Favourite Civs for an expansion - proper poll using Alexanders research

bonafide11 said:

I would think it'd be a civ from southern Africa (perhaps the Zulu).

Click to expand...

That's why I voted for another sub-Saharan civ. Africa has always (imho) been short-changed (both in civ and in rl!) Could be zulu, or could be a new civ; lots of great ones to choose from. I've always thought the xhosa led by Nelson Mandela would be amazing. Berbers would also be cool (though that's N Africa). A bit further to the North, the Nabataeans would also be an amazing city state

Giordano Léonce;9030881 said:

Spain is an high priority feature, and this is what the use of "must" is meant to convey. This is not an ultimatum, but a claim that is supported by very strong arguments.

Click to expand...

If your goal is to convey that Spain is a high priority Civ, then, in the view of this native English speaker, the appropriate word to use is "should," not "must." As has already been pointed out, the use of "must" communicates an ultimatum, a demand for action, and almost always signals the end of reasonable discussion and the beginning of swapped expressions of absolutes. In contrast, "should" conveys the sense that something is appropriate, expected, or supported by very strong arguments without any of the rude undertones of "must."

As an aside, in Portuguese, the only romance language with which I am reasonably familiar, both should and must translate as "dever." The nuance between the two words in English is mainly communicated through context in Portuguese. When I taught English in Brazil, I found that one of the more common stumbling blocks for intermediate and advance students was learning the fine distinction between two diferent English words - such as "must" and "should" - that shared a single Portuguese counterpart. [\off topic and slightly pretenious language lesson]

I chose Majapahit, Siam, and Viet. Southeast Asia needs some serious love after decades of neglect in the Civ franchise. Putting the Khmer back in would be cool too, although if thy were the case, I'd probably not want Viet in as well.

I completely agree with Dale - it would be a mistake to have a civilization called "Indonesia" in place of Majapahit. If it must be called something else, call it the Javanese Empire then.

Ahriman said:

Dale; we're in a thread with a poll, more people have voted for Spain than any other. Reading the Spain rant thread also made it clear that most posters in that thread thought Spain had an important history and should be a priority selection for inclusion in an expansion.

Click to expand...

Afterall this is a western board so no wonder western civs are highly supported. Wonder if Spain would get so many votes on an Southeast-asian board

For that matter it would also be interesting how many votes Spain would get in Bilbao or Barcelona

liquid fire said:

A bit further to the North, the Nabataeans would also be an amazing city state

Click to expand...

I'll second that. Not only woul they make a great city-state, but Petra would be a pretty cool trade-boosting wonder. Can you imagine the Indiana Jones-esque wonder video it would have. That'd be great.

bonafide11 said:

Okay, I've seen this argument a few times now, that Spain is crucial to Earth maps. Can someone explain to me why? If Spain isn't there, there are still several other major European civilizations to take that open land. I don't see how the exclusion of Spain is going to ruin the game.

Click to expand...

The exclusion of Spain would make the Earth map look completely unhistorical, especially during the exploration and colonization eras. One of the reason why people play the Earth map is because they want to enjoy a game that bears at least some vague overall resemblance to how history actually played out. Without Spain, such a resemblance would be impossible to achieve.

Besides, probably less than 1% of all games are played on Earth maps, so I don't think that's really that strong of an argument anyway.

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the number of people who regularly play on Earth maps. Moreover a number of influential mods, such as Rhye's, are essentially based on the Earth map and require Spain to be a playable civ. For that reason, if Spain is not in vanilla, then it will be soon modded in anyway.

Newcomer said:

you keep advertising Spain telling how much cool it is compared to other countries... sort of nationalist propaganda... that's why I called you a nationalist.

Click to expand...

You have not read what I said. I never said that Spain is "cooler" than other countries. I never made a comparison between Spain and some other county. For example, I said that Spain was a leading world power throughout its golden age, known as El Siglo de Oro. This is a factual statement, not a comparison between Spain and some other country.

Ahriman said:

That may be what you *mean* it to convey, but that is not what it actually conveys to readers.

Click to expand...

Readers who have actually read my post will know what my use of "must" is meant to convey, since I have already explained it multiple times, supporting my statements with arguments, examples, and constructive criticism. It would be extremely unreasonable to take personal offence for such a futile verbal issue.

There is little doubt that if Spain is not in vanilla, then it will be added by an expansion pack or add-on. Thus, Spain will be in Civ 5. Here, "will" is even stronger than "must" in that it implies future certainty. Yet few people would object that eventually Spain will be in Civ5, let alone be offended by that.

I want my Hannibal, Gilgamesh and Hammurabi. More civs from the fertile crescent, please

Giordano Léonce;9031008 said:

The exclusion of Spain would make the Earth map look completely unhistorical, especially during the exploration and colonization eras. One of the reason why people play the Earth map is because they want to enjoy a game that bears at least some vague overall resemblance to how history actually played out. Without Spain, such a resemblance would be impossible to achieve.

Click to expand...

The same is true if CiV is missing Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Carthage/Phoenicians, Native Americans, Inca + Maya (especially if Spain is in), Southeast-asia would need several Civs, Ethiopia and several other African civs etc etc.
I hope Firaxis is prepared to pump CiV up to 50 or 60 Civs else playing the world-map would clearly be unhistorical and no joy.

I voted for glorious Poland.

Danchops said:

As has already been pointed out, the use of "must" communicates an ultimatum, a demand for action, and almost always signals the end of reasonable discussion and the beginning of swapped expressions of absolutes. In contrast, "should" conveys the sense that something is appropriate, expected, or supported by very strong arguments without any of the rude undertones of "must."

Click to expand...

The verb "must" can be also used in other ways that need not imply a demand for action. For example, it is often used to state that something is being logically inferred from something else (as in: "It must be late"). It can also be used to state that something is necessary or essential to something else (as in: "Matter must be made of particles"). Neither of these uses need imply a demand or request of any kind, let alone an "ultimatum". I have argued in a constructive manner that Spain is a necessary and essential feature ("it is a must", as one might put it using the nominalized form). In that sense, my use of "must" is entirely appropriate to what I mean to convey.

Rowain deWolf said:

The same is true if CiV is missing Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Carthage/Phoenicians, Native Americans, Inca + Maya (especially if Spain is in), Southeast-asia would need several Civs, Ethiopia and several other African civs etc etc.
I hope Firaxis is prepared to pump CiV up to 50 or 60 Civs else playing the world-map would clearly be unhistorical and no joy.

Click to expand...

Many people who play the Earth map (as opposed to regional maps) do so because they enjoy the Ages of Discovery and Colonization. Sumer, Babylon or Assyria are not historically relevant to those eras. I cannot imagine playing Sid Meier's Colonization without Spain. The colonization aspect is also a crucial part of Sid's Meier civilization.

Giordano Léonce;9031008 said:

The exclusion of Spain would make the Earth map look completely unhistorical, especially during the exploration and colonization eras. One of the reason why people play the Earth map is because they want to enjoy a game that bears at least some vague overall resemblance to how history actually played out. Without Spain, such a resemblance would be impossible to achieve.



I think you underestimate the number of people who regularly play on Earth maps. Moreover a number of influential mods, such as Rhye's, are essentially based on the Earth map and require Spain to be a playable civ. For that reason, if Spain is not in vanilla, then it will be soon modded in anyway.

Click to expand...

Making the Earth map look completely unhistorical? Now you're just being silly. As if there's anything historical about the United States starting in 4000BC right next to a Native American civilization and the Aztec civilization, or the African continent being nearly empty while European is overly crowded. Again, your point makes no sense. I'm all for Spain being included in Civ V, but your argument is weak.

Yes, if Spain is not included in vanilla, it will soon be modded in anyway. But so will hundreds of other civilizations, some of them obscure and fantasy related. Some hardcore Idaho residents will probably soon mod an Idaho civilization, so I don't know what your point is.

bonafide11 said:

Making the Earth map look completely unhistorical? Now you're just being silly. As if there's anything historical about the United States starting in 4000BC right next to a Native American civilization and the Aztec civilization, or the African continent being nearly empty while European is overly crowded.

Click to expand...

There are lot ways of avoiding the kind patently unhistorical starts you mention. Rhye's mod, for example, does precisely that. Another way is to devise pre-made scenarios. Rhye's mod, as well most modern-era scenarios based on the Earth map, do require Spain.

Yes, if Spain is not included in vanilla, it will soon be modded in anyway. But so will hundreds of other civilizations, some of them obscure and fantasy related.

Click to expand...

Fantasy and obscure civilization can be modded in by anyone who likes them, but that hardly makes them a priority. Not so with Spain, which is a high priority civ, crucial to most historical scenarios. If it's not in vanilla, it will be one of the first civs to be modded in.

Could we please stay on topic? There has been enough discussion about a single word.
Spain is a desire of a lot of players, and will probably be in Civ 5. And if it's only for the female leader and the big gaming market in modern spain. Customers are king, after all.

End of line. Please!

BTW, I'm quite surprised about Carthago and Byzantine...

BTW, I'm quite surprised about Carthago and Byzantine...

Click to expand...

Why? Everyone has heard of them, and they have some awesome history and Romantic imagery. Plus, people are used to using them in many other games (eg Total War series).

Tomice said:

@ Dale:

I added the word "Indonesions" for Majapahit because we can safely assume over 90% of the people on this board don't really know who they are. To stay honest, I didn't know them until you stated believably that they were a major faction in southeast-asia. I can swear they are not in our history books - not that this means a thing

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Not a lot was known about a lot of these types of Civilizations till recently, or they were just not taken seriously except locally where the Civilization used to exist. However a lot of new information is being found for a lot of these Civilizations bringing them closer to general knowledge, which is a good thing.

Ahriman said:

Dale; we're in a thread with a poll, more people have voted for Spain than any other. Reading the Spain rant thread also made it clear that most posters in that thread thought Spain had an important history and should be a priority selection for inclusion in an expansion.

Click to expand...

I would not take any poll conducted at CFC to convey the feelings of the "majority of reasonable civfans". CFC is the biggest fansite for Civ, and it doesn't even see 1% of total civfans. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that CFC can truly represent the "majority of reasonable civfans".

It's like saying the people on 121st street represent the feelings in the whole of New York.

Giordano Léonce;9031116 said:

The verb "must" can be also used in other ways that need not imply a demand for action. For example, it is often used to state that something is being logically inferred from something else (as in: "It must be late"). It can also be used to state that something is necessary or essential to something else (as in: "Matter must be made of particles"). Neither of these uses need imply a demand or request of any kind, let alone an "ultimatum". I have argued in a constructive manner that Spain is a necessary and essential feature ("it is a must", as one might put it using the nominalized form). In that sense, my use of "must" is entirely appropriate to what I mean to convey.

Click to expand...

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.

i'm kind of wishing i didn't vote for spain after the whinefest that's gone down in here. i never play as spain anyway, so it really wouldn't bother me very much.
but anyway, i'd like some more civs from africa and the americas. brazil'd be cool, but i guess i could deal with just plain latin america, just something more than only inca in south america. the native americans should definitely make a return. it's fun beating up on sitting bull. for africa, i'd like to see zulu and/or kongo to balance out the map a little bit.

Well, I've seen Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia (during the incredible "Fallas" festivity), and they by all means deserve their place in civ. They have an awesome culture, and my favourite place to be after Norway/Sweden and... well, Austria and Croatia! ;-)

But whining really doesn't help, neither does nationalism. I won't complain Austria is not popular at all, that's the way it is! It's good to know what others think about you, or how well they know you.

In general, i'm very happy how this poll turned out, I still hope for a few more votes, though. But already now I guess it gives a good feeling for the desires of the community. What I still hope for is the restrospective approval of Alexander to build up on his good work.

I would not take any poll conducted at CFC to convey the feelings of the "majority of reasonable civfans". CFC is the biggest fansite for Civ, and it doesn't even see 1% of total civfans. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that CFC can truly represent the "majority of reasonable civfans".

Click to expand...

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.