Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity

Canada has about as much right to claim standard time as the USA, seeing as it was a JOINT AGREEMENT to establish standard time. :p

Like I've said before, these forums are filled with Canadian nationalists. The USA was a colony of England that actually accomplished MAJOR INVENTIONS AND GREATLY ALTERED HISTORY. Without American contributions to WWII, you'd probably have the British stranded against a Nazi-dominated Europe(assuming that somehow that still happen, of course, in this American-less world). Without Canadian contributions.......I have a feeling that the Germans would have lost World War 1 and 2 regardless......and I honestly think that had the Germans won world war 1, the world would have turned out better in the longterm. The USA provided the money and a good percentage of the brains that made the ATOMIC BOMB, along with Hungarians, Italians, and German exiled scientists(mostly Jewish), and British scientists. American culture dominates Canadian society like it or not. Your international politics power in practice consists of being America's glove. They slap the gentlemen America disagrees with, but it's sting is so miniscule you don't really feel it for more than 5 seconds. Having the USA dependent on Canadian oil(your main, and essentially only consumer of oil) isn't exactly awe-inspiring power and influence. Being a notable economy doesn't mean that much anymore, or we'd have Modern Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Italy in the game. Lastly, being a civilization would imply complete independence, a solid history where your nation has proven it's distinct identity, and your people feel united and different from all other people in a specific way, whether it be language, culture, etc.

Canada honestly has very little or none of the criteria to be considered a civilization(under my thinking anyway). Distinct identity doesn't exactly exist as you officially gained home rule in the early 1900s and STILL have a monarch by technicality. You continue to speak their language, have near identical culture to your southern neighbor and your former master. A solid history doesn't exactly mean mooching off Quebecois settlements as the founding date of Canada, whose people at the time considered themselves frenchmen until recent times. Quebec is a part of Canada, but Canada is a mostly anglophone culture. Stating Quebec as your big source of history, culture, and separate identity wouldn't be very accurate.

Again, I'm sorry Canadians for this sounding a bit rude :(
But stubborn nationalists with little actual proof kinda annoy me.




Also, I'm Peruvian, and don't consider myself American whatsoever. The USA is only my current location, which might be changing to Italy soon, as I'm also Italian. So, no, no bias on my part with the above.
 
I realise that, for Americans, 250 years is still longer than their entire country has been around, but when I say "historical", I mean older than one or two centuries ago.

There's also a reason why the +0 timezone is known as Greenwich Meantime :p
 
Stupid forum lag causing stupid double posts...
 
Canada has about as much right to claim standard time as the USA, seeing as it was a JOINT AGREEMENT to establish standard time. :p

Like I've said before, these forums are filled with Canadian nationalists. The USA was a colony of England that actually accomplished MAJOR INVENTIONS AND GREATLY ALTERED HISTORY. Without American contributions to WWII, you'd probably have the British stranded against a Nazi-dominated Europe(assuming that somehow that still happen, of course, in this American-less world). Without Canadian contributions.......I have a feeling that the Germans would have lost World War 1 and 2 regardless......and I honestly think that had the Germans won world war 1, the world would have turned out better in the longterm. The USA provided the money and a good percentage of the brains that made the ATOMIC BOMB, along with Hungarians, Italians, and German exiled scientists(mostly Jewish), and British scientists. American culture dominates Canadian society like it or not. Your international politics power in practice consists of being America's glove. They slap the gentlemen America disagrees with, but it's sting is so miniscule you don't really feel it for more than 5 seconds. Having the USA dependent on Canadian oil(your main, and essentially only consumer of oil) isn't exactly awe-inspiring power and influence. Being a notable economy doesn't mean that much anymore, or we'd have Modern Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Italy in the game. Lastly, being a civilization would imply complete independence, a solid history where your nation has proven it's distinct identity, and your people feel united and different from all other people in a specific way, whether it be language, culture, etc.

Canada honestly has very little or none of the criteria to be considered a civilization(under my thinking anyway). Distinct identity doesn't exactly exist as you officially gained home rule in the early 1900s and STILL have a monarch by technicality. You continue to speak their language, have near identical culture to your southern neighbor and your former master. A solid history doesn't exactly mean mooching off Quebecois settlements as the founding date of Canada, whose people at the time considered themselves frenchmen until recent times. Quebec is a part of Canada, but Canada is a mostly anglophone culture. Stating Quebec as your big source of history, culture, and separate identity wouldn't be very accurate.

Again, I'm sorry Canadians for this sounding a bit rude :(
But stubborn nationalists with little actual proof kinda annoy me.




Also, I'm Peruvian, and don't consider myself American whatsoever. The USA is only my current location, which might be changing to Italy soon, as I'm also Italian. So, no, no bias on my part with the above.

Yeah, Canada isn't a "civilization". Even men, a guy from Toronto thinks calling Canada a cv isn't right. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_inventions. There's a lot of stupid ones, but still, in under 150 years as a country.
 
Maybe the criteria should be

Nation/country must be 1,000 years old or older to be in the game....that would limit things
 
Repeated 'Canadian discussion' is just ridiculous.
Frankly saying, I'm sick and tired of it.
 
Hopefully we'll see the British Empire rather than the English. I AM English, but of mixed Scottish and Welsh heritage...and it's time they got their due.

As for all you colonials claiming this and that..you'll be be re-intergrated into THE Empire in my games anyways:p

Really if 18 is the number then would it not make sense to pick 6 ancient(classical), 6 medieval-early industrial, 6 modern..further broken down into European, the Americas and Asia. 2 from each using the ones with the most IMPACT in their era.

Then fill in the gaps with the inevitable expansions.

(Sorry Canada, you fail in all three :lol: )
 
Here's a map I scribbled all over to represent Civ IV's civilizations in their colours (I think). Native Americans is especially scribbly being especially vague. It would be worse if I did European empires as well.
 

Attachments

  • World_map_blank_black_lines.jpg
    World_map_blank_black_lines.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 342
The former Republic of Texas, because of its role in that part of American and Mexican history. The Alamo could become some sort of cultural world wonder that could be built. Great people could be added to the game to reflect this Civ's presence, such as, but not limited to Sam Houston and GWB.


all joking aside, I would like to see Polynesia represented in some way. I also hope to see a lot of the other countries people have been talking about at least represented in the form of city-states.
 
I was also thinking that the City-States mechanics might be used to bolster the number of 'civilizations' represented in the game. But would Civ's in future expansion packs be upgraded from city state to civilization, or once made a city state otherwise discounted?
 
I would think that some would be upgraded in future expansion packs. But the way I look at it, too, is from the perspective of the amount of resources (computer processing power) it is going to take to operate that many civs in a game. It would be far less draining, I assume, to have fewer cives and more city-states than it would to have many more civs all operating at once. But would definately like to see them upgraded to civs so they can all be played.
 
Maybe the criteria should be

Nation/country must be 1,000 years old or older to be in the game....that would limit things

Great then USA Would be kicked it only had a 234 years of history :confused:

just saying

Should Australia be added, but scene The Pacific is basically ignored entirely i have little if not no hope so what do you think.

The military history of Australia spans the nation’s 220 year modern history, from the early Australian frontier wars between Aborigines and Europeans to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although this history is short when compared to that of many other nations, Australia has been involved in numerous conflicts and wars. As a British colony, Australia participated in Britain's small wars of the 19th century, and again in the First World War and Second World War, as well as in the wars in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam during the Cold War. In the Post Vietnam era Australian forces have been involved in numerous international peacekeeping missions, through the United Nations and other agencies, including in the Persian Gulf, Rwanda, Somalia, East Timor and the Solomon Islands, while more recently they have also fought as part of multi-lateral forces in the Iraq and Afghanistan. In total, during the course of these conflicts nearly 103,000 Australians have died
 
all joking aside, I would like to see Polynesia represented in some way. I also hope to see a lot of the other countries people have been talking about at least represented in the form of city-states.

I was also thinking that the City-States mechanics might be used to bolster the number of 'civilizations' represented in the game. But would Civ's in future expansion packs be upgraded from city state to civilization, or once made a city state otherwise discounted?

I've thought about the same thing today, and i think it's probable, that instead of giving the barbarian city names the name of civs which are not ingame, they'll do this instead with city states.
I guess, they'll only take civs here, which will never show up as playable civ, like Polynesia, the aboriginies, the maori or the inuit.
We don't know, what will happen, but this would imho be quite cool :).
 
Having x amount of civs for one time period and place would be stupid. We shouldn't leave important ones behind out of fear of over representation.
 
Having x amount of civs for one time period and place would be stupid. We shouldn't leave important ones behind out of fear of over representation.

I'll take this as a response to my post and will take the time to explain it.

1. It appears the majority of the posters to these boards are of western European cultural descent.
2. Taking this into account, "the important ones" generally come across as nations founded on that cultural base.Notice I say nation, we'll get back to that.
3. By viewing the "important" Civs as game-changers in their time and geographical locale you will encompass a much more varied selection of valid claims.

Ask yourself this. Were the Central/South American city-builders "important" on the world stage (putting aside the frenzy about calendars and 2012:lol: )
No they were not. However within their time frame and region they could be regarded as superpowers.
Or take Ancient China or Modern USA. Maybe the British Empire, Ethiopia etc. etc. the list is long even for those that did have an impact.

To see Australia or Canada or all the other "worthy" nations being touted is just plain silly. The majority are wonderful nations in their own right, but game-changers ? No sir, they are extensions of a cultural root, civilized they maybe, civilizations that stand on their own merits ? Not so much.
 
I'll take this as a response to my post and will take the time to explain it.

1. It appears the majority of the posters to these boards are of western European cultural descent.
2. Taking this into account, "the important ones" generally come across as nations founded on that cultural base.Notice I say nation, we'll get back to that.
3. By viewing the "important" Civs as game-changers in their time and geographical locale you will encompass a much more varied selection of valid claims.

Ask yourself this. Were the Central/South American city-builders "important" on the world stage (putting aside the frenzy about calendars and 2012:lol: )
No they were not. However within their time frame and region they could be regarded as superpowers.
Or take Ancient China or Modern USA. Maybe the British Empire, Ethiopia etc. etc. the list is long even for those that did have an impact.

To see Australia or Canada or all the other "worthy" nations being touted is just plain silly. The majority are wonderful nations in their own right, but game-changers ? No sir, they are extensions of a cultural root, civilized they maybe, civilizations that stand on their own merits ? Not so much.

You sir, just won the thread.:lol:
 
Having x amount of civs for one time period and place would be stupid. We shouldn't leave important ones behind out of fear of over representation.
That is true, but you must strike a balance. It should have a variety from various time periods and geographical locations, but there shouldn't be any strict structure.
 
I'd like to see Civs that fall behind by a great deal revolt(revolution) and change into another country either related to the fallen country or related to the period of time the game is in.Say middle ages or dark ages,,,

Now I know what some will say..."how does that help if the new civ is still backwords?"

Well I think that is a simple fix.Bring the new country to the same tech level as slowest techer on the map.

IDK maybe thats a stupid idea...

but if Britain failed it'd turn into England then into Ireland then if it happened enough Celtia?

or for Asia China to Korea then to Siam then to Vietnam then to Khmer then to whatever is left...
 
I'll defend that my home county, Brasil, should actually be in the game. It has to be considered that it has a major role in the whole history of south america (and culturally, in the whole world. Ask anyone who's not an hermit, in any place in the world who Pelé is, and then ask the same people to name a famous dutch or something....) and it is not, in anyways, represented by Incans/Maias/Aztec.
 
Top Bottom