|
Re non ancient South American leaders I would enjoy Che Guevara or Simon Bolivar.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:20 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 09:34 |
|
|
That's Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios Ponte y Blanco to you. VVV I'll freely admit to learning poo poo from the civilopedia. No, I had never heard of Shonghai before 5, and prior to 4 I had never heard of the Khmer outside the context of the Khmer Rouge. But then I flunked out of jr. college so take that as you will. Fledgling Gulps fucked around with this message at Apr 8, 2012 around 01:29 |
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:24 |
|
|
I don't mind having lesser known or female rulers if only because they expand my knowledge of history. Sure, we'll always have Washington, Elizabeth, Napoleon and Gandhi but anyone else is fair game. Also see: I'm willing to bet the majority of people who purchased Civ 5 had no idea who the Songhai were.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:24 |
|
|
What country would you make Che Guavara the leader of?
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:26 |
|
|
Davincie posted:What country would you make Che Guavara the leader of? Tropico! 
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:31 |
|
|
Eej posted:I don't mind having lesser known or female rulers if only because they expand my knowledge of history. Sure, we'll always have Washington, Elizabeth, Napoleon and Gandhi but anyone else is fair game. Actually, most of the games had Lincoln as the leader of America.  I think Washington didn't actually appear until Civ 4.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:34 |
|
|
Eej posted:I don't mind having lesser known or female rulers if only because they expand my knowledge of history. Sure, we'll always have Washington, Elizabeth, Napoleon and Gandhi but anyone else is fair game. Incidentally, whenever an african civ gets added to the civ series some people always crawl out of the woodwork on forums to post threads like "African civs in civ 4..Do we really need them?" or "I do not Like the African CIVS", where the main thrust is always that some European civs which are not currently in the game are more historically important and should have been put in instead.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:37 |
|
|
Uhh adding African civs instead of Poland-Lithuania DEFIES LOGIC
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:44 |
|
|
Which is dumb because African civs are usually amongst the coolest. Besides, those are the sorts of people who think the German civilisation should be represented by  .
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:45 |
|
|
Reveilled posted:Incidentally, whenever an african civ gets added to the civ series some people always crawl out of the woodwork on forums to post threads like "African civs in civ 4..Do we really need them?" or "I do not Like the African CIVS", where the main thrust is always that some European civs which are not currently in the game are more historically important and should have been put in instead. I've read these posts, and I find it amazing how hard people will fight against having some civilization they deem as 'not important enough' removed in favor of another. Personally I prefer to have, and play as, civs I know less about.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 01:46 |
|
|
Some of us like seeing women leaders if just as a nice reminder that there have, in fact, been world leaders that were women, and that their contributions to history, no matter how minor as ranked by the obviously perfectly objective scales created by internet posters, are still improtant. And, of course, the inclusion of 'minor' leaders really doesn't detract from anything, and frankly really helps to expand players' knowledge of history. I mean, is there even really anything that you'd gain by having it be literally the same very-important-men every time? It's not like this is a game series with an emphasis on character continuity, or anything.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 02:16 |
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:... from? Technically not Civ, but Alpha Centauri let you do cool things like build mountains to shift rain patterns and starve rival colonies.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 02:27 |
|
|
I forget which game it was but I remember I'd sometimes deliberately cause global warming to turn my enemy's grasslands into fetid marshes and plains into barren deserts.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 02:32 |
|
|
What sort of "minor" female rulers would be included, theoretically speaking? Also we have to consider that another factor is what sort of special units they would have. When they include a culture in a Civ game they have to pick something distinct that sums up the people they represent. Sometimes they do a half assed job, but they try. It's a fantastic idea. It seems like Africa, the Middle East, and South America are drastically unrepresented.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
I dunno about the Middle East...there's Saudi Arabia, The Ottomans and Persia (And Egypt if you wanna count that). Lot of those civs had really large land areas at their peak. I'll defintely agree on Sub-Saharan Africa and defintely on South America.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 03:24 |
|
|
Inyourbase posted:
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
aridge02 posted:I would like to see Argentina be a civ in the game. Base it off right after they gained their independence and have been recognized by other countries of the world. I can't think of a leader off the top my head to lead it though. Eva Peron? Since we're apparently underrepresented with female leaders... 
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
On the note of Africa, weren't the Zulu a nation you could play as in a previous game? Also I take back the part about the middle east, also if we were talking about adding slightly more modern Civs what about the soviet block countries? or Australia? Those are sort of weak suggestions but you know who I would really love to play as? Israel.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 03:59 |
|
|
Posting from PAX East  They had gameplay saves like they did from Civ V. No pictures/etc (were banned, obviously) but religion and espionage both look really cool and interesting. Espionage is an answer to the whole "city states are always allied with X" issue. The most interesting note: Espionage had an "intrigue" system where you can learn secret stuff the AI is going to do, like "this guy is preparing for a sneak attack" and you can warn their targets about it for diplomatic boosts.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:11 |
|
|
Inyourbase posted:Also I take back the part about the middle east, also if we were talking about adding slightly more modern Civs what about the soviet block countries? or Australia? Those are sort of weak suggestions but you know who I would really love to play as? Israel. I've seen a lot of people want to play as Israel, and I think they are going to do it in 5 because they seem to be trying hard to put in some civs they haven't had in previous games yet. I think Israel would be profitable enough that it will be a DLC: hopefully something like the Spain/Inca DLC except with Israel/Assyria.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:13 |
|
|
Inyourbase posted:On the note of Africa, weren't the Zulu a nation you could play as in a previous game? Yeah, the Zulu were in Civ 1, 2, & 3 and added in an expansion for 4. Hopefully they make a comeback at some point, because Shaka was awesome. Bom! Bom! Bom! Bom bom! Bom bom! Bom bom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mRz1JlF87c
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:15 |
|
|
Australia would be a terrible choice for a Civ, yeah. But, then, so is "America". Maybe it could have a unique building or something. Aboriginal Protection Board. Increases unhappiness, decreases culture!
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:15 |
|
|
CampingCarl posted:How is stack of doom better in any way other than less clicks to move? Think about it. Try to use your brain. Less micromanagement. Which is extreme when you have your carpet of doom and only one road. Concentration of power. As slow as the slowest unit, can crush anything in the way, vulnerable to to attacks that damage all units in a tile, can be bypassed. The game doesn't have to hamstring production to stop the map being flooded with units, so you actually get to build things. With the stack of doom you're building more units with a greater variety of units, but not dealing with significantly increased micromanagement. More fun all around. Dragongem posted:Posting from PAX East Does the diplo boost actually mean anything, or does the AI still tend to being your mortal enemy? SagatPunisherFanFic fucked around with this message at Apr 8, 2012 around 04:23 |
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:21 |
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:Eva Peron? Since we're apparently underrepresented with female leaders... Are you serious? Counting DLC, there are 25 civilizations so far. Four of them have women leaders. That's 16%, as in, not even one in five. Adding in the 8 Gods and Kings civs that we definitively know, it goes up to 8 women in 33 civilizations, 24%, as in, still not even one in four. Yes, women are underrepresented in this game. And that's just counting leaders. There are no women-model or women-voiced units in the game. The narrator is a man. This is a game overwhelmingly dominated by male characters. The fact that people are honestly complaining about how there are going to be 8, maybe even, horror of horrors, 9 women in the ENTIRE GAME is amazing. And before someone goes "b-but historical accuracy!" this is a game in which the Aztecs can fly to the moon, Ghandi nukes England, and America sells oils to Arabia. It's not a history class, it's a game. I know this is mind-boggling to some, but there are also women who play games, and some even like to see women characters in those same games they play, the same way that men can be just about guaranteed to have plenty of male characters in nearly any game published ever.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:31 |
|
|
Out of curiosity, how many of the great people are women? They'll still be represented in-game with the same model, but even so.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:42 |
|
|
Rosalind Franklin, Xi Ling Shi, and Merit-Ptah are great scientists. Joan D'Arc is a great general; maybe she'll be made a great prophet in G&K. Florence Nightingale was a "Great Humanitarian" in CivRevolution. Marie Curie was a Great Scientist in Rev.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:57 |
|
|
Geight posted:Out of curiosity, how many of the great people are women? They'll still be represented in-game with the same model, but even so. I can't seem to find a list anywhere, but I don't think it's closed to balanced there, either. Off the top of my head, I think I've seen Maerie Curie, Aretha Franklin (not sure about this one), and...I can't remember anyone else. However, I'll also admit that I don't really pay attention to Great People names, since they're just names on models that exist to have a button clicked and then go away, or sometimes move to a place and then have their button clicked.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:57 |
|
|
I like Dido as a choice, personally. Even in terms of "mythic" history, she's a woman who founded a city, which is unusual and cool. The inclusion of mythic figures doesn't bother me much - the only reason most people have any idea there ever was a place called Babylon is because of the Old Testament, and Nebuchadnezzar doesn't exactly come off as that great a guy in that book. (Speaking of the OT, it would be pretty cool to have ancient Israel in the game.) edit: For female Great People, I've seen Joan of Arc, Hypatia, Xi Ling Shi, Marie Curie, Coco Chanel, Sojourner Truth, Rosalind Franklin, and Merit Ptah, off of the top of my head. Tao Jones fucked around with this message at Apr 8, 2012 around 05:01 |
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 04:57 |
|
|
Dido has more historical basis than Gilgamesh, I thought.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 05:34 |
|
|
Davincie posted:What country would you make Che Guavara the leader of? I don't know. I confess I'm only marginally more familar with his history than the average leftist marxoteen wearing a shirt with his face on it. Cuba would make the most sense, but Cuba is probably not big enough over all for a civ. Maybe a combined Latin America civ, but that would be dumb like Polynesia. Guevara would probably make the most sense as a Great General. I stand by my suggestion of Bolivar, though.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 05:49 |
|
|
I'd really like to see Outer Heaven added as a Civ, with Big Boss as the leader. In all seriousness though, I've burned enough time in Civ5 that Gods and Kings is definitely on my watch list. Did they specify if the faith stat will come from newly added structures and stuff? Or will it perhaps be tied into some already pre-existing culture buildings?
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 06:03 |
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I've seen a lot of people want to play as Israel, and I think they are going to do it in 5 because they seem to be trying hard to put in some civs they haven't had in previous games yet. Israel would be a terrible Civ and be a massive political clusterfuck. Not to mention that putting a genocidal apartheid state is just wrong. If there is going to be a modern state, Brazil is probably the best choice because it comes from an underrepresented region and is a rising power. Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in the amount of European civs that are in the expansion, would have like to have more Sub-Saharan civs like Somalia or Zimbabwe, or Native American civs like the Cherokee or something.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 06:26 |
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:Not to mention that putting a genocidal apartheid state is just wrong. You realize this effectively eliminates nearly all of the civilizations, right?
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 06:32 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:You realize this effectively eliminates nearly all of the civilizations, right? Let's seriously not take this thread in that direction. Things were on the verge of D&D for long enough already. I think a neat feature would be having leader portraits change relative to that civ's current tech level. Imagine, say, caveman Lincoln eventually becoming robo-eyepatch Lincoln. It's just so odd seeing leaders like Bismarck trotting around in semi-modern offices when their people just figured out the secrets behind pottery.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:06 |
|
|
Forward_Bee posted:Let's seriously not take this thread in that direction. Things were on the verge of D&D for long enough already. I'd like to see this, but then I'd like for Leader's portraits to change based on their actions anyway. leaders that haven't ever been in a war are in a peaceful garden, while warmongers are in a war tent with arrows/shells/etc clunking around them, and it changes with the tech level, wealth, power, etc.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:18 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:Australia would be a terrible choice for a Civ, yeah. But, then, so is "America". Maybe it could have a unique building or something. Aboriginal Protection Board. Increases unhappiness, decreases culture! Forward_Bee posted:Let's seriously not take this thread in that direction. Things were on the verge of D&D for long enough already.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:18 |
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:I was actually thinking one of the Aboriginal nations. The Kulin, maybe. It'd be awesome including that just to see people's heads explode when they would probably rather one headed by Henry Parkes. Yeah Civ...2? did this too I'm pretty sure they stopped with 3 though. The leader scenes started becoming too detailed to do that effectively anymore.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:29 |
|
|
I'm not buying it. If they were willing to take out Nimoy, they at least owed us a few background images.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:41 |
|
|
It was Civ3 with the changing leaderheads through time. Personally, I'd rather not have it in Civ5. I'm one the MY IMMERSION types who would prefer thinking the leader scenes were snapshots of the historical figures at the times they lived.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:45 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 09:34 |
|
|
Forward_Bee posted:I'm not buying it. If they were willing to take out Nimoy, they at least owed us a few background images. I doubt it was willing. Since he wasn't available for Beyond the Sword, I'm guessing he probably commanded a bit of a price tag to come back.
|
| # ? Apr 8, 2012 07:46 |
|
