Continent of remaining Civ?

[bonafide11]

If they consider Brazil to be too "modern", they should take out the US. Since they both became recognized nations within 50 years of each other. (Brazil: 1825, US:1783) Brazil has just as much right to be a civ as the US, since, as many historians say, there is a good likelihood of Brazil becoming a super power in tho century.

This is some ridiculously flawed logic. The U.S. and Brazil became nations roughly around the same time, but the comparisons between their validity of being in the game end there. The U.S.'s government was a revolutionary government for the time and ended up becoming extremely influential in subsequent governments and revolutions (including in Brazil), and the U.S.'s government has lasted over two centuries, which is extremely impressive. Brazil, on the other hand, has gone through several revolutions and has not had a consistent form of government since its independence. In addition, the U.S. is already a super power, has been since World War II, and was the most powerful nation of the 20th century. There is no question that the U.S. belongs in the game based on its militaristic and technological achievements. So Brazil has a "good likelihood of becoming a super power," but it is not yet a super power, and this is a game based on history and influential civilizations in history. Civilization should not start adding nations that have a good likelihood of becoming super powers in the future because the game is not about predicting the future, but recreating and replaying history.

 

[PhilBowles]

Without a doubt. They must get a kick out of some of the things we say while they are sipping on their morning coffee. I still would like to see Tibet as a civ

I'd prefer to think of them watching which options have support, or which ideas come up that they might not have thought of, that could conceivably make it into later expansions or DLC. For instance, now that they've been mentioned, it occurs to me that the Oyo would have been a better fit for the Songhai UA than the Songhai are, as the latter are known mainly as a cultural empire while the Oyo were heavily militarised, including a cavalry focus - lesson learned for Civ 6 maybe?

I have just noticed that one of Attila's cities is called Kathmandu (1:35:23 in the broadcast). We were told that they didn't have a city list of their own but stole city names from other civs (or they could have acquired Kathmandu by military means). Does this mean that the final civ is Nepal?

Is there any reason the Huns can't use the names of CSes not in the game with their random name generator? It would seem best that they could take names from civs not in a given game, just in case one of the civs they play against is very heavily expansionist...

This is an extremely Eurocentric viewpoint. What is known from many of the African empires is learned from their trade with European empires.

And as I noted in the paragraph that followed, this is a key point. Someone mentioned in the Gran Colombia thread that the Inca were the most important native South American civ. Were they? We have no idea - all we really know is that they were the ones who happened to be contemporary with European explorers, and that they left the most impressive ruins. There's evidence of widespread historical urbanisation in parts of Amazonia, but since much of that region is now forest and nothing is known about the occupants, they can hardly be added as a civ. Most of the African civs we know about are concentrated in West Africa, due to a longer history of contact with Europe, a culture of stoneworking, and the existence of several West African civs that left written records, a particular combination I'm not aware you find south of Ethiopia for any other region of Africa.

European empires attempted to influence all empires it traded with, and often so aggressively, but you could say that for any non-European continent.

Or for any non-European empire. The Mutapa quite aggressively influenced Zimbabwe, for example, by wiping it out.

 

[Gucumatz]

Well I was the one who said the Inca were the most important civ In South America, but it is an important point you bring up contemporary European info shapes this view.
======

There are ruins of civs we will know very little about since they fell apart long before Europeans could document them as well.

But the Inca did end up forming a large empire, sophisticated roads, and a continuation of religion (but by no means was it theirs as seen by evidence of it growing out of the North [Chachapoyan lands] and Tiwanaku).

A fair point but you could in a sense say the Inca are in a situation where they are the epitome of hundreds of years of culture.

 

[Buccaneer]

We already got (or soon will have) 4 civs on Africa. Why do 1/3 of you feel that it needs more?

 

[Pouakai]

Because Carthage and Egypt shouldn't be grouped as Africa - yes, they are in Africa Geographically, but Culturally they are medditerranean civilizations, much like Greece and Rome

 

[Fabiano79]

This is some ridiculously flawed logic. The U.S. and Brazil became nations roughly around the same time, but the comparisons between their validity of being in the game end there. The U.S.'s government was a revolutionary government for the time and ended up becoming extremely influential in subsequent governments and revolutions (including in Brazil), and the U.S.'s government has lasted over two centuries, which is extremely impressive. Brazil, on the other hand, has gone through several revolutions and has not had a consistent form of government since its independence. In addition, the U.S. is already a super power, has been since World War II, and was the most powerful nation of the 20th century. There is no question that the U.S. belongs in the game based on its militaristic and technological achievements. So Brazil has a "good likelihood of becoming a super power," but it is not yet a super power, and this is a game based on history and influential civilizations in history. Civilization should not start adding nations that have a good likelihood of becoming super powers in the future because the game is not about predicting the future, but recreating and replaying history.

Of course US deserve its place on CiV, but Brazil dont need to be a super power to be included. Or Songhai was a superpower? Ethiopia? Korea? Polynesia?

Theres other factors that need to be considered when you choose a new civ. Uniqueness, geographic position, popular appeal and, of course, marketing.

Korea was included not only because they were important, but because of its huge gamer market.

So, this argument that "relevance" its not completely valid.

had a consistent form of government since its independence

???

The brazilian republic started on 1889 and only two times the democratic elected government was overthrown.

 

[Optional]

Because Carthage and Egypt shouldn't be grouped as Africa - yes, they are in Africa Geographically, but Culturally they are medditerranean civilizations, much like Greece and Rome

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that the U.S.A. becomes a European civilization as well, as it's almost all European influx that formed the modern U.S.A... And hey, there's a lot of African in there as well, just look at a picture of the current president of the country!
I still have my doubts about whether African peoples are considering Ethiopians as Africans. I know they're considering their neighbours, the Somalians, more as Middle Eastern people. Cultural identity is a difficult thing.

 

[bonafide11]

Of course US deserve its place on CiV, but Brazil dont need to be a super power to be included. Or Songhai was a superpower? Ethiopia? Korea? Polynesia?
.

You have to pay attention to the post I was responding to and not just pick points out of context that you want to argue with. I was responding to someone who said that Brazil deserves to be included as much as the U.S. because they are both modern nations and Brazil is expected to eventually become a superpower. I was not discussing non-modern civilizations or empires, which have significantly different criteria than a recently formed country. My point was simply that, in a historically based game, for a modern nation to be included, it must have made a significant impact on world affairs. The U.S. has made a substantially larger impact on world affairs than Brazil over the past 200 years.

 

[Pouakai]

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that the U.S.A. becomes a European civilization as well, as it's almost all European influx that formed the modern U.S.A... And hey, there's a lot of African in there as well, just look at a picture of the current president of the country!
I still have my doubts about whether African peoples are considering Ethiopians as Africans. I know they're considering their neighbours, the Somalians, more as Middle Eastern people. Cultural identity is a difficult thing.

Well yeah, I do include America as European, I see America as being Native America in the game

 

[Shakpana]

Because Carthage and Egypt shouldn't be grouped as Africa - yes, they are in Africa Geographically, but Culturally they are medditerranean civilizations, much like Greece and Rome

sorry but this sort of thinking is just wrong and very ignorant. First they can have multiple spheres of influence, second they did have a significant contribution to African civilization onward, and finally your division between North Africa and the West of Africa has skin deep racial tones to it. It basically sounds like your saying, because there is a shared black culture which is not only bs, and ignorant, but borders on racialist thinking. Africa is the most diverse continent through almost every tool of diversity we know of (linguistics, genetics, etc)
Moderator Action: Please make your case without insults or personal attacks. This constitutes flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Shakpana]

We already got (or soon will have) 4 civs on Africa. Why do 1/3 of you feel that it needs more?

because Africa is always under represented in these games?

 

[Pouakai]

It's not racist, I am not basing it on skin tones whatsoever. It's a simple fact that Carthage and Egypt had more interaction with other Medditerranean empires than they did with the rest of Africa. Carthage began as simply a Phoenician colony before developing into an empire to rival Rome. Egypt had slightly more interaction, and was even ruled by Nubian Pharaohs for a while, but in the long run they too were more medditerranean, having more interaction with Greece and then later Rome

 

[Shakpana]

#don'tfeedthetrolls


I can't believe I just used a hashtag

Anyway, it's not racist, I am not basing it on skin tones whatsoever. It's a simple fact that Carthage and Egypt had more interaction with other Medditerranean empires than they did with the rest of Africa. Carthage began as simply a Phoenician colony before developing into an empire to rival Rome. Egypt had slightly more interaction, and was even ruled by Nubian Pharaohs for a while, but in the long run they too were more medditerranean, having more interaction with Greece and then later Rome

I never said it was rascist, just 'racialist.' Your statement was burrows from outdated notions of Africa and you inadvertently divided the continent between lighter skinned northerners and dark skinned southerners. Yes, those Carthage and Egypt certianly were influenced by European and Mesopotamian cultures, but than to group all other African civs in the same category is just silly. The East Coast nations share no more similarities to the West and South, yet you are identifying them as all the same, which is a veiwpoint we have inherited from racist colonials.

Carthage certainly was a Caanonite imprint on N. Africa, but Egypt largely preceded the crucible of Mediterreanian civilization and when they tapped into it, they were not major players; they had no colonies, strong cultural taboos against shipfaring and their military campaings were through Gaza and into Mesopotamia, not the Med.

 

[CivOasis]

I would find it difficult to believe Pouakai, of all people, would hold such views...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Or Songhai was a superpower?

Yes.

Although I think the issue is relative superpower. You have to compare them to others in their known world.

 

[Shakpana]

I should clarify, I may be guilty of reading more into your comments than you actually present, but it was only out of general frustration over some ignorant positions on Africa many still hold. I personally think the idea of continents is stupid, and largely arbitrary. There is no reason why 'Europe' should be its own continent, when the Middle East, India, China, etc are all asia. These are concepts that are imbedded in 18th century thinking and must be overcome.

 

[tofofnts]

At first I'd be inclined to say that Africa is overrepresented, because, out of the civs we know 2/13 are in africa when only 1/7 people live there, HOWEVER, historically they may have had more than 1/7

 

[Shakpana]

At first I'd be inclined to say that Africa is overrepresented, because, out of the civs we know 2/13 are in africa when only 1/7 people live there, HOWEVER, historically they may have had more than 1/7

well at one point it was a 100%

 

[CivOasis]

They have the second largest population of any continent...

 

[labrynianrebel]

Of course US deserve its place on CiV, but Brazil dont need to be a super power to be included. Or Songhai was a superpower? Ethiopia? Korea? Polynesia?

Just saying that the Songhai, Ethiopia and Korea were all super-powers. Songhai dominated most of western Africa, Korea conquered Manchuria, and Ethiopia at one point controlled the Horn of Africa, Yemen and the Red Sea was their pool to play in.