19 Civilizations, let's guess!

[Pink Floyd]

let's put aside the fact that america has had one of the greatest influences on the world for the past 200 years not only politically, but also economically and scientifically. let's forget the fact that the US has been the only superpower since the fall of the soviet union. let's review the thoughts of many people that argue the US should not be included due to it's lack of history, dating back only to the late 1700's. in your theory, america is merely a colony of england, and should be integrated into great britain. as i read through these posts, i couldn't help but notice that germany is a guarantee in all of these posts. germany didn't become a country until i believe 1861, following the Franco-Prussian war. that's basically 100 years younger than america. if you want to include a true civilization, perhaps we should return to calling it prussia, since prussia made up the bulk of germany. although, prussia itself isn't that old itself. and if we include prussia, why not include austria-hungary, since the hapsburgs dominated eastern europe for at least 500 years. the best solution, i believe, would be to unify all the eastern wuropean nations into the Holy Roman Empire. the holy roman empire existed for much longer than all the modern countries of eastern europe, and is much more logical in your thoughts of not including america. In that sense, Russia should be Muscovy, or the Ottoman Empire, which controlled russia for much of history.

my point is that this series has been created by western civilization. the developers know that most of the typical gamers wish to play with countries they can identify. If the game was dominated with classic civlizations as the holy roman empire, muscovy, or nations that have been extinct for centuries, it would be much less enjoyable. the point of these games is not to portray an accurate account of historic nations, but to create the most recognized and influential societies in modern life. america cannot be left out in exchange for some african country like ethiopia or mali. the mass majority of gamers wish to build up cities like New York, Berlin, and Paris, not some third world country village. of course the classic civilizations of rome, greece, and egypt will not be forgotten, as their accomplishments are still glorified in today's world. the major european nations such as germany, france, russia, and england will be included, along with japan and china. america, as strongly as many of you oppose it, will be in the game. the rest of the 19, which will include other european nations, as well as native american, african, and other asian countries will surely be included, but is going to be whatever the creators think that the consumer wants. popular demand is the key in aims of profit motive.

 

[dh_epic]

AndrewH, while everyone in Europe was living in the dark ages, where might made right and there was very little order or progress, Mali was one of the most important centers economically and philosophically. Thinkers from all around the world gathered in Timbuktu, which was one of the epicenters of the world for hundreds of years. Mali was also the source of half the world's gold supply at one time.

Of course, Civ skips that part of the tech tree, when you go from Roman Construction and Greek Republic to European Feudalism and Christianity in a single jump -- trivializing 500 years of history for the rest of the world.

It's no surprise that the average game fan thinks of 500 AD to 1000 AD as "the time when nothing happened" and wants a game where it's 16 European Civs, plus America, China, and the A-rabs.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

let's put aside the fact that america has had one of the greatest influences on the world for the past 200 years not only politically, but also economically and scientifically. let's forget the fact that the US has been the only superpower since the fall of the soviet union. let's review the thoughts of many people that argue the US should not be included due to it's lack of history, dating back only to the late 1700's. in your theory, america is merely a colony of england, and should be integrated into great britain.

Fair enough I guess, but the US has only been a world power since about 1900 or so, and the last 15 years are very trivial in world where written history spans more than five millenia. Many historical-minded people would just prefer if America was just skipped and released in an expansion pack.

germany didn't become a country until i believe 1861, following the Franco-Prussian war. that's basically 100 years younger than america. if you want to include a true civilization, perhaps we should return to calling it prussia, since prussia made up the bulk of germany. although, prussia itself isn't that old itself. and if we include prussia, why not include austria-hungary, since the hapsburgs dominated eastern europe for at least 500 years. the best solution, i believe, would be to unify all the eastern wuropean nations into the Holy Roman Empire. the holy roman empire existed for much longer than all the modern countries of eastern europe, and is much more logical in your thoughts of not including america. In that sense, Russia should be Muscovy, or the Ottoman Empire, which controlled russia for much of history.

The Holy Roman Empire was little more than a title except during the period AD800 - 843. At that time it included only France, far-northeastern Spain, northern Italy, the lowlands and western and southern Germany. The Holy Roman Empire never ruled any of eastern Europe, except Silesia (now in Poland and Czech Republic), and for a short time Dalmatia (coastal and island Croatia). Prussia itself was created in 1525 when the Teutonic Order was secularised as a Duchy. But it is hardly worthy of inclusion. Germany has existed in one way or another since AD843, although it is true that it only became a real "state" in 1871. The Ottoman Empire ruled nothing in modern Russia, and there were other Grand Principalities (wrongly called Grand Duchies) in Russia other than Muscovy which dominated Russia at one point or another - Novgorod, Vladimir, and Kiev (in Ukraine) for the main examples.

my point is that this series has been created by western civilization. the developers know that most of the typical gamers wish to play with countries they can identify. If the game was dominated with classic civlizations as the holy roman empire, muscovy, or nations that have been extinct for centuries, it would be much less enjoyable. the point of these games is not to portray an accurate account of historic nations, but to create the most recognized and influential societies in modern life. america cannot be left out in exchange for some african country like ethiopia or mali. the mass majority of gamers wish to build up cities like New York, Berlin, and Paris, not some third world country village. of course the classic civilizations of rome, greece, and egypt will not be forgotten, as their accomplishments are still glorified in today's world. the major european nations such as germany, france, russia, and england will be included, along with japan and china. america, as strongly as many of you oppose it, will be in the game. the rest of the 19, which will include other european nations, as well as native american, african, and other asian countries will surely be included, but is going to be whatever the creators think that the consumer wants. popular demand is the key in aims of profit motive.

Too true and well said Although Mali and Ethiopia and so forth have had very mighty cities and have been very great empires in their day.

AndrewH, while everyone in Europe was living in the dark ages, where might made right and there was very little order or progress, Mali was one of the most important centers economically and philosophically. Thinkers from all around the world gathered in Timbuktu, which was one of the epicenters of the world for hundreds of years. Mali was also the source of half the world's gold supply at one time.

Of course, Civ skips that part of the tech tree, when you go from Roman Construction and Greek Republic to European Feudalism and Christianity in a single jump -- trivializing 500 years of history for the rest of the world.

It's no surprise that the average game fan thinks of 500 AD to 1000 AD as "the time when nothing happened" and wants a game where it's 16 European Civs, plus America, China, and the A-rabs.

Indeed. It is strange though because that 500 year period was one of the most notable historically. It saw the rise of the Turks, sub-Saharan empires, Arabs, Tibet, as well as the earliest conceptions of England, France, Germany and Italy; and also saw the greater part of the fall of the Mayans, Olmecs (?), and much of the Roman world (only Greece and Turkey remained Roman in any sense after AD1000).

 

[dc82]

Fair enough I guess, but the US has only been a world power since about 1900 or so, and the last 15 years are very trivial in world where written history spans more than five millenia. Many historical-minded people would just prefer if America was just skipped and released in an expansion pack.

i think the point is though, the past 100 years, even if it's a small part of the thousands of years of human history, is still nonetheless just as important. truth of the matter is, while a "superpower" nation a few thousand years ago may have at most impacted a few continents and the millions living in it, the US has affected the lives and results of events of all the continents and the billions of lives who live in the world. to skip on that wud be saying that everything from the world wars, nuclear weapons, the cold war (and bringing the world to the brink of annihilation), inventions such as electricity, the internet, nuclear tech, automobiles, etc. don't mean anything.

and again, just the same, if we're strictly judging civs by time, then there are plenty of civs on that list that shouldn't be including in the game either. while america wudn't fit much in the first half of the game, having the us come in the latter half is much more relevant than having the mayans or babylonians. but hey, that's the fun of civ - it's historical and fictional at the same time. what if the us encountered the babylonians.

 

[Chazbagel]

but still. they were behind everyone so its hard to say there scientific... but i do see ur point and i think that i will shut up on that topic.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Carthage should definitely be in it.






It won't be, though.

 

[Chazbagel]

Like someone earlier said in this post, i dont think that it really matters... modding is supposed to be so in debth that i figure Rhye, Kal El, TeTurkhan will make us more maps, and MANY can make us high quality units.. And just about anyone can make civs. Even then, they will add more in an expansion pack, if one is made.

 

[sir_schwick]

what if the us encountered the babylonians.

We'd tear down the leader's statues and find him eight months later in a spider hole.

 

[Yamamoto]

original 16 civs of Civ3 plus:

- Brazil
- Australia
- one more representative african tribe

 

[Communisto]

no way, australia will never be in

 

[KERZHAKOV]

It's my desires:

1. Russia(USSR?)
2. England
3. France
4. Germany(Prussia?)
5. Rome/Italy
6. Scandinavia/Sweden(Finland?Danmark?Norwey?)
7. Egypt
8. China
9. India(Tibet?)
10. America/USA(Iroquois?)
11. Japan
12. Greece
13. Arabia(Israel?)
14. Mongolia(Korea?)
15. Maya
16. Zululand(Bantu?Maori?Carthage?Ethiopia?)
17. Spain(Portugal?Celts/Hunns/Gots?Netherlands/Holland?Byzantiens?Turkey/Ottomans?Austria?)
18. Persia(Sumeria?Hetts?Babylon?)
19. Aztecs(Incas?)

First Civ's name is most desirable.

 

[Chazbagel]

We'd tear down the leader's statues and find him eight months later in a spider hole.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH ... lol

 

[Chazbagel]

If they add in Australia, they would also add in Canada. I would actually like to see them both so the game isnt so much geared towards the ancient age.

 

[dh_epic]

AndrewH, they weren't behind everyone. That's the issue. For a while, they were AHEAD of a lot of people, especially the Europeans.

Although that's kind of natural in a dark age. It took the renaissance for Europe to resurge in progress. Many thinkers see the same thing in Africa today -- a region of the world still waiting for its rennaisance.

Will it happen? I don't know. But the reign towards the top from 500 to 1000 AD should not be forgotten.

Mali as scientific-commercial would make sense.

 

[Chazbagel]

I believe that the reason africa didnt develop as much as the European countries and other parts of the world is because the lack of farms. Everywhere in africa people are making their own food, they have their own wells, etc. If they had more farms that would give other people time to make stores, and other things in society...

dh i see ur point. I didnt really know much about ethiopia, all that i knew was that all of the european countries came with gunpowder and took over africa, so i figured that africa must have been behind on science...

 

[sir_schwick]

The biggest advancement in the early Renaissance was weapons technology. That is the consequence of nearly five-hundred years of proto-nation state warfare. Mostly though, Africans contributed greatly to the demise and colonization of Africa. Europeans had neither the men nor the manpower to conquer that continent in the 15th and 16th century. Tribal warfare in various kingdoms contributed to a booming weapons import industry. They paid out with slaves, which were very popular in the Western Hemisphere. While the population costs of the Atlantic slave trade were great, the establishment of political systems based on oppression and exploitation were more important. This lead to the decline of internal scientific and industrial development.

When Europeans started to colonize Africa for resources rather than slaves in the 19th century, African arms and other technology was way behind and Europe had the manpower to maintain order. The wealth of African nations was exported to Europe through the brutal oppression and economic exploitation that was Colonialism. Once again most kinds of economic development were stifled or ignored. Now Africa is a continent that has all the maluses of an industrial society without the benefits. Many current leaders still export the wealth of their nations to European banks or spend the money on arms to fight 'revolutionaries' who usually do the same once in office.

Divison of land based on geometric simplicity(notice all the right angles) ignored natural ethnic and cultural territories. The seperation of ethnic groups by borders has created immense conflict, especially in West Africa. Even if agricultural production was more organized, agricultural subsidies in developed nations such as the United States mean that African farmers cannot compete globally. Their is little to no base for an economy to grow on and the continent is in dire straits. Its not as simple as agricultural development or someone would have funded it already.

In conclusion, Africa and the Americas were fairly advanced continents with highly developed political, cultural, and scientific structures. The Europeans gained the upper hand easily due to their timing. Both societies were in moments of impending revolution. The Aztecs and Incas were not popular with their subjects. The competative nature of African politics left many eager customers for their weapons. It is a case where both continents decided it was better to trust the devil they do not know than they one they did.

 

[dh_epic]

dh i see ur point. I didnt really know much about ethiopia, all that i knew was that all of the european countries came with gunpowder and took over africa, so i figured that africa must have been behind on science...

That was only after the rennaisance, of course. With the rennaisance, the "action" seemed to migrate back to Europe for a while. But Europe hit its dark ages and Mali was the place to be, along with China, and Persia, and Morocco -- for a time. But you won't learn a lot about that in your history class. It seems we're taught that nothing happened from 500 AD until 1000 AD. Part of that is the amount of history that's been destroyed over the past millenium.

Also, Africans would have farms if the land wasn't owned by the descendents of European "colonists". Take Zimbabwe, whites make up something like 1% of the population but own 80% of the land. The whites legally own the land, but it's not like Africans are rich. Colonialism drained loads of wealth from the continent in many forms. Land reform is hot enough as a political issue that it has led to outbreaks of violence.

Violence is just a reality of human civilization. If one people tries to rule over another -- no matter how legitimate, organized, or progressive the regime -- it only takes so long before people try to bring down that empire. That's why a certain amount of egalitarianism is important, if only to prevent inevitable violence. JFK once said -- "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I guess I'm trying to say is that Civilization is based on a biased version of history. "Might makes right, empire is good, and the Zulu are there as a formality to represent the naked savages dancing around a huge pot of water with a well-dressed archaeologist in it."

Edit: thanks, Schwick, for being much more detailed about the history of the decline of Africa.

 

[mastertyguy]

If they add in Australia, they would also add in Canada. I would actually like to see them both so the game isnt so much geared towards the ancient age.

Canada!!!!!! super Canada! Canada looks like USA, but less extreme and religious. I think Quebec is more likely than Canada. Canada. Actually, Canada and Australia are big countries with lots of unoccupied territories. If Astralia is in, Wuebec is in and Canda too.

 

[Portuguese]

5) Spain or Portugal. While both are very deserving of a spot, there are only 19 slots. The civs are generally too Eurocentric as it is, and having both former world powers from Iberia (3 if you count Gibraltar ) would be overkill. I'd personally pefrer Portugal but am unsure of UU or leaders (Alfonzo I maybe?).

Cool
I would just like to add this:
1-Possible UUs are basically Naval or Napoleonic. Course Naval are best featured. And from this, the best is a real Nau/Carrack with Bombardement capabilities and a huge transport capability. Like the ones we used in Goa in 1510.
2-From another thread, I'll post here also the best leaders list, IMO:

1 - Prince Henry, the Navigator: Americans know him best.
2 - King D. João (John) II, the Perfect Prince: leaded Portugal to it's GA
3 - King D. Manuel II, The Lucky: leader during the GA
4 - King D. Pedro (Peter) IV, (don't know this data): King of Portugal and 1st Emperor of Brazil
5 - King D. Anfonso Henriques, the Conqueror: 1st king of Portugal, having doubled the original territory, expelling Arabs from a bunch of great cities, including Lisbon.

PS: You forgot Andorra

 

[sepamu92]

It seems many people think the US shouldn't be a civ in CIVIV. But you can just think of it as a civ for diversity; most civs are from the anceint age and barely any (in real life) lived up to even the industrial age. Having a modern-day civ would balance the game more.