Favourite Civs for an expansion - proper poll using Alexanders research

Newcomer24 said:

And so? I don't see any problem there... wouldn't Civ5 be playable and enjoyable even without England or Greece? Of course yes...

Click to expand...

Not unplayable no. But annoying yes. Leaving out Greece or Egypt leaves out a hugely historically important civilization. There are about a dozen civilizations in the globe that just seems wrong to go without, and Spain is most certainly among them.

So yes, Civ5 could end up being shipped without China, and would be playable without the United States. But leaving them out is kind of a travesty, their impact on the globe is just too great to ignore. Spain is in this category, the fact the civ5 team chose to exclude Spain is simply downright flabbergasting. That's the point I was making.

And any of those Acts can be repealed by a single Act of Parliament.

An American-style constitution is one which *cannot* be simply repealed, and has super-majority requirements enshrined in the constitution itself.

This is the central aspect of a constitution on which the whole point at issue rests.

If your supreme law document doesn't have a supermajority or referendum requirement to amend, then it doesn't actually slow change at all, since any Government with a majority could alter the "constitution" document at will and then institute whatever change they wished.

My main point is that there is no fundamental need for a democracy to have a formal constitution that cannot be changed by a single majority vote. This is why I was so irritated by the claim that:

The constitution is what keeps the mob in check. Plain democracy is an unworkable system.

Click to expand...

Oh fine...I'll amend it to "Plain democracy is an inferior system and will never work in the long term, though you may get away with it for a while".

Ahriman said:

My main point is that there is no fundamental need for a democracy to have a formal constitution that cannot be changed by a single majority vote. This is why I was so irritated by the claim that:

Click to expand...

I agree with your main point.

Luckily for Australia we do have that protection. For us, Constitution changes can only be enacted by:
- Majority in both houses of Parliament
- Majority of voters nationally in a referendum
- Majority of voters in a majority of States in a referendum

Dale said:

I agree with your main point.

Luckily for Australia we do have that protection. For us, Constitution changes can only be enacted by:
- Majority in both houses of Parliament
- Majority of voters nationally in a referendum
- Majority of voters in a majority of States in a referendum

Click to expand...

All three together or will meeting any one condition do it?

"Plain democracy is an inferior system and will never work in the long term, though you may get away with it for a while".

Click to expand...

This strikes me as incredibly arrogant on your part.

150+ years in New Zealand so far, up to ~850 years depending on when you start counting from in the UK.
63 years in Israel. (There are lots of things to complain at about Israel, but a lack of consistent policy isn't one of them.)
How many democracies are there that have been around longer than these?

Varelse said:

All three together or will meeting any one condition do it?

Click to expand...

All three of course.

awesome said:

camarilla's pretty much proven in here that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

i don't think u understood what i was trying to tell then.
my comments included no underestimation of today's american power though some american guys took my comments consciously on the wrong side and they just spoke about what they wanted to say, regardless of my comments and as if they were replying me.
let me remind the case; usa was mentioned a superpower for 100years, which was obviously an exagguration. 100years ago, usa didn't even attend with the world war I; no strong country wants to miss such a "chance", world wars are only for expanding imperialist positions/benefits.

Ahriman said:

How significant is France's cultural impact on the world outside Europe? Pretty small, outside its ex-colonies, and maybe classical music and art. France never had that widespread a cultural dominance..

Click to expand...

Pretty small indeed!

Maybe we can consider that french language is spoken in polynesia (french polynesia, new Caledonia...), north america (quebec), in the carribean (haiti, antilles...), south america (french guyana), asia (indochina aka vietnam+laos+cambodge) and africa (huge ex colonial empire)...is it enough "outside europe" for you?

To make sense, its clearly less important than english or spanish but just compare it with German, Italian or Scandinavian culture spread.

You cannot avoid speaking about the ex-colonies...it is just a huge example of the world french impact!

@gedemo
yes, u are right.
well, france, spain etc did very well about culture spread and that was the best they can do w/o internet. that was what i meant while saying "there was no broadcasting in that era"

comparing today's usa's cultural hegamony with medieval france is just not fair.

let me give an exampel from my country; in turkey just until 20-30years before now, french was the most popular foreign language and it was very necessary for business. then english got its place as 1st. that is also partly because of france's bad recent relationship with turkey, not only because of usa's cultural effect.

phungus420 said:

Spain is in this category, the fact the civ5 team chose to exclude Spain is simply downright flabbergasting.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify that Spain may still be in !!!

We only have clear proof for 16 civs (like the statement that "Monty is the same old warmonger").
Persia and Siam are only confirmed through their UU (Immortals and "Siamese Elephants") and we don't know if city states have UU! So they are technically not confirmed.
The Incas are only mentioned through the quechua language, which might also be a mistake by the magazine, they may have meant the aztecs.

I want more natives!

Polynesians
Inuits
Tupis
Arawaks
Papuan/Srivijaya/Majapahit/Sulawesi
Aborigenes

@Tomice; I agree with u. We only have 15 exactly confirmed civs. So for 3 remaining slots, I would like to have:
Spain, Persia and Inca IN vanilla
Viking (or Scand), Maya, Portugal, Netherlands, and Celts IN 1st EP

Gedemo said:

I want more natives!

Polynesians
Inuits
Tupis
Arawaks
Papuan/Srivijaya/Majapahit/Sulawesi
Aborigenes

Click to expand...

i assume we will see them as city-states but not so many of them.

At WePlayCiv we've been tracking Civs/Leaders very carefully. Here's the full list as we see it:

Primary source = Firaxis/2K employees, can normally be assumed to be almost 100% reliable
Secondary source = Press/people who've seen the game in person, reliability depends on the reputation of the source and the quality of the report (off-hand mention vs detailed description)
Tertiary source = Re-telling of a secondary source (e.g. write-up of a magazine preview), not reliable on its own without detailed context and/or independent reports of original source

? = not enough info to call.

America - lock: screenshot, numerous sources
Arabia - ?: tertiary source (al-Rashid mention by GamePro)
Aztec - lock: Jaguar Warrior (screenshot/artwork) leaderhead (PC Powerplay)
China - lock: 2 tertiary sources (Wu Zetian mentioned by Computer Bild Spiele and Gamepro) Leaderhead (PCZone)
Egypt - almost-lock: 2 secondary sources (Rameses mention by IGN) played Egypt in demo (TenTonHammer)
England - lock: artwork, several sources
France - lock: primary source (Napoleon mention in G4TV interview) leader concept (PC Powerplay)
Germany - lock: several screenshots, numerous sources
Greece - almost-lock: played with in a demo (Gamespot mention), and secondary source (Alexander mention by 1UP/UGO (same article))
Inca - ?: tertiary source (Quechua mention by Swedish mag)
India - lock: primary source (Gandhi mention in G4TV interview)
Japan - lock: artwork (Samurai) and several sources
Mongolia - likely: tertiary source (Genghis Khan mention by GamePro) and secondary (PC Powerplay)
Ottomans - likely: 2 secondary sources (Janissary mention by Italian mag; Suleiman mention by IGN)
Persia - likely: secondary source (Italian mag mention) + tertiary source (Dutch mag mention)
Rome - lock: primary source (PC Gamer interview)
Russia - likely: secondary source (Katherine mention by IGN and discussed at length in their podcast)
Siam - possible: secondary source (Italian mag mention) -- possible mix-up with city state/India/generic War Elephant?
Songhai - almost-lock: played with in a demo (IGN report)

Click to expand...

And this is probably in a more readable list:

Locked:
America - Washington
Aztec - Montezuma
China - Wu Zetian
England - Elizabeth (Victoria - unlikely from leader-head concept)
France - Napoleon
Germany - Bismarck
India - Gandhi
Japan - Oda Nobunaga
Rome - Julius Caesar

Almost locked:
Egypt - Ramses II
Greece - Alexander
Songhai - Askia

Likely:
Mongolia - Genghis Khan
Ottomans - Suleiman
Persia - ?
Russia - Catherine

To little to call:
Arabia - Harun al-Rashid
Inca - ?
Siam - ?

Click to expand...

Which means at this point I'll call 12 confirmed, 7 unconfirmed.

camarilla said:

i assume we will see them as city-states but not so many of them.

Click to expand...

So I hope it would me not too hard to create my own leaderheads: I hope that we'll have a guy like Pacal II (in civ IV) with a "native look" that I could modify

@dale
12? i think that list is too much skeptical.
according to that point of view, we can be so much skeptical as to say a civ to be likely after seeing it played in a demo. games can always be changed at the last minute.
shortly, i don't find that list realistic. it says alex, suleiman and genghis to be likely IN the game. either 15 is confirmed or none of them is confirmed.
in the beginning, i didn't believe any rumor because the internet site just didn't show anything. but now i think; if we won't believe 100% else than what firaxis says, then we won't know anything till buying the game. because firaxis guys make so many interviews but say so less.

Gedemo said:

Pretty small indeed!

Maybe we can consider that french language is spoken in polynesia (french polynesia, new Caledonia...), north america (quebec), in the carribean (haiti, antilles...), south america (french guyana), asia (indochina aka vietnam+laos+cambodge) and africa (huge ex colonial empire)...is it enough "outside europe" for you?

To make sense, its clearly less important than english or spanish but just compare it with German, Italian or Scandinavian culture spread.

You cannot avoid speaking about the ex-colonies...it is just a huge example of the world french impact!

Click to expand...

And this is even without all the lands conquered and heavily influenced by Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. For example: without that we wouldn't have meters, liters and kilograms in the Netherlands and many other countries.

let me remind the case; usa was mentioned a superpower for 100years, which was obviously an exagguration. 100years ago, usa didn't even attend with the world war I; no strong country wants to miss such a "chance", world wars are only for expanding imperialist positions/benefits.

Click to expand...

Didn't *attend*? Are you kidding me? The US wasn't an important country because it didn't get involved in a war until very late?

I'll happily reduce "superpower" to 70 years, but still claim "most important country in the world" for at least 100 years. Biggest economy means a lot.

Pretty small, outside its ex-colonies,

Click to expand...

Ahem. I'm happy to concede colonial impact.

Also, showing a map of ex-colonies isn't that helpful, as if land area alone mattered. outside Quebec and the *state* lousiana (not the whole Louisiana territory) how much cultural impact did France have on the continental US? Please don't tell me you really think they had much impact on Illinois or Michigan or Iowa.
Impact on India is minimal.
Most of the African area covered is barely populated desert (though still some heavily populated areas on the coasts). The Pacific Islands are tiny and lightly populated.

So yeah, French impact still significant in Quebec, Haiti, Algeria/Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroon, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Tahiti, Mali, Chad, Mauritania, and a few others. Obviously also lasting military impact due to intervention in the American Revolution. But cultural impact on the rest of the world? The lasting legacy of French being the international language, and the culture of aristocrats? Not much, IMO.

Metric measures I'll also willingly concede.

I guess this is a non-issue really, in the eyes of the beholder. My real point I suppose is just that English has become the dominant world language and culture, and that its hard to see much long-term impact of France in India, China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, Latin America, or really any of the significant economies of the world outside Europe. I'll still gladly give them 3rd or 4th in terms of importance of colonial powers (unclear to me whether or not Brazil matters more in the long-run than all of the French colonies combined).

@ahriman,
cultural impact doesn't necessarily mean you directly rule the states. usa is ruling iraq and that is an extreme case. france isn't ruling any country (except its continuing effect on ex-colonies) but still it influences many countries.
my examples were simple; russian society speaking mostly french during balls in 19th century etc.

and i'll give another example then, as u still don't cut the issue; hebrews have a great cultural effect on usa though israel is a very weak country by all means. i think this is more weird than all.