Favourite Civs for an expansion - proper poll using Alexanders research

Netherlands, why? Because im a chauvinistic pig.

Dale said:

That use of 'must' define truths of existence. A must exist for B to exist. This is not the case in how you use it. Spain must be in Civ5. Spain does not determine the truth of existence for Civ5, and Civ5 will exist without Spain. Therefore if it is not a truth of existence then you are using 'must' in the other way, an ultimatum.

You are insulting people on this board by your use of the word Must as an ultimatum. Please cease using it. And btw, 'will' is opinion based not ultimatum based. So your use of "Spain will be in Civ5" is not bothering as it expresses your opinion. Whereas "Spain must be in Civ5" is a pure demand, ultimatum and insult to some readers of this board.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the "must" of necessity (or, if you like, of "existence") is roughly how I use the term. Roughly, a truly complete version of Civ 5 cannot be said to "exist" without Spain, for such a Spain-less version would be lacking a crucial feature. More precisely: the inclusion of Spain is an necessary pre-requisite for the game's completeness. Clearly, this is in no way an insult to Firaxis, for nobody expects vanilla to be complete. Completeness will be achieved with future expansion or add-ons that include Spain and other essential features. In other words: Spain must, and indeed will, be in the final version in order for the game to be complete. Such a use of "must" need not imply a demand of action, let alone an "ultimatum".

Yet another use of "must" that need not imply a demand or an obligation to act is the "must" of logical inference and supposition ("Given A, then it must be case that B"). There are several strong arguments for the inclusion of Spain. On the basis of those arguments, it can be reasonably supposed that Spain must be in the complete version of the game. Once again, such a use "must" need not imply an "insult"of any kind. At any rate, I have already explained that an "ultimatum" is not what was meant. So there is no reason to get over-sensitive and take offence for a mere semantic matter, especially considering that the statement that "Spain must be in the complete version of Civ" is supported by relevant examples and constructive argumentation.

Byzantines will be in anyway, so its ok by me

This would be my list:

Assyrians
Ethiopia (too important IMO to leave out)
Brazil (modern state--it may not be a superpower yet, but it's likely to become one in this century)
Native North Americans (Iroqois & Mississipians would be good options)
IMPORTANT MISSING OPTION: Mayans, Norsemen (as a modern European state; say Sweeden, Denmark, Norway or Kalmar Union, NOT as norse raiders)
Celts (as medieval galeic-ascent countries: Ireland, Scotlant & Wales; NOT as Roman era raiders)

Giordano Léonce;9032162 said:

On the contrary, the "must" of necessity (or, if you like, of "existence") is roughly how I use the term. Roughly, a truly complete version of Civ 5 cannot be said to "exist" without Spain, for such a Spain-less version would be lacking a crucial feature. More precisely: the inclusion of Spain is an necessary pre-requisite for the game's completeness. Clearly, this is in no way an insult to Firaxis, for nobody expects vanilla to be complete. Completeness will be achieved with future expansion or add-ons that include Spain and other essential features. In other words: Spain must, and indeed will, be in the final version in order for the game to be complete. Such a use of "must" need not imply a demand of action, let alone an "ultimatum".

Yet another use of "must" that need not imply a demand or an obligation to act is the "must" of logical inference and supposition ("Given A, then it must be case that B"). There are several strong arguments for the inclusion of Spain. On the basis of those arguments, it can be reasonably supposed that Spain must be in the complete version of the game. Once again, such a use "must" need not imply an "insult"of any kind. At any rate, I have already explained that an "ultimatum" is not what was meant. So there is no reason to get over-sensitive and take offence for a mere semantic matter, especially considering that the statement that "Spain must be in the complete version of Civ" is supported by relevant examples and constructive argumentation.

Click to expand...

Pure dramatisation on your part. Civ5 will be perfectly playable, and will be a complete product regardless of whether Spain is in it. You cannot deny that, that is pure FACT. It is YOUR OPINION that Spain will enhance the playing environment of Civ5. But you cannot deny that you would still be able to play Civ5 without Spain (albeit maybe in a less-than-desirable mood). It is MY OPINION that Spain in the game or not does not change the playing environment for me. As far as I'm concerned the Civs could be called Civ1, Civ2, Civ3, ....., Civ18, or even Morgans, Gaians, Hive, University, etc as I play the traits, not a specific named Civ. Firaxis could include any Civ they want and the game will still be complete. You cannot deny that.

By stating the game is not complete without Spain you are implying incompetence on Firaxis part for releasing "an incomplete game" as you call it. You even called it a bug to not include Spain. That is an insult and you cannot deny that.

In terms of "must", you have been using it to support demands that Firaxis "must" issue a hotfix immediately after release if Spain is not included. I believe you also said you would not play unless Spain was included. Those are demands and ultimatums. You cannot deny that, they are plain as day.

[x] all
Seriously, i want them all in.

Dragonxander PR said:

IMPORTANT MISSING OPTION: Mayans, Norsemen (as a modern European state; say Sweeden, Denmark, Norway or Kalmar Union, NOT as norse raiders)
Celts (as medieval galeic-ascent countries: Ireland, Scotlant & Wales; NOT as Roman era raiders)

Click to expand...

Well, I thought about all of them!

Maya simply didn't fit in, and I didn't want to make a shared Maya/Inca/Olmecs or smth vote.

Sweden and Denmark have a huge history, Norway on it's own can't compete. IMO Sweden under Gustav Adolf would be the best candidate, but I'm no expert. Then again, we could call the vikings Norseman or smth more fitting to represent all of the nordic culture. A local history geek (and there are a lot of fans from these countries here) could help out. Sadly, multiple leaders are gone, so we can't use this feature to represent various aspects of a culture.

When I added Celts as option, I also did so to give the modern states of Ireland and Scotland an ingame "home". IMO it's nice when you have some Civ you can see as your own.

Oops... looks like i clicked almost all of them... The more civs the better is suppose!! Obv. firaxis wouldn't have time to make say 50 but that's my ideal really. It creates space for civs that always fail to make the cut...
In the above list i excluded: hebrews, indonesians, another asian civ, and another indian civ and that's it. On second thought the Khmer, Siam AND Vietnam seems like overkill so that should be Siam and Vietnam. Some candidates not in the list in my personal opinion are polynesia, scythia , bactria and scotland but only if they make it 50 otherwise there won't be space.
Furthermore i'd prefer Austria over HRE and an actual tribe over Nat. America. Scandinavia / Sweden is also preferable over the vikings... With Siam over Khmer and Songhai over Mali those would be the 5 changes i would make in the current roster (civ4)
Would add:
35 Austrians
36 Polish
37 Scottish
38 Venetians
39 Scythians
40 Hittites
41 Assyrians
42 Bactrians
43 Phoenicians
44 Vietnamese
45 Polynesians
46 Nubians
47 Kongolese
48 Gran Columbians
49 2nd tribe (eg Sioux and Tupi in game)
50 blow me away with a final suprise

50 seems like an ideal round number. They could go 20-15-15 but they will not... 18-11-11 might still be possible to get to 40... Austria, Poland, Hittites, Vietnamese, Polynesians and Nubians would get my vote if that were to be the case...
Still i am afraid they might go 18-8-8 or something and just get 34 again (with less leaders at that). I like a bit of variety so thats quite an important point for me. I rather have less impressive leaders (not super 3d talking in own language) then less civs.

Ahriman said:

a) By Civfans I meant "people on the Civfans website"
b) Yes, its not representative of the total player fanbase... but its the best evidence we have.
c) Do you really think that the statement "a majority of civfans would see Spain as a priority in an expansion" as an unreasonable or inaccurate statement? This seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

Click to expand...

I will again say: This here is a western civsite. Look at the poll above 8 out of 24 choices are pure european. I doubt a cambodian website would come to the same results

@Léonce While I absolutly agree that (Civ 4 Colonization would be stupid without Spain it is not a mandatory part of a Civ game that spawns several millenia. This game is about Civilization and not about Colonization

There's no point in adding a small state like Sweden. Yes I know we were a major European power during a few decades of the 17th century but compared to how long Vikings were exploring new lands and striking fear into the hearts of coastal communities it's nothing.
Also if you add Sweden why not have Denmark? They had more influence than Sweden for a very long time. If you add Denmark then you could go on and just add a ton of European civs.
With the Vikings you can cheat a bit and get a unified civ for the whole of Scandinavia without actually using Scandinavia as a civ which would be rather awkward since there's never been such a thing.
Vikings are instantly recognizable both to Scandinavians and to people with an interest in history all over the world and all Scandinavians can feel that they're playing their "own civ".

Personally I don't care much which civs are included but I would prefer the largest and most influental civs if given the choice.

I vote for Spain, Carthago and East Roman Empire.

there really must be a particular reason not to have Maya in this list.

Rowain deWolf said:

I will again say: This here is a western civsite. Look at the poll above 8 out of 24 choices are pure european. I doubt a cambodian website would come to the same results

@Léonce While I absolutly agree that (Civ 4 Colonization would be stupid without Spain it is not a mandatory part of a Civ game that spawns several millenia. This game is about Civilization and not about Colonization

Click to expand...

Well, if you think in temporal terms, how may years "civs" like the USA or Germany are relevant for the history of the world? 60-70 years? That is less than 300 or 400, isnt it?

I am spanish, but dont play with spain usually. But i must say that for mods and scenarios would be useful having a spanish civ. Of course that will be made by modders if not.

I dont understand it from a marketing point of view too. I thought there was a good videogames market in my country.

And Dale, are you the modder who did those good mods about the Age of Discovery? I dont understand your point of view.

wolfman1234 said:

And Dale, are you the modder who did those good mods about the Age of Discovery? I dont understand your point of view.

Click to expand...

My point of view is easy: I don't like the insulting and demanding way certain people have posted regarding Spain. Civ5 will work, be playable, and be complete regardless of what Civs are represented.

As for me making the Age of Discovery mods (for Civ4 and Civ4:Col), you summed it up yourself quite nicely.

But i must say that for mods and scenarios would be useful having a spanish civ. Of course that will be made by modders if not.

Click to expand...

wolfman1234 said:

Well, if you think in temporal terms, how may years "civs" like the USA or Germany are relevant for the history of the world? 60-70 years? That is less than 300 or 400, isnt it?

Click to expand...

Germany was already around at 962 A.D. and it dominated European politics for the most of it's existence. One thing I don't understand is why the HELL people think that there was no Germany until 1871. Germany didn't exist as a unified State for around 68 years, from the disbandement of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations in 1803 too 1871. So to put it clear Germany is around 1040 years old and not 139 years like some people prefer to think.

So, if i understand well, your vote goes for SPAIN!!!

Seriously, i dont see civ as a modern-country game. I see civs like Spain in XVI-XVII century, Ancient Rome, Classical Greece, USA S.XX, and so. I love mods a lot more than epic games because they could show that, like your mod did. And i understand that its not possible to add all western european civs, now could be all the same civ, an occidental one perhaps.

But i dont understand what is the company criteria to choose the civs. It´s not a marketing one, not an historical one either.

Art Grin said:

Germany was already around at 962 A.D. and it dominated European politics for the most of it's existence. One thing I don't understand is why the HELL people think that there was no Germany until 1871. Germany didn't exist as a unified State for around 68 years, from the disbandement of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations in 1803 too 1871. So to put it clear Germany is around 1040 years old and not 139 years like some people prefer to think.

Click to expand...

You are right, sorry, but i see german civ (from civilization games) as modern days germany. I cant see the roman age germans as that civ, or the HRE. Its like saying spanish civ are iberians, romans, visigoths, moors, and spanish. Perhaps i am wrong, sorry , i was only answering another post, not attacking nobody.

I will again say: This here is a western civsite.
I doubt a cambodian website would come to the same results

Click to expand...

Where do you think that most Civ-players come from? I would wager that there are rather more Civ players in Europe, North America and Australia/New Zealand than there are in Cambodia. I doubt that even Korean/China/Japan/Taiwan/Singapore combined are more than 1/5 of the Civ market.

My point of view is easy: I don't like the insulting and demanding way certain people have posted regarding Spain. Civ5 will work, be playable, and be complete regardless of what Civs are represented.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But don't let this bias basic logic.

Well, if you think in temporal terms, how may years "civs" like the USA or Germany are relevant for the history of the world? 60-70 years?

Click to expand...

You are right, sorry, but i see german civ (from civilization games) as modern days germany

Click to expand...

I think at the very least people would include Prussia, so I'd give Germany 250-300 years.
And the US has been the largest economy in the world for over 100 years (and one of history's rare super-powers).

Dale said:

I don't like the insulting and demanding way certain people have posted regarding Spain. Civ5 will work, be playable, and be complete regardless of what Civs are represented.

Click to expand...

Believe me... it's an already lost battle, they won't understand. Try to ignore those posts and go on.

Ahriman said:

I think at the very least people would include Prussia, so I'd give Germany 250-300 years.

Click to expand...

yes. germans have a history of 3milleniums but those germans are ancestors and/or partly ancestors of many nations in europe, not only germany.
modern germany founded with Charlemagne's carolingian Empire (not HRE, HRE founded after him) but it also beared France, Austria and some otehr small states; not only today's germany.
anyway, if u don't count 9th century the beginning just because it also included today's other states, then Kingdom of Prussia is the start.

Ahriman said:

And the US has been the largest economy in the world for over 100 years (and one of history's rare super-powers).

Click to expand...

* even if we consider american superiority as 100years, it is still a rather short period compared to many other empires in history.
* 2010-100=1910. before ww2, america was a developing country, not a rare superpower.
* ussr was the main victor of ww2 but america benefited WW2 more and became a global power after WW2
* also after ww2, america was not the unique superpower, moreover ussr was slightly stronger than usa; about tech, military, intelligence etc.
* usa politicially defeated ussr by the help of nato allies, specifically gladio, not alone.
* so the only period that usa was the unique power is a 10-15 year period between 1990-2000 or 2010. nowadays it seems russia and china got the advantage back from usa