
Incas
Nazca
Inuit
Utes

For West European culture groups:
UK
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Vikings
Sweden
Ireland (maybe)

For eastern Europe:
Russia
Poland
Austria (since they had alot of slavs)
hate to say it but I really don't want Byzantium again, they are Greeks in the location where the ottomans need to be

For Mediterranean culture groups:
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt

For Neareast culture groups:
Arabs
Turkey
Persia
Israel
Numbia
Babylon
Assyria
Sumeria
Hittite

For south/Southeast Asian/ Hindu culture groups
India

Harappa
Khemer
Indonesia/ Majaphit empire
Thailand
Champa

For Far East Asia:
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
Tibet (or should this go with south asia?)
Dai Viet (Vietnamese civ)

For Oceania:
Polynesia
Maori
Aborigiese

For Africa:
Shonghai
Ashanti
Mali
Ethiopia
Zulu
Xhosa
Bantu or something from Kenya or Tanzania

Kuciwalker · December 30, 2003, 23:28

Israel.

joncha · December 31, 2003, 00:02

I'd favour more civs, so long as its not just a CtP style list of names that makes your eventual choice meaningless. With this in mind, it makes it easier (relatively) to choose which civs are included: not just did they play a role in the history of civilization (because which culture hasn't?) but can you give them a specialization that has some historical importance and add to game play in a unique way. In this sense, Civ3 and its sequals have done a good job in my book.

jon.

Q Classic · December 31, 2003, 01:20

the first thing period should be: every civ in civ3+ptw+conquests should carry over.

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2003, 01:57

Definately. Start there, then build up.

As a side note, there shouldn't be a hardcoded max number of civs - just say "over this number, we don't support whatever happens".

EnduringBlue · January 2, 2004, 00:26

You could add another parameter or two to what civ-specific traits were available for the sixty civs. like an affinity for specific terrain types, or placement on different early tech trees.

all of the civs from civ 123etc should be a given. (lakota! definitely!)

And if there is going to be an Israel civ (which I don't think would be appropriate because ancient Israel just wasn't effective as a nation and would lead to inappropriate religious overtones to the game)

but if it were to be included then the mandate for including other civs which were not dominant or don't rule their own territory would be opened. How about a Kurd, Basque, or Rom civ?

Firaxis could also sell an el cheapo expansion pack each year with a few more civs on each one, and eventually just have players pick from a huge menu as many as they'd like. Andorra? Tuvalu? Belize? Any nation could eventually be a possibility.

Dauphin · January 2, 2004, 00:55

Quote:

Originally posted by civilleader
the nations I want to see in Civ 4

For West European culture groups:
UK

Please NO! English good, British bad. Mixing nomenclature a la Civ3 is even worse.

Tassadar500 · January 2, 2004, 01:28

Are you assuming there will not be any animated leaderheads for the Civilizations? It would take a HUGE amount of time to make the leaderheads for all the new civilizations that you have added. And in my mind they could be doing more important things than this. Plus some of the civs you mentioned would be very hard to find a UU, ML's, SL's, traits, and a leaderhead for. I suggest a more cut down version of the list you mention:

Quote:

Americas
America
Iroquois
Sioux*
Mayans
Aztecs
Incas
Inuit*

Western Europe
England
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Vikings
Sweden*
Ireland*
Italy*
Celts

Eastern Europe
Russia
Poland*
Austria*

Mediterranean
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt
Byzantine

Africa
Ashanti*
Mali*
Ethiopia*
Zulu
Bantu/Kenya/Tanzania*

Middle East
Arabia
Ottoman Empire
Persia
Israel*
Babylon
Sumeria
Hittite

South Asia
India
Khmer*
Indonesia*
Thailand*

Far East Asia
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
Tibet*
Vietnam*

Oceania
Polynesia*
Maori*

*All Civilizations marked with a * are new civilizations not already in Civ3, PTW, C3C.

I only added one civilization I thought should be included; Italy. Otherwise I added all of the C3C civ's left out and now there are only 19 new civilizations compared to the old list submitted by civilleader that had 29 new civilizations. And IMHO this is quite a good list of new civilizations that could still be shortened if neccessary.

Kuciwalker · January 2, 2004, 07:21

Italy and Rome?

Plotinus · January 2, 2004, 08:35

[skywalker] Well, Italy and Rome are totally different civilisations that happen to be in the same place - like Babylon/Sumeria, or Greece/Byzantium/Ottomans, or Iroquois/US etc...

I note that no-one seems to think the Latin American countries worthy of civ status. If the US is a civ, then what about Brazil or Argentina? The biggest city in the world today is owned by a civ that hasn't made the list - Mexico.

In my view, Tibet would be nice, but the biggest omissions are African. Ethiopia should definitely be in, as should Mali (or Ghana, or Songhai).

Not sure about the Australian Aborigines. Were they really a *civilisation*? I'd have thought that the definition of a civilisation - at least from the point of view of this game - involves some degree of urbanisation.

This is still a huge list though. I'd like it if all these different civilisations were as different as the ones we have in Civ3 - with different leaderheads, traits, and UUs - but there wouldn't be much point if the only differences were in the names, like in the original Civ.

Kuciwalker · January 2, 2004, 10:22

Quote:

Well, Italy and Rome are totally different civilisations that happen to be in the same place - like Babylon/Sumeria, or Greece/Byzantium/Ottomans, or Iroquois/US etc...

First, Sumeria and Babylon aren't in the same place

. Second, Greece is not in the same place as Byzantium and the Ottomans, and I disagree with having both of those too (though they do have the redeeming value of being completely different civilizations). There's no point in adding Italy when Italy is basically the successor to Rome (their capital even has the same frigging name; at least the Ottomans changed it).

Quote:

I note that no-one seems to think the Latin American countries worthy of civ status. If the US is a civ, then what about Brazil or Argentina? The biggest city in the world today is owned by a civ that hasn't made the list - Mexico.

Because the US, unlike Latin America, has been important to world history, maybe?

Quote:

Not sure about the Australian Aborigines. Were they really a *civilisation*? I'd have thought that the definition of a civilisation - at least from the point of view of this game - involves some degree of urbanisation.

Barbarians.

Eli · January 2, 2004, 11:13

(i'm slightly deviating into the traits issue here)

I think there should be a (very) long list of civilizations to choose from, each with a lot of distinctive but superficial fluff around them. Basically, everything that can be done to make a civ look different from others while investing minimal resources should be done. So animated leaderheads are out, but stuff like long city lists, historical leader lists and constantly changing leaders, maybe some small historical events like in EU that bring minor bonuses and penalties, etc, etc. But the civs shouldnt have any preset traits.

There should be a combination of *small*, relatively unimportant benefits that the player can choose when the game starts and the major traits which should be mainly a function of starting terrain and maybe slightly influenced by events in the first, say, 1000 years of the game.

This way civs will both have a distinct feeling in them, but we wont have to constantly play with the same Industrial Persians, Religious Egyptians or Militaristic Germans.

Kuciwalker · January 2, 2004, 13:14

In CtP(2), despite different city lists, every civ "felt" the same. If you go back to that, they will still feel the same. You have to give various civs bonuses. If the only differences are in the names, then you might as well play a Banana civ.

Traits and UU's add enormous strategic depth to the game.

Brent · January 2, 2004, 22:37

I want 200 Civs to choose from, 20 maximum for one map.

American

USA
Inuit
Sioux
Iroquois
Hopewell
Mississippian
Anasazi
Aztec
Olmec
Maya
Inca
Latin

Europe

Portugal
Spain
Basque
France
Dutch
Germany
English
Scandinavia
Goths
Celts
Rome
Russia
Austria
Greece

Africa

Carthage
Egypt
Ethiopia
Zulu

Near East

Egypt
Israel
Moab
Canaan
Arabia
Hittites
Phoenicians
Assyria
Babylon
Sumer
Persia
Kurdistan
Crete
Ammon
Midian
Troy

Central Asia

Turkey
Turkmenistan
Mongolia
India

Far East

Tibet
Tocharia
China
Korea
Japan
Ainu
Java

Oceania

Australian Aborigines
Maori
Hawaii

General

To me the most important reason for more civs is to have thew designers pregenerate names for the cities. Different abilities are not so important to me, and maybe if we do get 200 civs we should do away with abilities. If there aren't 200 pregenerated civs, at least makke it easy to store that many and use them conveniently, and if there are 200, have space for 100 custom ones.

The slots that I didn't fill should concentrate on The Middle East, Europe, America, and Polynesia in that order. Every civ in the main games of Civ2 and Civ3 should be in, as well as in the PtW and C3C main games. Give extra consideration for civsa from the Conquests, and give some consideration to those of the Civ2 MGE scenarios that took place in the real world.

If the Civs do have special abilities, I would say have 12 to choose from and allow individual civs to have three slots, with the possibility of one ability to fill two of them. I have no problem whatsoever with more than one civ having the exact same abilities.

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2004, 01:09

You forget UU's.

With that many civs, the distinction between civs becomes pretty small. A HUGE componenent of the strategic depth of C3 is that each civ is pretty much unique, even though some may have the same stats. Having lots of civs distinguished almost solely by name is pointless.

Brent · January 3, 2004, 01:48

I like to play as and against civs that are part of my heritage, in civ2 and civ3 that would be America, England, Germany, and Scandinavia. It would be nice to be able to play Swiss, separate Norwegians, Swedes and Danes, possibly Angles, Saxons, Goths and Jutes, and Israelites. There are also other obscure civs I like to play as and against, such as Native American ones. Why force us to use the editor?

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2004, 02:02

Because in implementing a system like you are proposing, you lose an enormous amount of the strategic depth of the game. Why bother putting in fifty redundant civs?

POTUS · January 3, 2004, 04:04

Have 50 slightly different civs, say that they have different special units, but the same traits, or visa versa.

Fosse · January 3, 2004, 10:20

More Civs are one thing that everybody always asks for... except skywalker.

Frankly, if there are dozens and dozens of Civs, then I'm not concerned if some are just like others. I can pick a group of Civs out for their strategic pros and cons, and then select among that group for less tangible reasons.

I remember in CtP 1 (never played 2) that having lots of Civs was nice, but at the same time they had a lot of lame civs, in my opinion.

What I would like to see in Civ 4 are a greater spread of Civ traits and their effects (even degrees... a little agricultural or a lot?), and a huge number of Civs that I think are "cool" and "deserve" to be in. Any ancient Civilization that we know about should be in, no matter how minor they wound up being. Those Civs deserve a place long before America, anyhow.

We are, of course, begging the question of whether or not traits and unique units will be in, but being that those were an overall popular addition I would expect them back.

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2004, 11:48

Quote:

More Civs are one thing that everybody always asks for... except skywalker.

I'd love more civs... if they were distinct and not just complete clones of other civs. Unfortunately, C3C is coming close to the limit for that, so more civs isn't really POSSIBLE without sacrificing strategy.

Sandman · January 3, 2004, 12:01

I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO. So long as they give you an option to switch them off.

I don't care about 200+ civs either. Hell, I wouldn't mind it if it was only ancient civs. But I suppose we'll see Irish, Venetian, South African, Jamaican, Burgundian, Quebecois, Jacobite, Ukrainian, Omani, Pakistani, Taiwanese, Californian and Glaswegian civs. Goody.

Tassadar500 · January 3, 2004, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO. So long as they give you an option to switch them off.

I don't care about 200+ civs either. Hell, I wouldn't mind it if it was only ancient civs. But I suppose we'll see Irish, Venetian, South African, Jamaican, Burgundian, Quebecois, Jacobite, Ukrainian, Omani, Pakistani, Taiwanese, Californian and Glaswegian civs. Goody.

DarkCloud · January 3, 2004, 14:44

um civii leader: this is the official civilizations thread...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103821

I'll be glad to sum up your ideas in it- but your choice of a {The List} marker misleads people to think that this is the official thread- could you please NOT start any threads with that title... that title is for OFFICIAL threads... thanks

If you want to sign up for a threadmastership, you have to sign up in Asmodean's thread about the List Organization.

Thank you