Make things much smoother.
Austria, with Maria Theresa
The Byzantium, with Theodora
Carthage, with Dido
The Celts, with Boudica
Ethiopia, with Haile Selassie
The Huns, with Attila
The Maya, with Pacal
The Netherlands, with Willem of Oranje
Sweden, with Gustav Adolphus
None; I am far too disheartened by the exlusion of another civ (such as the Zulu)
Make things much smoother.
Nations you don't have to create: Arabia, Ottoman, Rome, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, Ancient Greece, Persia, India, China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Someone like the Khmer or Siam, America, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, A native American Civilization, Malinese, Carthage, Byzantium, Egypt, Babylon, and Vikings. [If I am forgeting any REALLY important ones I am sorry]
Now add the ability to create your own, choose your own leader [From the models of the leaders above], Unique Units, Improvements, buildings, and abilities [All of their bonuses come from a batch of about 30 pre-selected ones, or so], the colors, symbol, and name.
Now one could just create whatever nation he feels should've been included how he wants. Then the whole, I want THIS Civilization argument would be invalid because a man could just create whoever he wants.
Also created nations can be faced in games. Reason why you pick the leader.
Seems like a good system. They should release a DLC exclusively for that purpose.
Leader scenes would get confusing. Mods can implement most of what you're talking about. You can already pick a pre-existing civ and rename them.
Personally, I think we have too many civs now. I like seeing who gets representation and new uniques are always fun, but it's really overwhelming for new players.
In civ 6, I'd like to see the major players only: Rome, Greece, Spain, Portugal, England, America, China, Russia, Japan, Mongolia, a Mesompatamian, Aztecs/Maya, Inca, Egypt, Polynesia, and one ofther African. They should each get a TON of unique powers, abilities, units, etc to make them all unique all the way through the game instead of for brief 50-100 turn periods.
It'd be tough to balance, but I think it would be good for the game.
Back to the thread:
The Huns and Sweden seemed like odd choices, but clearly they new what they were doing when they added them. Can't believe they're the two most popular. At first I thought the Huns looked UP, but now I think they look fun (albeit a little boring post-medieval).
Austria>Netherlands>Huns>Celts>Carthage>Byzantines >Ethiopia>Sweden>Maya (not enough info).
Funny because in terms of interest in the nation, that list would be quite different. I'm listing those based on the gameplay their uniques encourage.
I'm really disappointed with a few of the uniques. I wish the Huns had a slightly more potent boost outside of Medieval and Maya seems to be centered around the Calendar, which is fine as long as its not a doomsday power or something. Ethiopia has no culture or faith bonuses right now, which is ridiculous. I'm assuming their last unique will be a faith building or something.
I'm actually equally interested in the changes to existing civs, which we've seen little of. Ottomans will almost definitely get a massive overhaul (new UA if nothing else) as will the Songhai. We already know England has received an espionage boost. Russia might as well.
Greece might have some minor changes for the new diplo victory.
Existing policies are bound to change as well (especially in Piety, if that tree even still exists), so culture teams could become more/less desirable.
The new scenarios should be great too . I loe all the less-combat-oriented ones.
Well, I am talking about letting the person create what ever they want, these are no mods my friend. Most people [including me] don't have the skill or knowledge to make mods. Nor do I have the time to make a single mod for the Zulu. Adding the Create-A-Nation option would make the game much better. We would have so many unique combinations and have alot of fun.
Leader Scenes wouldn't change. If you where to make Australia, give them a Unique Tank and Unique Tile Improvement, then pick George Washington as the leader nothing would change. Old George would still say something along the lines of, "Hello Welcome to America" Do you have any oil.
Giving each nation a TON of Unique units and abilities would make the whole Civilization thing useless. Plus, there are alot of popular civilizations out there that you can't give a TON of stuff to. I like having one era of gold and the rest capitalizing on that era of gold. It would be very tough to give the Aztecs Unique Units that last until the Modern Era unless you where to blend them into Mexico, but then wouldn't they have to change leader and name? Same with Rome, Persia, etc. Having that one golden era makes the game challenging. If you need constant boosts then play on a easier level.
I understand your personal choice, but I do not understand why you say we already have to many civilizations, or why you think that they are overwhelming to new players. I'll be honest, Civilization 5 was my first REAL Civilization game, and I wasn't overwhelmed. [Don't worry, I went back to Civ 3 & 4.] I actually wanted more Civilizations. Plus, with the whole Create-A-Civ you could choose not to create a Civilization. Defeats the purpose I know, but you still could.
What you're suggesting would be a massive undertaking for balance if nothing else. I can understand where you're coming from though. Online this would be a nightmare. It would have to be a single player only option. There'd be no way to plan out a strategy to couter your enemy if they could be using made up units you have no way of anticipating.
When it comes to the number of civs, it's really just an issue of time. I mean, yeah, you might know every civ's uniques, but alot of the unique abilities are straight copy/paste of wonder or policy powers and actually playing every team, even just for one game each, is a HUGE time investment.
Every team in the game could easily have long term boosts. Right now, UIs, UBs, and UAs are all long-term boosts that last the entire game. More of those, or different UAs in each era or something, would be a nice improvement. I agree with UUs remaining short-term though. Also, with DLC they became a lot more bold. UAs often have several small boosts instead of one simple effect and UIs came into play. They just need to keep heading in that direction.
Civ V initially had only 18 (19 if you count Bablyon) civs, which was way too few. Now though, they're up to 25, with 9 more about to arrive, making a whopping 34 and they're still missing some major powers, like Portugal.
Let's make a very conservative estimate of five hours per game. That's 170 hours of gameplay to even play one game as each civ. More hours usually = good thing, but it'll probably be double that time to actually refine a great strategy with your favourites.
I feel I should note, my thought on more uniques is not brought abot by me being a bad player. I've beaten Deity and usually play on Emperor or Immortal. I just think it would help make the game a little more fun.
Last edited by wingednosering; 04-26-2012 at 05:19 AM.
You ask if I would be happy with Zulu cathedrals. Honestly, I'd have been at least a little happier with not even a cathedral, but a brick. Just a little brick to show that they had some inkling of what it was like to aspire to civilisation.
Incidentally, I think it's silly that the Iroquois are in. They're only included because of US political correctness. If the game had been made elsewhere they wouldn't be included.
It's also not about playing as every civ. Most people will not, and have no desire to, play as every civ. However, they enjoy more civs added to the game to face as opponents. I bought one of the DLCs not to ever play with, but to simply give me more variety to go up against in my games. So calculating how much time it takes to play every civ isn't really important. Plus, once you learn the mechanics of the game, you don't really need to spend time playing as a civ to learn their uniques. Reading their advantages in the civlopedia and facing them once or twice is usually more than enough to get a basic to moderate grasp of how they function/are used.
To get to real sciences, you need to have farmers producing far more food than they themselves can eat. If Pythagoras can't just BUY food, he's hunting game and planting crops along with everyone else, and then we'd never know how to measure the sides of a triangle. Africa, like people have said, didn't have the grains or domestic animals. They didn't have fertile gray soil like you find in Europe. They had less predictable seasons, larger apex predators that were a real worry... They were there a long time, but it doesn't matter how long you've been there til you have conditions where the few can feed the many.
Never said you where a bad player either, I said if you where having problems then you should lower your difficulty, of course now that I know the difficulty you play on, comment withdrawn.
Most of the Abilities for each Unique would be selected by the makers themselves, therefore you could really only mix and match with all of these abilities. This means endless possiblilites for making Civilizations. If you don't like the Number of Civilizations already in the game then you can simply not use it.
What I am suggesting is adding a Create-A-Civ option to merely expand the game. You want Canada, but you think they will never be added? Go to Create-A-Civ and make them with whatever you want. I have played as about 11 of the Civilization currently in the game, but sometimes I want a Unique Infantry Unit. Therefore I go to Create-A-Civ, make Macedonia, give them P.L.A.M. as a special Infantry Unit and then bam! I am happy. Perhaps I do not ike that there are only like 3 civilizations that cater to my play style and I have already played them enough, go to Create-A-Civ and create a new unit.
That is what I am suggesting.
Last edited by istry555; 04-25-2012 at 09:00 PM.
Again as the others have said there are a multitude of factors for why Sub-Saharan Africa never truly advanced.
Lack of domesticatable animals, lack of large grains, lack of p.a. fertile land, etc. Again there are formulas which show and explain almost to a T the rate of growth in areas of the world and how they would have continued if there was no/little outer societal connections.
And to consider potential domesticatable crops and animals you have to check the chemical content and seasonal growth of them. Sub-Saharan Africa was evolving though once certain grains and cattle finally ended up being transferred. But in fact the crazy amount of time it took for the North-South connection to develop became a much larger hindrance than anything you could call "barbarism".
It really isn't surprising once you look at these factors to see where civilization advanced. (Large Herbivores, High produce to seed ratio grains, rivers, and climate all for example would suggest that civilization was most suited to growing out of Mesopotamia and the Middle East first. Turkey specifically. And well to be honest just see history to see what happened. Science and the natural progression of ecology)
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
So no, Ants could not be considered a Civilization. Nor is it really fair that you seem to have a personal Vendetta against Tribal nations. Some peoples seem to value Cultural progress over Scientific. Others, however have a different opinion.
Edit: Also, I thought I would throw this out for the fish in the sea.
The term Barbarian was invented by the Greeks, who when they heard other Civilizations talking, all they heard was "BAR BAR BAR BAR" so they called them Barbarians which means "Anyone who isn't Greek" Therefore, We are all Barbarians. Not me though, born in F.Y.R.O.M. and they are considered Greek so I WIN! I know there will be some of you nit picky people out there, so it only refers to Classical Greeks, happy? I mean modern day Greeks are barbarians really. A dirty, smelly, peoples. Jokes, I joke I joke.
Last edited by PachaMinnie; 04-25-2012 at 09:27 PM.
Hm. Losing respect for Brits. Hey chris, have you ever been to the British Museum? Fun place. Full of "Barbarians" stuff. You should check it out. Or read a few books, that might help.
Quick questions for you, (because let's face it, trollers be trolling because they want to) which "Civilization" or "Culture" is best at dealing with food scarcity in the Sahara?
If you answered anything besides the Tuareg and their Berber ancestors, I'm sorry, better luck next time! For thousands of years they have survived in the single worst environment on the six continents we live on.
Which culture has best adapted itself for high altitudes?
Well this is a toss up between the ever magnificent Inca, Nepalese and Tibetans. Funnily enough, no Europeans on the list. Hm.
Which cultures can survive in frozen wastelands without having to migrate for year after year? Well the Inuit have been doing exactly this in the Canadian high Arctic for an estimated thirteen THOUSAND years. Long before the founding of Rome, Egypt, China or Indus valley cultures.
The fact (and point) that cultures in Europe, the Fertile Crescent, China and India can develop magnificent civilzations is not impressive. How can you fail when you are in the perfect environment, with the perfect conditions, and the perfect set up for the propagation of human civilization.
What is impressive is that the Berber can survive in an environment that hasn't had more than ten inches of rain since the Cretaceous. Or that the Nepalese can survive at altitudes where the lack of oxygen can kill unhealthy people. Or that the Inuit can live year round in a place inhabited by polar bears, seals, and themselves.
Anybody can do great things in a great situation. How could Mitt Romney not have an easy life, coming from a rich family and having a Harvard degree? It's the people who can turn ☺☺☺☺, lead and prayers into solid gold that are truly impressive. Would anybody expect an ex-convict with no education and a brutally scarred face to make it in the world? Because one became leader of my country for thirty years. Would you expect high school drop outs who owned a failing business to become household names? Because two of them invented the airplane.
It's not the cards your dealt, it's how you play them.
Also, how does everybody forget about Great Zimbabwe? When South Africa had a temperate, European environment it was just as advanced as any other. When this climate changed, they died out. Just like any other.
Next: How could you establish
Euophrys omnisuperstes. Yup, that must be it.
I voted for Maya but would have also voted for Byzantium for second choice if i could.
Hang on a minute, did someone just say that Tibetans couldn't be counted as civilised? Whu? Highly developed, unique and settled culture, there, y'know. I think the Inca were dismissed in the same way, despite the cities and organised government and all.
In fact, likening any group to pre-hominids seems particularly ludicrous, as the division where the hominids are differentiated relates to very primitive characteristics. Like building sturdy shelters and use of fire. The Tuaregs, IIRC, have a distinct culture with communities with differentiated responsibilities, learning and teaching of conceptually distinct skills for different roles, I even have a feeling they have literature. They just move around a lot.
The Incans were quite advanced amongst Native American cultures. The way in which they governed seems quite modern; divide and assimilate. Not to mention they had a welfare system - whereby the old and disabled were given a pension, and allocated jobs which specifically catered to their capacity for work. Oh yes, and they built a magnificent road network in the Andes. I don't think spiders can do that. IMO that seems pretty civilised. But the Incas are only as far as my knowledge goes of South American cultures, so...
And actually, the Sahara had a quite significant wet period between 8000 to 4000 BCE (due to something, I forget) and was relatively green and livable. One of the big things in current archeology is to satellite scan the Sahara to try and find traces of the cultures that lived there during that period.
My point was that writing specifically wasn't needed (though many people claim it is) and then cited alternative means to pass down cultural identity besides writing, like how the Vedic-Aryans used oral tradition and mnemonic devices.