Which Civs should be added after PTW?

[Centauri18]

I think that would be cool. Playing as the Inuit, conquering America...

[sabrewolf]

whoever conquers the cold, deserves to conquer the world

UUs:
- kayak
- raindeer warrior (replaces horseman, ignores tundra movement penalty)

unique building:
ice palace, every enemy loses 1HP due to the cold

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Wow, this just gave me a great idea that seems revolutionary to me but has probably been thought of a hundred different times.

What if the different Civs were able to profit from different terrain in a unique way?

For example (to use current civs), Scandanavia could get an extra food point from tundra... Babylonians and Egyptians could get one shield from flood plain... etc... any thoughts?

Japanese could create "yummy food" from fish resources...

[sabrewolf]

yeah, that would be great
i've got more ideas (some not so serious ))

inca get 1 food from mountains, 2 from hills.

yankistan has a special McD-resource around every big city. i spreads over the world and helps culture flips

for skandinavians the whale counts as luxury resource (uhm, how to connect it? )

russians get to build camps on tundra (siberia) which produce 2 shields.

in the modern days, snowcovered mountains generate extra commerce (ski/snowboard), etc.

[Panag]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
yeah, that would be great
i've got more ideas (some not so serious ))

inca get 1 food from mountains, 2 from hills.

yankistan has a special McD-resource around every big city. i spreads over the world and helps culture flips

for skandinavians the whale counts as luxury resource (uhm, how to connect it? )

russians get to build camps on tundra (siberia) which produce 2 shields.

in the modern days, snowcovered mountains generate extra commerce (ski/snowboard), etc.

hi ,

the idea itself is great ; giving the option to set terrain values for each civ

Firaxis , ...

imagine those options , ......

we should also be able to edit settlers who build cities , for example , dont settle on tundra , when settler builds on desert he only gets one shield , when settler builds on forest three shields , etc , ......

have a nice day

[Centauri18]

Now this is a cool idea, unique advantages to each civ. Which means you could set the world settings based on your unique advantage or something.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Absolutely. Think about it... it would change everyone's strategy and approach towards the game (well, a lot of people anyways)!

I, for example, am accustomed to playing as the Chinese, and almost never play as the - in my opinion worthless - Russians. However, if the Russians got, say, an extra shield for hills, I'd be tempted to play as them every time!

Here would be my (initial) humble suggestions for the advantages for each currently existing civ (only 1 for each civ):

China = +1 food from terrain near rivers
Japan = +1 food from coastal/sea squares
India = +1 food/trade from jungles
Mongols = 1 food from desert
Korea = I don't know... +1 shield from hills?
Persia = 1 food for mountains/+1 food for hills
Babylon = 1 shield for flood plains
Ottomans = +1 trade to hills/mountains
Egyptians = 1 shield for flood plains
Arabs = 1 food for desert
Zulus = +2 food from jungle
Carthaginians = +1 trade from coastal/sea squares
Greeks = +1 trade from hills
Romans = +1 trade from hills
Germans = +1 food/trade from forests
Celts = +1 food/trade from hills
French = +1 trade from terrain near rivers
English = +1 food from plains/grassland
Scandanvians = 1 food tundra, +1 from coastal squares?
Russians = +1 food from forests, +1 shield for plains
Spanish = +1 food from plains, +1 trade from mountains
Americans = +1 food from grassland
Iroquois = +1 trade from rivers/inland lakes
Aztecs = 1 food from mountains

Maybe these aren't very well balanced... this is just spur-of-the-moment ideas... thoughts?

[sabrewolf]

but that could be a problem in the game if every tile of a certain type gives more food. (early) growth wouldn't be a problem anymore.

and +1 trade isn't worth as much as +1 food.

but it's still worth a serious thought by firaxis

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yeah, well, my suggestions were not very well thought out... just to show an idea of what I was talking about...

But definitely, if this is incorporated into a future Civ, I want it entitled "Yahweh Sabaoth's Civizilization" and 51% copyright...

On another topic, though, I would disagree with you about the +1 food being more valuable than +1 trade... I would take the other way around any day... I don't need more citizens, filling my empire with their discontent. More profit for me, thanks. But, different strokes for different folks!

[sabrewolf]

on higher levels the game is often decided in the early stage.
if you start off with 2 extra food or 3 makes a difference of 3 turns before your city grows. then, after growing you'll have 4 more food instead of 2 --> 5 moves faster.
so in the end you'll use 12 turns for growing instead of 20... nearly double as fast.

now imagine if you have 2 tiles with wheat and cattle... you'll grow and a terrific rate (and you can whip even more...)

however, in later stages, when you've got irrigation bonus (past despotism) and later even railroad, the food bonus isn't that important any more. (but still: you can support gigantic cities without starving which are great for milking the score...

[Centauri18]

Speaking of irrigation, we need farmland again, in mmy opinion.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Centauri18
Speaking of irrigation, we need farmland again, in mmy opinion.

Hear hear!

To reflect modern culture, there should be a third improvement - unrotated crops - that can be developed in one turn, yield a high food output for several turns, and then turn grassland into plains, plains into desert, etc.

[sabrewolf]

now it's getting very near to real life

in that case cleared jungles shouldn't reveal nice grassland, but not very fertile land. in reality, the fertile earth in a jungle is only several inches to feet deep, while in other parts the humus layer goes down several metres. that's why former jungle areas suffer so much erosion...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hmmm, just tried to post something here... don't know if it worked, forgive me if this is a duplicate post.

ANYHOW, it would be great to be able to dam rivers to divert them! This is major issue of contention throughout the world today. Water is supposed to be the "new oil" in terms of conflicts in about 30 years.

Diverted rivers could eventually start wars, as their old basins dry out...

ps: Sabrewolf, it's great to find somebody here who knows about modern industrialized agriculture's screwed-up practices...

[sabrewolf]

i don't know much about it, i just remember it from geography lessons several years ago (wow, i think already 8 years, how time flies ).

as industrial civs i quite like planting a city in the jungle because after clearing it away you've got gigantic cities with a lot of food (but not much production). it's great for producing workers and settlers

[XarXo]

Oh, please, the Crown of Aragon!!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't know much about it, i just remember it from geography lessons several years ago (wow, i think already 8 years, how time flies ).

as industrial civs i quite like planting a city in the jungle because after clearing it away you've got gigantic cities with a lot of food (but not much production). it's great for producing workers and settlers

Ugh, I hate the jungle.

Hey, whatever happened to "swamp" anyways? I guess we have flood plain now, that's cooler...

[sabrewolf]

true, they forgot florida
luxury resource: crocodiles

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

How about mosquitos? Huge snakes? Come on, it's primo land.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Centauri18
Speaking of irrigation, we need farmland again, in mmy opinion.

hi ,



, it would be intresting to see a trait that gives some civ's more food on certain terrains then others , .....

if we bring farming back in we have to reset the current food value on the terrains or we end up with cities size 75 , ......

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I think maybe we should start a whole new thread just to talk about the potential of "unique terrain bonuses for individual civs".

Anyone agree?

[Aias]

Poland, Israel, Australia, Canada

[XarXo]

An easy answer for an easy question: Incas, Polynese, Thai, Khmer, Ethiopia and Ghana.

Optional: Israel, Portugal, Netherlands, Magyar and Lithuania/Poland.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Wow, you make it sound so easy. You should join the State Department, or a think tank.

I think those are good, except I would ditch the incas and go with some modern Latin states (such as Brazil, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, or Argentina)

[XarXo]

Including Spain and Portugal seems by far enough.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

No way. Spain is very different than Columbia, and Portugal is VERY different than Brazil.

[XarXo]

Indonesia is very different from Malaysia too, and by far more habitated, big, old, culturally interesting, rich...

Why they aren't in the game? Because the aren't civs. They are states that contains some cultures and history, but doesn't had an important position in the Test of Time, and this is the requirement for become a civ: A large empire (Rome) or a large explosion of wars (Mongols).

If you say that they should be in the game for full Americas, better put Aymarás, Chibchas, Karib, Arawak, Waraní, Arawkan, Maya...

Only Brasil, almost for me, has some civvish smelling. Iroquois? Not a civ for me.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Both Indonesia and Malaysia have been "civs" throughout history. From a Southeast Asian or Latin American point of view, what's the big difference between England, France, Germany and Spain? It's all a bunch of basically white people with the same sort of language and a history deeply rooted in Christianity and racism.

Though perhaps "Javanese" should be used instead of "Indonesian," SOMETHING should be used...

Look at those Europeans. Sure, they conquered a bunch of stuff, but they're all basically derived from the same groups of people whom the ancient Romans (for some odd reason considered the most civilized people, along with the Greeks, ever, even though they lingered behind the East in almost every measure of both culture and conquest) called "barbarians". Goths, Angles, Saxons, etc. These people, along with some Vikings, went on to become Normans, Franks, etc., and eventually, British, French, and Spanish. Don't forget that "Germany" is younger than the United States of America.

Why not add Brazil, Columbia, Venezeula, etc.? Their culture is quite unique. Their music, food, and dress is distinctive. So they haven't conquered yet. They could, if and when they "get their act together". A united Latin America could be one of the most powerful empires of man's history!

What did the Celts leave behind, besides a bunch of bronzeware?

[XarXo]

Uh oh, another "put my country here" thread...

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have been "civs" throughout history.

When? Indonesia was a colony that when reached independence it became what is now. I only remember Brunei as an old and independent country in this area.

Indonesia is probably becoming a civ, but large territory doesn't create one (look Kazajstan, and this one is more civvish-smelling than Indonesia, almost for me).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth From a Southeast Asian or Latin American point of view, what's the big difference between England, France, Germany and Spain? It's all a bunch of basically white people with the same sort of language and a history deeply rooted in Christianity and racism.

I see some "hidden" ideas here, well...

Iberians is not at all the same as germanic or frank-burgundians. Iberians is a mix of people that come from Sahara (that one was drying) and mixed with basques-aquitanes and other tribes. They became a bunch of ancient and small states, then rome come and invaded them. "Spain" became a civ when it conquered large territories and expanded the castillian culture. Germany is a mix of people from the actual germany plus denmark plus western poland (they stayed here before polish). In these times, hair, skin, langauge and all was really different, when Rome come everyone mixed (remember: Racism is only an excuse for people that doesn't recognize the truth that mutimixing is better for reforce genetically humans, and this knowledge is pretty old if we see that humans mixed dogs, cats, horses and whatever for "perfectionate" them).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Though perhaps "Javanese" should be used instead of "Indonesian," SOMETHING should be used...

Indonesia has about 160 languages. Irian Jaia is more Papua New Guinea than Indonesia. Is just another mix-and-match state, like Centroafrican republic.

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Look at those Europeans. Sure, they conquered a bunch of stuff, but they're all basically derived from the same groups of people whom the ancient Romans (for some odd reason considered the most civilized people, along with the Greeks, ever, even though they lingered behind the East in almost every measure of both culture and conquest) called "barbarians". Goths, Angles, Saxons, etc. These people, along with some Vikings, went on to become Normans, Franks, etc., and eventually, British, French, and Spanish. Don't forget that "Germany" is younger than the United States of America.

At all. Romans are the mix of a pseudonordic-alipinian tribe (etruscans) plus northern african-greek tribes creating in the center the main area (lazio).

As I said in another thread, in 100~500 years probably we will see Civs in South America (this is, creating large empires and everything...).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Why not add Brazil, Columbia, Venezeula, etc.? Their culture is quite unique. Their music, food, and dress is distinctive. So they haven't conquered yet. They could, if and when they "get their act together". A united Latin America could be one of the most powerful empires of man's history!

What did the Celts leave behind, besides a bunch of bronzeware?

Celts? What about control all europe but south area by 300~400 years?

In "Latinos" countries I only see the mix of the native cultures (the one that I defend and I think that must be restored) in front of typical local iberian culture that have been enlarged. For example, in the spanish state there are about 5000~7000 different dancings, each small town has their own dance with their celebrations and parties, food...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by XarXo
Uh oh, another "put my country here" thread...

Roll your eyes all you want. I'm not demanding that my country, Ireland, be put in Civ. I wouldn't be that interesting in playing as Ireland.

When? Indonesia was a colony that when reached independence it became what is now. I only remember Brunei as an old and independent country in this area.

Indonesia is probably becoming a civ, but large territory doesn't create one (look Kazajstan, and this one is more civvish-smelling than Indonesia, almost for me).

If not Kazahkstan, then perhaps Turkmenistan or Tranoxiana should be represented in Civ, to represent the Western Turks, in my opinion. Indonesia should be represented, or polynesia. The mixture of Bhuddism, Islam and Hinduism here, along with ancient animist beliefs, place-names, etc., is unique enough to warrant inclusion in civ.

I see some "hidden" ideas here, well...

???

Iberians is not at all the same as germanic or frank-burgundians. Iberians is a mix of people that come from Sahara (that one was drying) and mixed with basques-aquitanes and other tribes. They became a bunch of ancient and small states, then rome come and invaded them. "Spain" became a civ when it conquered large territories and expanded the castillian culture. Germany is a mix of people from the actual germany plus denmark plus western poland (they stayed here before polish). In these times, hair, skin, langauge and all was really different, when Rome come everyone mixed (remember: Racism is only an excuse for people that doesn't recognize the truth that mutimixing is better for reforce genetically humans, and this knowledge is pretty old if we see that humans mixed dogs, cats, horses and whatever for "perfectionate" them).

By this reasoning, the Indonesians should definitely be included, along with most of the modern Latin states. Spain isn't just Germans; it's a mixture of all the groups above you mention, now with a national identity. I'd hardly argue that the El Salvadorans see themselves as Guatemalans, despite the fact that they are of a similar "mix" in terms of ethnicity, religion, and culture. They are distinct now, even though they derive from a mix.

If you think the Spanish are worth including due to their rich mixed heritage, then why not other "hybrid" cultures?

Indonesia has about 160 languages. Irian Jaia is more Papua New Guinea than Indonesia. Is just another mix-and-match state, like Centroafrican republic.

Furthermore, I point to Spain's numerous separatist movements as proof that non-monolithic cultures already have been included in Civ. If Spain's ok, why not the Congo? Nigeria? You name it.

At all. Romans are the mix of a pseudonordic-alipinian tribe (etruscans) plus northern african-greek tribes creating in the center the main area (lazio).

As I said in another thread, in 100~500 years probably we will see Civs in South America (this is, creating large empires and everything...).

I'm not sure about that. But their cultural contributions to the world already surpass those of the Celts and Mongols.

Celts? What about control all europe but south area by 300~400 years?

And what about the fact that the Celts were themselves divided and not united by any one king, leader, etc? If "rule" over an area is to be the basis of the game, then should the Celts even be included? They certainly did not constitute a "nation" in the modern sense... they didn't even build cities, just settlements and encampments.

In "Latinos" countries I only see the mix of the native cultures (the one that I defend and I think that must be restored) in front of typical local iberian culture that have been enlarged. For example, in the spanish state there are about 5000~7000 different dancings, each small town has their own dance with their celebrations and parties, food...

It seems like you are very fond of Spain, and perhaps from good reason. Spain's culture certainly is fascinating. Still, it is not superior, from an outsider's view, to many Latin American cultures, and it is quite distinct, including in cuisine and pronunciation of language. Perhaps you are Spanish, and hence your denigration of Latin America. But it is unwarranted and unfair.

I am a white American, and I do not assume my country's culture is superior to any other. But many have made this claim. Were I a Jew, could I rightfully claim that Israel possessed the greatest culture on Earth?

Inclusion within Civ should be on the basis that a group has influenced history notably. All the civs in the game have done this, and on this basis, Mexico, Cuba, Columbia, the Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., should be added.

If we can't add them all, that's certainly understandable. But to include long-dead cultures in the game and deny the contributions of living cultures to history being made is folly.