canada discussion

Should Canada be added in the game?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 154 29.0%
  • no!

    Votes: 377 71.0%

  • Total voters
    531
Ha Ha Ha not interferring? You crack me up S.P.Q.R. Why don't you go ask Iran weither or not you interferred with their system. You say you stand for democracy but you overthrew their fledgling democracy for control of their oil. Ask Afghanistan where they got their guns and who trained them. Go to South America, and Cuba and ask if America stayed out of their business. Half of the dictatorships in these countries were US created to help the US. During WW2 you claim to be the heroes but you enter WWI because you're ships were sunk and you entered WWII because you were cocky and got your fleet sunk. The US cares about the US. It is no big loss that Canada decided not to say one thing then do another so get your facts straight. America is also young in Civ 4 standards and in my opinion should only have one leader not three. They do not deserve the same representation countries as old as Russia, and England has and more then Rome.
 
Another way to look at it: America is in the middle or near-end of its "golden age" (it may have another many many years from now), Europe and most of rest of the developed world have had plenty of golden ages already, Canada has yet to experience hers. So guess CIV as a game features only those civs that have had, or are experiencing, golden ages. It's a different way to look at it, but as one criterion for inclusion, it makes some sense actually. :)

Cheers to all the canucks here! :D

I actually think Canada's in a pretty golden age right now, it's just happening at the same time as America's and we have 10 times as many people.

This thread was damned amusing!

PS
 
I'm a canuck as well, but there are many more civs that deserve to be in long before canada is chosen (babylonions, sumarians, olmecs, etc.). I would actually like to see the american civ changed slightly as to represent it as a North American civ (one that includes some canadian input) because as of the current US/Canadian relationship is concerned, they both operate as a similar economic/political force in the international world.
 
Ha Ha Ha not interferring? You crack me up S.P.Q.R. Why don't you go ask Iran weither or not you interferred with their system. You say you stand for democracy but you overthrew their fledgling democracy for control of their oil. Ask Afghanistan where they got their guns and who trained them. Go to South America, and Cuba and ask if America stayed out of their business. Half of the dictatorships in these countries were US created to help the US. During WW2 you claim to be the heroes but you enter WWI because you're ships were sunk and you entered WWII because you were cocky and got your fleet sunk. The US cares about the US. It is no big loss that Canada decided not to say one thing then do another so get your facts straight. America is also young in Civ 4 standards and in my opinion should only have one leader not three. They do not deserve the same representation countries as old as Russia, and England has and more then Rome.

I hate to miss a chance to jump on the anit-American bandwagon without thinking but... which fledgling democracies are you talking about? The one in Dictatorial Iraq or the one in autocratic-Shahist (is that a word?) Iran?

OT: Considering the new expansion is meant to be about matters "Beyond the Sword" (I'm hoping they mean science, commerce, etc. and not just modern warfare) what better country to add then Canada? It has been non-interventionist, it tries to stay out of unjustified wars (please don't let that comment start any arguments about the Iraq war) and generally focuses on pursuits that aren't related to war. Canada probably isn't my number one pick. I would probably say the Netherlands (due to it's commerce empire) which, if I understand correctly, is a sure or near-sure thing.
 
I was refering to Iran being overthrown. You've got a point their Mrdie since Canada does seem out of place, but so is the Inca and the Sioux if they add them.
 
I hate to miss a chance to jump on the anit-American bandwagon without thinking but... which fledgling democracies are you talking about? The one in Dictatorial Iraq or the one in autocratic-Shahist (is that a word?) Iran?

OT: Considering the new expansion is meant to be about matters "Beyond the Sword" (I'm hoping they mean science, commerce, etc. and not just modern warfare) what better country to add then Canada? It has been non-interventionist, it tries to stay out of unjustified wars (please don't let that comment start any arguments about the Iraq war) and generally focuses on pursuits that aren't related to war. Canada probably isn't my number one pick. I would probably say the Netherlands (due to it's commerce empire) which, if I understand correctly, is a sure or near-sure thing.
Iraq is a justified war. We put a radical Islamical dictator out of power and are now trying to build a democracy, stop a civil war, and prevent WW3. Even if you do not support the war, there is no why that the US can pull out any time in the near future without huge consequences.
 
Ha Ha Ha not interferring? You crack me up S.P.Q.R. Why don't you go ask Iran weither or not you interferred with their system. You say you stand for democracy but you overthrew their fledgling democracy for control of their oil. Ask Afghanistan where they got their guns and who trained them. Go to South America, and Cuba and ask if America stayed out of their business. Half of the dictatorships in these countries were US created to help the US. During WW2 you claim to be the heroes but you enter WWI because you're ships were sunk and you entered WWII because you were cocky and got your fleet sunk. The US cares about the US. It is no big loss that Canada decided not to say one thing then do another so get your facts straight. America is also young in Civ 4 standards and in my opinion should only have one leader not three. They do not deserve the same representation countries as old as Russia, and England has and more then Rome.
They doctrine stated that we stayed out of eurpian conflicts. This was true until WWI when a Germany targeted US ships and tried to have Mexico declare war on us.
On the attack of pearl harbor Japan bomed us to cripple our naval fleet in the Pacific because they were frighted that we were going to enter the war. Their planned worked in the short term, but this ralied the American public support behind the war.
America has more leaders becuase the game is based in the US, therfore the creators know more about american history then other countries history.
 
^^Umm, I'm pretty sure Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because of the oil embargo, and they probably thought the U.S. was too weak to challenge them....oops.;)
 
Iraq was sort of justified, Hussein needed to be removed however I don't agree with declaring war on a country that has complied with all your demands. As for avoiding WWIII that is to be seen. US actions have only made Iran edgy with US troops so close and being called an Axis of Evil. With the Jewish state of Israel so close to an anti-semitic leader and both countries having acquired or soon to acquire nukes... Sufficive to say not a promising future.
 
Lets face it, with 24 civs heading in and another 9 chosen ontop to make Canada the 34th pick overall, sure its a water'ed down choice but a good one in terms of business and supporting the featured theme.

You look at Canada's world standing now and compare it to a Civ like the Zulus who were plucked in the past, you see its obvious CAnada has the met the right criterial this time around and has made the team . All for the most part, cuz it represents the theme and nothing else.


After integrity, the biggest decideing factor is Sales$$. Canada buys up this series like no other country besides America. Canada is rich per capita and upholds striict anti-pirating laws. Most other nations are known counterfeit markets. Canada will get its Civ partially for marketing reasons also.

Its not because half the design team works or vactions their( That helped I admit). Beyond the Sword's theme justifiys Canada's presence. Think. the name represents a focus on the future after the sword. That means throw out all old empires and focus on some new ones for a change (here Canada can be at least a last choice consideration of the 10, correct?( We might need them for a few sceanarios ;) )

Next the title seems to suggest more emphasis on peaceful alternatives to succeed. Well this highlights Canada more prominently from the other 10 candidates based on its past record of peacekeeping and Canada's widely approved social standing in many facets of non military areas )

Pull all that together with Canada's gering some military respect this time around, something that should be present for all candidates, from its increased presence on the world stage fighting gloabal terrism, and really you all shoudn't be so surprised when I tell you its already a done deal.

No shame for all you Canadian non believers. You just failed to put the proper requirements in perspective.
 
Neh. Canada hasn't done enough, and i'm canadian.

We have an awesome economy, awesome life, awesome economy, everything. We have better health care and educations than anywhere else i can think of including the USA. But we just haven't done enough. Sure we join wars that need it, but we just don't play that huge of a roll in it. Same with international rolls. We have the potential to be a big player, but for some reason we aren't.

Not to mention we don't have much culture. We're just like America pretty much on one hand, but then theres the big multi multiculturalism. Too many people do there own thing and Canada doesn't get an identity from that. (But then again that in it self is an identity I suppose :p) We share all the same ideas as the USA but in reality they did it first and people were already immigrating there giving it a huge population while Canada was still low.

America should certainly be in the game with all the leaders and everything it has now. They created the modern world in a lot of ways.:goodjob:
 
Comparing Canada with the USA is stupid.

The US is a superpower, and is commercial empire. Rather than colonizing new land or conquering other civilizations, it takes over through trade. Who does'nt know about MacDonalds, Microsoft, etc.?

Canada is a MINOR NATION. If Canada was from, say 1200s-1500s, no-one would really care about it. A minor civ at that time didn't deserve a second thought, why should one know deserve one?
 
I'm saying yes, not as a Canadian per say, but as a person who has an in depth understanding of what Canada has done for the shape of the modern world.

Canada single handedly created the concept of 'civic nationality.' This is a Nationality based on things such as shared ideas and political values. Until the federation that is now Canada was created in 1867 nationality was completely and ethnic concept (shared language, history etc...). To attempt to redefine the meaning of a concept as important as nationhood was, and still is, wrought with danger. However, it seems the idea of Civic nationalism has worked in our case and has also been successful in a number of other instances (example, many people much smarter than myself argue the modern federation that is Germany is based on the Canadian model). In doing this Canada has shown it's self to be an import, and unique 'nationality.'
 
Iraq is a justified war. We put a radical Islamical dictator out of power and are now trying to build a democracy, stop a civil war, and prevent WW3. Even if you do not support the war, there is no why that the US can pull out any time in the near future without huge consequences.

Since the justification for the war was to remove his weapons of mass destruction that never existed in the first place, I'd say the war was not justified.

Furthermore, the civil war you talk of is no justification for invading since the invasion caused the civil war in the first place.

Also, Saddam actually wasn't a radical islamist. He was very moderate in that regard and even had a Christian as his right hand man. There's now more radical islamist terrorists in Iraq than there were before the war. Going to war because you disagree with their ideas or religion is never justified in my opinion unless they're a clear and present danger to other nations.

Anyway, this is all for another thread so back on topic, I think we're just about reaching the limit of nations that deserve to be in. Any more that are added would merely be cosmetic and not necessarily needed as such.

Canada's problem is that they've never had a leader that has stamped his identity on the world consciousness. There isn't an era in Canandas history that particularly stands out either as it's never had a golden age in which it's stood out from the rest of the world. You'd be playing Canada in name only, when in reality it could be any number of other nations the world over.
 
If I may, I'd like to use a real-world argument I heard a few months back from a historian on CSPAN re: why America and Canada are viewed differently in terms of impact on the world. I think it implies well to Civilization too. This isn't an anti-Canada post, but rather an explanation of why two seemingly similar nations are not judged the same in regards to the history of civilization. I apologize in advance for the paraphrasing, but this was the gist the argument:

America is influential on the world's historical stage because it was able to forge a unique and (at the time) innovative cultural identity that Canada could not. World history has a good idea of what it is to be "American" or to have the "American dream": a nation built upon the idea of democratic innovation, multiculturalism, and the desire to rise from an impoverished immigrant to a prosperous "American." While Canada also holds the ideals, they never capitalized on them culturally, as America did. They never encapusated a "Canadian dream" or shown the world what it is to be a "Canadian."

Basically, although America's sister colonies of Canada and Australia went on to become great countries, they have not had the impact on general civilization as America has. I think when Firaxis decides which civs to include in the game, one of the major criteria that they consider is the civ's impact on civilization as a whole, and how history changed because of them (good or bad). Canada is just not there yet.


That's total bullcrap. People outside Canada and the USA actually like the Canadian values a lot more than they like American values (and identify with them a lot more), so values and culture have nothing to do with it.

The only actual reason why the USA is in the game and not Canada is because of the USA's imperialistic, military, colonialistic tendancies. When you keep fighting wars all the time, you obviously make a bigger impact on the world than when you're being peaceful (it may not be a positive impact, but that's another story).

With that said, i still vote no, because i believe that Canada hasn't had a big enough impact on the world to be in the game.
 
Hmmm, fundamentally, wasn't america another british colony in the beginning?
so the colony argument probably won't stand.
although i am a canadian and would LOVE to see a canadian empire on BTS... objectively i think there are civs with more history and distinction from the existing ones in the game and canada would probably not make it just because it lacks diversity per se.
however, if BTS is primarily focused on post-modern era, then canada may have a chance. but please wait until the next election to select the leader; i can't bear to play as stephen harper without the facist tech.
 
Comparing Canada with the USA is stupid.

The US is a superpower, and is commercial empire. Rather than colonizing new land or conquering other civilizations, it takes over through trade. Who does'nt know about MacDonalds, Microsoft, etc.?

Canada is a MINOR NATION. If Canada was from, say 1200s-1500s, no-one would really care about it. A minor civ at that time didn't deserve a second thought, why should one know deserve one?

canada is not a minor nation; it is the second largest sovereign in the world, with significant contribution to the UN system; Canadian judge Louise Arbour is serving as the UN human rights commissioner!
 
Top Bottom