Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 111 of 111

Thread: Why no Persia, Ottomans, Mongols, Tannu Tuva, etc?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by orkhun View Post
    If Civ 6 is going for different Civilizations than Turks as a Civilization could be in game instead of Ottomans, Ottoman Empire was one of the Turkish Empires / Nations Gokturks could be in the game as one of the earliest Turkish nations. Also a bit of information word Turk comes from Chinese originally which means Helmet as earliest Turkish Nomadic Tribes were living near the Turk Mountains; because the mountains resembles helmets they were called as such, people living near those mountains called Turks, they were also skilled artisans mainly blacksmiths and iron forgers thus Chinese word (I can't write Chinese without Chinese letters) Turk is used on official documents to mention the nation living there. Many other similar games used Ottomans so Civ 6 can add any other Turkish nation or add Turks as one which would be better choice and even though there were many leaders in The Turkish History Sultan Faith and Suleyman used many times so I would suggest like Teddy Roosevelt chosen for American Civilization as a leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk could be selected for Turks also. I would also add Celts as a civilization instead of United Kingdom as Britons and Celts were different civilizations unless you would add Britons, Scottish, Irish and Welsh as separate Civilizations.
    I don't think that's true about the origin of the word "Turks". The Chinese characters used for Turkey do not mean helmet ~ look them up: 土耳 (tu3 er3 in Mandarin).

    I also don't think they would have another Turkish empire instead of the Ottoman empire. That was by far the largest and most influential Turkish empire.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post


    Hovo,

    Not that they shouldn't add civs of the same region ~ both Ottoman empire and the Byzantines are each certainly worthy of being included. I think that there is a chance they might not however, likely for more diversity...Also, they would only have so many spaces in mind that they have set aside for civs to include, and there is still quite a list of desired civs that provide for more diversity.
    In the case of Ottoman empire or Byzantium, I would say they will make their decision based on which one would be most interesting to add, due to what UX would fit with that particular civ. They want civs will unique strategies, so if they have in mind a fitting strategy for one of them that is particularly special, they'll go for that one, I would say.

    I think civilizations that are more well known also have a greater chance of being included. How known they are shouldn't be an important factor ~ this game could contribute to educating more people about history ~ but people tend to buy what they know, and money is a factor.
    While I understand what you are saying, then what would be the defining factor? Educating through the game is important, exciting people by offering well known civs are important, and covering a diverse geographical region and timeline is also important. In addition, considering civs that have contributed to humanities growth are also important. So I ask, what is the selection process? This is just a thread to talk about who we would like to see as the next Civ.

    I agree that both Ottoman and Byzantine should be present. More likely Ottoman as Byzantine was part of the Roman Empire at one point in time. At least some Turkish nation should be considered, I do agree.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I don't think that's true about the origin of the word "Turks". The Chinese characters used for Turkey do not mean helmet ~ look them up: 土耳 (tu3 er3 in Mandarin).

    I also don't think they would have another Turkish empire instead of the Ottoman empire. That was by far the largest and most influential Turkish empire.
    c. 1300, from French Turc, from Medieval Latin Turcus, from Byzantine Greek Tourkos, Persian turk, a national name, of unknown origin. Said to mean "strength" in Turkish. Compare Chinese tu-kin, recorded from c. 177 B.C.E. as the name of a people living south of the Altai Mountains (identified by some with the Huns). In Persian, turk, in addition to the national name, also could mean "a beautiful youth," "a barbarian," "a robber."

    -Online Etymology Dictionary

    Not always the best source, but it's one you can easily reference.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Hovo View Post
    While I understand what you are saying, then what would be the defining factor? Educating through the game is important, exciting people by offering well known civs are important, and covering a diverse geographical region and timeline is also important. In addition, considering civs that have contributed to humanities growth are also important. So I ask, what is the selection process? This is just a thread to talk about who we would like to see as the next Civ.

    I agree that both Ottoman and Byzantine should be present. More likely Ottoman as Byzantine was part of the Roman Empire at one point in time. At least some Turkish nation should be considered, I do agree.
    What is the exact selection process, I don't know. We would have to ask the devs. Otherwise really we are just speculating ~ which we usually base off past experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hovo View Post
    c. 1300, from French Turc, from Medieval Latin Turcus, from Byzantine Greek Tourkos, Persian turk, a national name, of unknown origin. Said to mean "strength" in Turkish. Compare Chinese tu-kin, recorded from c. 177 B.C.E. as the name of a people living south of the Altai Mountains (identified by some with the Huns). In Persian, turk, in addition to the national name, also could mean "a beautiful youth," "a barbarian," "a robber."

    -Online Etymology Dictionary

    Not always the best source, but it's one you can easily reference.
    Thank you for sharing that.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14
    Why this thread is unpopular i don't understand? only 4-5 people are discussing an issue with adding civilizations here.
    There were much more people involved in-to discussion in Civilization V forum, at the same thread.
    A lot of people are still playing Civilization V. Yesterday I looked at Civ V gameplay and I understood that the game is already old.
    So people should also understand it and keep up with the times playing a new Civilizaion VI, which has a new interesting game mechanics, tactics, which is more pleasing to the eye from design perspective, where the environment represents geographical discoveries, which is very interesting and stylish, and the game has much more potential than Civilization V.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Alish23 View Post
    Why this thread is unpopular i don't understand? only 4-5 people are discussing an issue with adding civilizations here.
    There were much more people involved in-to discussion in Civilization V forum, at the same thread.
    A lot of people are still playing Civilization V. Yesterday I looked at Civ V gameplay and I understood that the game is already old.
    So people should also understand it and keep up with the times playing a new Civilizaion VI, which has a new interesting game mechanics, tactics, which is more pleasing to the eye from design perspective, where the environment represents geographical discoveries, which is very interesting and stylish, and the game has much more potential than Civilization V.
    New civs are fun, and can add significant variety into the game, but there are more important issues that make or even break a game. You can have all the new and diverse civs you want, and the game can still be rubbish if the mechanics are not done right, so it is more important to discuss other things about the game than new civs (but nothing wrong with discussing new civs anyway of course).

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I don't think that's true about the origin of the word "Turks". The Chinese characters used for Turkey do not mean helmet ~ look them up: 土耳 (tu3 er3 in Mandarin).

    I also don't think they would have another Turkish empire instead of the Ottoman empire. That was by far the largest and most influential Turkish empire.
    Probably one of the best sources http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/turks.html
    Also I meant word Türk how it sounded in ancient Chinese language there is a reference to where they lived wikipedia has information as well. I preferred they add civilizations based on civilizations not nations or empires like instead of Ottomans it should be Turks and English should be Britons this would be better.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Alish23 View Post
    Why this thread is unpopular i don't understand? only 4-5 people are discussing an issue with adding civilizations here.
    There were much more people involved in-to discussion in Civilization V forum, at the same thread.
    A lot of people are still playing Civilization V. Yesterday I looked at Civ V gameplay and I understood that the game is already old.
    So people should also understand it and keep up with the times playing a new Civilizaion VI, which has a new interesting game mechanics, tactics, which is more pleasing to the eye from design perspective, where the environment represents geographical discoveries, which is very interesting and stylish, and the game has much more potential than Civilization V.
    The reason most players compare to Civ 5 and sometimes Civ 3 is because those were complete games they had a balanced system and most of the civilizations included, main negative view for Civ 6 is it seems like it is an early access game and you need to pay every DLC or buy the Deluxe version which is too expensive for a game to play the complete game. Capcom did the same mistake by releasing an unfinished game as early access Street Fighter 5 charging full price and releasing every addition as DLC. Most Civ players criticize the game because of this, paying every new Civ as a DLC Civilization was a game you buy and play and if you like you could buy the expansion to add new features and civilizations to the game. Since Seasons pass and DLCs appeared playing games became too expensive and players have to pay for extra things which should have been in the game.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14
    Hawk,

    Yes I agree, of course this thread is not as important as others, but the issue is that all Civ VI threads are less popular than was in Civ V.

    orkhun,

    Probably u are right, that's is the main problem.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by orkhun View Post
    Probably one of the best sources http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/turks.html
    Also I meant word Türk how it sounded in ancient Chinese language there is a reference to where they lived wikipedia has information as well. I preferred they add civilizations based on civilizations not nations or empires like instead of Ottomans it should be Turks and English should be Britons this would be better.
    Ok, that is interesting. Thank you for sharing!

    And yeah, I do understand the preference for civs being based on whole civilizations rather than specific empires, although the empire focus has inspired some interesting special abilities for each civ. Nations can also give us some very interesting unique styles ~ as we have seen in Civ V with the Huns (I felt weird about the Huns, but I ended up playing them a lot, lol). Many Native American civs are probably more so classed as nations than full civilizations (correct me if I'm wrong about that), so if nations were not included, it could be a real shame.
    I had an idea a while ago about a possible nomadic strategy for a civ...may not be technically a civ, but it could be interesting, and certainly different to play as. I was inspired by nations that remained nomadic despite pressure to settle, like the Romani people, who have origins in Northwestern India, yet now have large communities that have lived in Europe for hundreds of years. Like I said, it would not really match up in the technical sense as a full civilization, by definition, however imagine if cities from that civ functioned differently, where they never get settled, but can always be moved around? Might be very difficult to add anyway, and perhaps wouldn't even make that much sense at the end of the day, but it was fun thinking about it, and I do think that it would help add something really fresh and unique into the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alish23 View Post
    Hawk,

    Yes I agree, of course this thread is not as important as others, but the issue is that all Civ VI threads are less popular than was in Civ V.
    Honestly, I still haven't bought Civ VI yet, partially because of the negative reviews, and how Civ V seems to still be more popular ~ Not a good sign for the game. I want to wait a while first, and let them improve the game and add the expansions, etc...I had followed Civ IV and Civ V very closely, and bought everything as soon as it became available, and both these games were improved dramatically from the first release to the end product, but I had spent more money on both of them then I would have if I just waited a little while. This time I want to wait for the full game with all its improvements before I buy it, and hopefully by then it will be getting more positive reviews.

    That being said, if they re-introduce the vassalage system, like they have in Civ IV (Not like vassals in Civ V), then I will buy it asap, even if nothing else is ever added or improved upon.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    11
    I quite enjoy Civ VI. I have always hated the multiplayer modes and the online play is unstable with not many players.

    Back to civilizations though. Through the civ games they have recycled many of the civs, would like to see more creativity from the civ dev teams.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Another thing: Only one civ has two leaders currently, which stands out. I think this suggests that we will have at least a couple more extra leaders for already included civs ~ perhaps another for Britain, for example. This does give more room for adding more female leaders, as civs that have a male leader can also be given a female leader, just like Greece.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14
    Hovo,

    I think this time in Civilization VI game, developers were as much creative as before in Civilization V.
    They have added an interesting district system, totally changed technology and science trees. Religion was redesigned and religion victory became more real with the last patch (but on my opinion it still need to be polished). They have also added an interesting civs like Nubia, Scythia, Kongo, Macedon, Australia, the addition of which was a surprise for many players.

    The thing is that this time there are working Graphic designers team together with Sales and Marketing team instead of Ex Game Designers, which left the company. That's the reason why the game has crucial graphic and interface changes in contrast with new game mechanics. They want Civ VI to be beautiful game and to make it sellable. That's why people like me and Hawk still didn't buy the game, because we know that the game will be polished in 1-2 years. That is their marketing course.

    Hawk,

    I am the same as u, I still didn't buy the game.
    I am waiting it to be more polished and after a big update like "Brave New World" in Civ V, I will purchase the game.
    There is still a lot of work for them to make Civ VI become a finished project. It is still damp, more like open beta version of the game.
    There are still a lot of bugs and unfinished things in game like the correct display of the most profitable trade routes as an example, or graphical and information errors, mistakes in translation into other languages, wrong descriptions etc. This is done specifically to warm up player's interest to the game and to create space for further updates.
    The addition of a vassalage system, production queue (which is way more important than graphical improvements), still need to be added.

    What about leaders.
    Yes, I think after adding all the missing elements in the game, they will start to sell new Leaders packs, that would be the only way to earn money until they release Civ VII game . I would love to see male leaders for Egypt, France and England and female leaders for other ones. If they add Celts and Phoenicians with both male and female leaders, that would be really nice. But in spite of all this, in the first place, they must add Ottomans and Mongols to the game

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Alish23 View Post
    Hawk,

    I am the same as u, I still didn't buy the game.
    I am waiting it to be more polished and after a big update like "Brave New World" in Civ V, I will purchase the game.
    There is still a lot of work for them to make Civ VI become a finished project. It is still damp, more like open beta version of the game.
    There are still a lot of bugs and unfinished things in game like the correct display of the most profitable trade routes as an example, or graphical and information errors, mistakes in translation into other languages, wrong descriptions etc. This is done specifically to warm up player's interest to the game and to create space for further updates.
    The addition of a vassalage system, production queue (which is way more important than graphical improvements), still need to be added.

    What about leaders.
    Yes, I think after adding all the missing elements in the game, they will start to sell new Leaders packs, that would be the only way to earn money until they release Civ VII game . I would love to see male leaders for Egypt, France and England and female leaders for other ones. If they add Celts and Phoenicians with both male and female leaders, that would be really nice. But in spite of all this, in the first place, they must add Ottomans and Mongols to the game
    I hope that the devs also see it as more of a beta version of the game. We did see a lot of changes from the first releases of previous games of the series to the final releases, so there's a good chance that that is indeed the case...I'm certainly only out for it.

    Yes, and certain civs that are popular would only have male leaders ~ I cannot think of a female Mongolian leader...and even if there is one, it's dubious that she would represent the golden age of nomadic Mongolia.
    The Ottoman Empire on the otherhand could easily have a female leader, as there were more than one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Women

  15. #95
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14
    Hawk,

    Yes, the Civilization games always change dramatically from the moment of launch and until the last updates.
    There is no need for Mongolian female leader or some other Civilizations who never had one rulling the country.
    It will be enough if half of the existing civilizations in the game will have a female leaders along with male leader.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Alish23 View Post
    Hawk,

    Yes, the Civilization games always change dramatically from the moment of launch and until the last updates.
    There is no need for Mongolian female leader or some other Civilizations who never had one rulling the country.
    It will be enough if half of the existing civilizations in the game will have a female leaders along with male leader.
    Historically speaking, there was a lot more male leaders than female leaders, so at least that is a true reflection of history when there are more male leaders than female leaders. Whatever the case, a few more female leaders would be nice, and I do expect to see a few more at some point.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Thinking about alternative leaders for each civ, considering that they likely will add a few more.

    1. America ~ Not G. Washington again (aka "Conotocaurious"). Preferably Abraham Lincoln.
    2. Arabia ~ Harun al-Rashid.
    3. Australia ~ Don't care.
    4. Aztec ~ Perhaps Acamapichtli, the founder of the Imperial Dynasty.
    5. Brazil ~ Don't know enough about Brazil's presidents.
    6. China ~ Empress Wu Zetian for a female leader, or even Empress Dowager Cixi (which is less controversial?).
    7. Egypt ~ Rameses the Great.
    8. England ~ Queen Elizabeth I (why not have 2 female leaders for a civ?).
    9. France ~ So many delicious choices here! But Napoleon Bonaparte does seem like the most fitting one.
    10. Germany ~ Let's not pick an Austrian (you know who). I don't particularly like Bismarck either, so not sure?
    11. Greece ~ Already has 2 leaders, one male and one female.
    12. India ~ Maybe Shivaji Bhonsle.
    13. Indonesia ~ Gajah Mada.
    14. Japan ~ Oda Nobunaga.
    15. Khmer ~ Suryavarman II.
    16. Kongo ~ There's a great choice here for a female leader: Queen Anna Nzinga.
    17. Macedon ~ Caranus?
    18. Nubia ~ Piye, perhaps?
    19. Norway ~ Cnut the Great?
    20. Persia ~ Darius I.
    21. Poland ~ Casimir III.
    22. Rome ~ Augustus, of course.
    23. Russia ~ Catherine the Great.
    24. Scythia ~ Koloksai?
    25. Spain ~ Isabella I.
    26. Sumeria ~ Etana of Kish? He's the apparent founder of Sumeria.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    26. Sumeria ~ Etana of Kish? He's the apparent founder of Sumeria.
    Alulim was the first supposed ruler of Sumer. He was more than likely a myth though as the Sumerian "kings list" states that he filled for 28,000 years.

    Kish was a city, but one of it's rulers was female her name was Kubaba and she filled for 100 years -_-

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Hovo View Post
    Alulim was the first supposed ruler of Sumer. He was more than likely a myth though as the Sumerian "kings list" states that he filled for 28,000 years.

    Kish was a city, but one of it's rulers was female her name was Kubaba and she filled for 100 years -_-
    Oh very nice! Kubaba seems like an interesting choice ~ later she was worshiped as a goddess! (Just looked her up)


  20. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Thought I would color code this list to show the potential female leaders here...

    Blue = male leader.
    Purple = female leader.

    1. America ~ Not G. Washington again (aka "Conotocaurious"). Preferably Abraham Lincoln.
    2. Arabia ~ Harun al-Rashid.

    3. Australia ~ Don't care. << Will be male anyway.
    4. Aztec ~ Perhaps Acamapichtli, the founder of the Imperial Dynasty.
    5. Brazil ~ Don't know enough about Brazil's presidents.
    6. China ~ Empress Wu Zetian for a female leader, or even Empress Dowager Cixi (which is less controversial?).
    7. Egypt ~ Rameses the Great.
    8. England ~ Queen Elizabeth I (why not have 2 female leaders for a civ?).
    9. France ~ So many delicious choices here! But Napoleon Bonaparte does seem like the most fitting one.
    10. Germany ~ Let's not pick an Austrian (you know who). I don't particularly like Bismarck either, so not sure? Can't think of any female leaders.
    11. Greece ~ Already has 2 leaders, one male and one female.
    12. India ~ Maybe Shivaji Bhonsle.
    13. Indonesia ~ Gajah Mada.
    14. Japan ~ Oda Nobunaga.
    15. Khmer ~ Suryavarman II.

    16. Kongo ~ There's a great choice here for a female leader: Queen Anna Nzinga.
    17. Macedon ~ Caranus?
    18. Nubia ~ Piye, perhaps?
    19. Norway ~ Cnut the Great?
    20. Persia ~ Darius I.
    21. Poland ~ Casimir III.
    22. Rome ~ Augustus, of course.

    23. Russia ~ Catherine the Great.
    24. Scythia ~ Koloksai?
    25. Spain ~ Isabella I.
    26. Sumeria ~ Kubaba (Kubaba seems like a cool choice).



    ~ Just thought about how cool it would be if each civ had 2 leaders...big ask however, as that would be a lot of extra work for the devs. A man can dream tho...

    Most of the classical choices for leaders, the most powerful/influential leaders of history ~ and also most leaders in general throughout history ~ were male, so this is why the list is still predominantly male, however there are some great choices for female leaders there too ~ and I welcome people to help me find other particularly good choices of female leaders for this list. In some cases there is a male leader who is a huge deal for that civ, and may be the ideal candidate, even though there might be a female leader choice, such as France having Napoleon, when Joan of Arc is a potential choice.
    Also, bear in mind that there are quite a few good choices of female leaders for civs that likely will be added at some point, but are not yet included (Maya, Phoenicia, Ottoman Empire, and Portugal, just to name a few).

  21. #101
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    We have some news about an upcoming expansion (Link: https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilizatio...each-interview), which includes an interviewer asking the following question:

    "Civ VI reintroduces the ability to have multiple leaders per Civ. Will we see more of that from Firaxis this year?"

    Ed Beach responded: "We definitely will lean into it more. It's a system where we have encouraged the mod community to offer fresh takes on different civilisations by contributing additional leaders, so it's not something that has to be done by Firaxis, and by the time Civ VI is all fleshed out with the fan community, I think you’re going to see all sorts of civilisations with multiple leaders. But we have been thinking about which would be interesting civilisations for us to add a second leader to, and you’ll probably hear more about that."

  22. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Rise and Fall expansion is out early next year with nine new leaders and eight new civilizations. This is what was said in the announcement regarding how they select new civs...

    NEW CIVILIZATIONS, NEW LEADERS
    People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

    “Is this region of the world represented?”
    “Is this time in history represented?”
    “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

    We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

    (Source: http://steamcommunity.com/games/2890...22576769486958)

    So with that in mind, what is your prediction for the new eight civs and nine leaders?

  23. #103
    Comming her from nowhere. I want to say; Civilization need a slavery kingdom. As Dahomey kingdom for example.
    Maybe they can sell they own population to another civs, as sell iron or horse. Dahomey is also pretty god 'cause they had the Amazon's warriors (Ahosi)

  24. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Thinking about alternative leaders for each civ, considering that they likely will add a few more.

    1. America ~ Not G. Washington again (aka "Conotocaurious"). Preferably Abraham Lincoln.
    2. Arabia ~ Harun al-Rashid.
    3. Australia ~ Don't care.
    4. Aztec ~ Perhaps Acamapichtli, the founder of the Imperial Dynasty.
    5. Brazil ~ Don't know enough about Brazil's presidents.
    6. China ~ Empress Wu Zetian for a female leader, or even Empress Dowager Cixi (which is less controversial?).
    7. Egypt ~ Rameses the Great.
    8. England ~ Queen Elizabeth I (why not have 2 female leaders for a civ?).
    9. France ~ So many delicious choices here! But Napoleon Bonaparte does seem like the most fitting one.
    10. Germany ~ Let's not pick an Austrian (you know who). I don't particularly like Bismarck either, so not sure?
    11. Greece ~ Already has 2 leaders, one male and one female.
    12. India ~ Maybe Shivaji Bhonsle.
    13. Indonesia ~ Gajah Mada.
    14. Japan ~ Oda Nobunaga.
    15. Khmer ~ Suryavarman II.
    16. Kongo ~ There's a great choice here for a female leader: Queen Anna Nzinga.
    17. Macedon ~ Caranus?
    18. Nubia ~ Piye, perhaps?
    19. Norway ~ Cnut the Great?
    20. Persia ~ Darius I.
    21. Poland ~ Casimir III.
    22. Rome ~ Augustus, of course.
    23. Russia ~ Catherine the Great.
    24. Scythia ~ Koloksai?
    25. Spain ~ Isabella I.
    26. Sumeria ~ Etana of Kish? He's the apparent founder of Sumeria.

    About Brazilian's presidents, I guess the only one who can substitute D.Pedro II is Getúlio Vargas. He is a kind of dictadorship before WW2 who go out of presidency in 1945 (cause he is a fascist as Salazar and Franco from Portugal and Spain) and Brazil fight against the fascist in the war. But he backs 1950 democratily and them he kill him self in 1954 to avoid a militar coup.

  25. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8

    Post A Case for a Canadian Civilization

    Hey guys,

    I realize that Canada has often been added as a mod in Civ games in the past, but it's about time the land of Sorry, eh? got it's just recognition and was included in the main game's official roster. Here is my take on a potential Canadian civ. I'm absolutely looking for comments and suggestions!

    Leader: William Lyon Mackenzie King

    King was not recognized for his valor as a man, but he was hailed as an excellent politician, who helped cement Canada’s reputation as a middle power, fully committed to world order.
    He was in power for the 1929 crisis, as well as the Second World War. He boasts the longest reign as a Canadian Prime Minister. He was known as a gentleman-farmer, working the land in his free time, and that’s pretty darn badass, eh?
    Leader Bonus: A Peaceful Friend
    Mackenzie King established Canada as a country fully committed to world order. Every Friendship or Alliance established between Canada and another Civ bears bonuses to both sides. This would work in a way similar to Egypt’s bilateral trade route bonuses, but with higher yields, since players are limited in terms of alliances, whereas the number of trade routes is, technically, almost unlimited. This would push the Canada player towards peaceful victories, seeing as Canada, historically, has never been known for its militaristic ways.

    Special Unit: The Woodrunner
    Replaces the Scout. Ancient Era unit which comes with the Ranger promotion level and can build Camps, like a builder, on appropriate resources. Costs a bit more to build, obviously, at 35 (or 40?) prod instead of 30.
    Historically, this unit harkens back to the early colonization of Canada, with the French Canadian “Coureur des Bois” (lit., “woodrunners” – I disagree with Wikipedia’s translation as “runner of the woods”, which is way too literal…) establishing trade routes with Native communities on the North American continent. A lot of the continent was first explored by these trappers-traders as they sought new trading opportunities.

    Special tile improvement: Sugar Shack
    Canada’s flag bears the maple leaf, so needless to say, this improvement simply makes sense in Civ’s context. Maple syrup has become emblematic of Canadian cuisine, and is a staple of tourist shops in airports and other
    The Sugar Shack would essentially start out as a farm on Forest tiles, providing +1 food and +0.5 housing. However, as eras pass, food yield would increase slightly, and yields would also include gold (Canada is the world’s largest exporter of Maple Syrup) when Mercantilism is researched, as well as culture and tourism (as this is indeed a touristic industry and now very much a part of Canadian identity) once Colonialism and Nationalism, respectively, are researched.

    Civ Ability: Diversity and Unity
    Canada is known for its values of diversity, acceptance, and friendliness. Every border shared with another Civ gives Canada a diplomatic/vision level with that civ and automatically establishes a trade route between the two connecting cities (granting a trader unit), if Canada is not at war with them and has room for a new trade route. If there are no free trade route slots, only a road is created. This can only be activated once per era. Note that this could be detrimental to Canada, too, as the road could facilitate troop movement in case of a war… Because a double-edged sword is fun.

    --------------

    Thanks for reading this far.

    I'm mostly trying to figure out what the bonuses could be for Friendship and Ally statuses, especially since the Alliances will be revamped in the expansion...

  26. #106
    Canada isn't a civilization, is just a british territory in America. Of course Australia also isn't a civilization and are in civ 6 but that don't means they deserve.
    I guess civilization have a lot of real civilizations to made before make more british territorys as civilization in this game.

  27. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by ManelikII View Post
    Comming her from nowhere. I want to say; Civilization need a slavery kingdom. As Dahomey kingdom for example.
    Maybe they can sell they own population to another civs, as sell iron or horse. Dahomey is also pretty god 'cause they had the Amazon's warriors (Ahosi)
    Well there is easily an argument for slavery as an element in the game, as opposed to slavery being the special ability of one particular civ. For one thing, that would make that civ very controversial and unpopular, and could even become a bit of a political issue if they did add such a civ, but adding slavery as an element that all civilizations can equally exploit, that would be historical, as we should not ignore that slavery was, and still is part of our history (actually, believe it or not, there are more slaves now than ever before). The fact is it's an ugly part of human history, and therefore would make sense in a game based on human history. The game does include other ugly parts of human history, such as wars and nuclear weapons, so why not add another?

    Quote Originally Posted by ManelikII View Post
    About Brazilian's presidents, I guess the only one who can substitute D.Pedro II is Getúlio Vargas. He is a kind of dictadorship before WW2 who go out of presidency in 1945 (cause he is a fascist as Salazar and Franco from Portugal and Spain) and Brazil fight against the fascist in the war. But he backs 1950 democratily and them he kill him self in 1954 to avoid a militar coup.
    I doubt a fascist dictator will be picked, but thank you for pointing that one out.

  28. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Latest news is that Queen Seondeok of Korea has been included among the new civs for the Rise and Fall expansion.

  29. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by ManelikII View Post
    Canada isn't a civilization, is just a british territory in America. Of course Australia also isn't a civilization and are in civ 6 but that don't means they deserve.
    I guess civilization have a lot of real civilizations to made before make more british territorys as civilization in this game.
    Now that we have Australia as an actual civ (Lol), there really is no argument against adding Canada as well, or South Africa, New Zealand, etc...

  30. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Rise and Fall expansion is out early next year with nine new leaders and eight new civilizations. This is what was said in the announcement regarding how they select new civs...

    NEW CIVILIZATIONS, NEW LEADERS
    People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

    “Is this region of the world represented?”
    “Is this time in history represented?”
    “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

    We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

    (Source: http://steamcommunity.com/games/2890...22576769486958)

    So with that in mind, what is your prediction for the new eight civs and nine leaders?
    I'm predicting that Dido of either Phoenicia or Carthage will be among the new leaders ~ personally I hope it's Phoenicia with Carthage as one of their cities (Byblos would be the Capital), as Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia.

    I also predict that Yohl Ik’nal of the Maya will be one of the new leaders in this expansion.

  31. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,210
    Warning for all. These boards are not the place to discuss if a civilization or nation is "worthy" or not. That tends to lead to huge arguments, personal attacks and insults.
    “If you are involved in a game, everything ends up being a set of trade-offs. Anything in a game is a sacrifice of things not in the game.” --Gabe Newell

    Playing Firaxis games and helping out in the Official 2K Forums!
    My Blog: donald23.nl
    Steam profile: donald23

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •