Another Civ

[Soundwαvє ▼]

You are right, the civ age isn't the principal factor but the civ influence in their golden period. Brazil has the Cristo Rendentor, we can say that he founded the Ethanol Company and One city in the top 5 (by population).

I don't see any problem including Brazil to civilization... He will take a unexplored part of the Earth Map.

Manuel Deodoro was the first president of Brazil but his name sounds like Portuguese name, I would vote for a Lula (Luiz Inacio) and/or Manuel Deodoro.

 

[awesome]

Hmmm... first successful revolutionary war in history??????? WHAT????? There have been countless empires and colonies before the British Empire and the USA...
Note: please, don't take this badly and/or as a personal attack on the US, I'm just trying to make a point.
All those units you mention were added by Americans, yes, in a game which has generic units for the first two ages (America didn't exist) and suddenly expanded on the Modern Age units. 'Spearmen'? 'Archers'? 'Swordsmen'? What? There've been thousands of different weapons and that's all you can come up with?
How come ancient and mediæval trade are so dreadfully underrepresented? Less is not more in this kind of situation.

why would i take it badly?
also, it's kind of obvious that there were colonies and empires way before usa and britain. that's like saying that there was transportation before trains.
it's also a historical fact that the american revolution was the first successful war of its kind, that's why it's called THE revolutionary war. and i don't think that the modern age's units are too much more generic than the ancient. it's basically just: "hey, let's have a tank and call it armor...and then for the upgrade, we'll just add the word 'modern' to it!"

 

[Camikaze]

Look, for all the argument that America should not be in the game, it's undeniable that they have been the most powerful and important 'Civ' since World War Two at least, and in Civ terms, that was 65 turns ago. Now, if a Civ that has been the most important in the world for 65 turns of the game's duration cannot make it in, why should the Roman Empire make it into the game (about 30 turns, IIRC), or the Greek Empire (even fewer number of turns)? 65 turns is an awfully long time to be dominant in the game, so leaving America out would hardly make any sense.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

But America is an random case of a colony of the most powerful nation of the era (England) and unlike other nations did a settlement colony and not just go there extract the resources and let the population working, England tried to create a new world there instead use the new world to feed the old world.

So would be create by clicking the button (Loose cities) and then create a new Nation Vassal in the start but then with all that resources and settlement (that England did) it could expand and become a great nation.

I can't ignore that it's the most powerful for now and always fight for noble reasons, taking off the dark side... (how would you think that it can maintain the power? )

But it's a case, you can do it on Civ so you don't really need Americans and so Brazilians, Australians and so on... but if America is there, Brazil and Australia have the right to be there too.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

ssssss

 

[awesome]

why would i take it badly?
also, it's kind of obvious that there were colonies and empires way before usa and britain. that's like saying that there was transportation before trains.
it's also a historical fact that the american revolution was the first successful war of its kind, that's why it's called THE revolutionary war. and i don't think that the modern age's units are too much more generic than the ancient. it's basically just: "hey, let's have a tank and call it armor...and then for the upgrade, we'll just add the word 'modern' to it!"

after thinking about this, either scholars consider other revolutionary wars before the modern era civil wars or i've just been taking them too literally. if the latter, that's my bad.

 

[Takhisis]

why would i take it badly?

Some idiots take this kind of thing out of hand into the personal realm. So far, no one's done it in this thread... yet.

Look, for all the argument that America should not be in the game, it's undeniable that they have been the most powerful and important 'Civ' since World War Two at least, and in Civ terms, that was 65 turns ago. Now, if a Civ that has been the most important in the world for 65 turns of the game's duration cannot make it in, why should the Roman Empire make it into the game (about 30 turns, IIRC), or the Greek Empire (even fewer number of turns)? 65 turns is an awfully long time to be dominant in the game, so leaving America out would hardly make any sense.

The timescale was adjusted in favour of the Modern ages.
If you made all years last the same, i.e. like in real life, then the Romans would span 5 times the unites States of America's time.

 

[awesome]

time is a pretty weak argument anyway, especially sicne the same people who say america shouldn't be in the game usually say that zulu, inca and aztec should. the inca civilization started in like 1200, but they didn't become an empire until about the 1400's and they were conquered in the 1500s. aztecs, same thing. the zulu were founded as a tribe in about 1700 and nearly 100 years later still had only about 2000 people until shaka came to power. the zulu nation then fell in the late 1800's. what would later become the united states was founded in about 1600 and it became a country a little less than 200 years later. zulu lasted less than 200 years while america as a country has lasted longer than that, even ignoring it's colonial beginnings. the incas and aztecs lasted about 300 or so years, which is a little longer than america, as a country, but shorter than america as a group of colonies and independent country.

 

[Camikaze]

The timescale was adjusted in favour of the Modern ages.
If you made all years last the same, i.e. like in real life, then the Romans would span 5 times the unites States of America's time.

Yeah, I know, but that's how the game is. Using the game's time scale, which would be a sensible metric, given that we are talking about what should be included in the game, the US has been around and dominant for quite a long time. Also note that that figure I gave for the Roman Empire was not only their peak period (as I gave for the US), but their entire period.

 

[Takhisis]

That's how the former games are, but we're talking about how a new game should be. Having everything scaled in the way it's been done ensures that, unrealistically, you don't get to do as much in the first three thousand years than you get to do in the last three hundred years.

 

[awesome]

which, as strange as it sounds, is realistic. they definitely had golden ages back then, but with the industrial revolution, we've had possibly more technological breakthroughs in the past 200 years than ever before, combined.

 

[Verarde]

It's a good idea, but with all the other civs suggested, Brazil would get caught in te wash, if you know what I mean. Although South America has risen with Rio de Janeiro hosting the Olympics, which is in Brazil by the way, I can see Bolivar possibly, but not Brazil. And even Bolivia would have a very small chance of making it.

 

[Camikaze]

That's how the former games are, but we're talking about how a new game should be. Having everything scaled in the way it's been done ensures that, unrealistically, you don't get to do as much in the first three thousand years than you get to do in the last three hundred years.

I would much prefer it that way. It would very, very odd to say the least if the period 1900-2000 AD (unarguably a very eventful century) was of the same length in the game as, say, 2200-2100 BC.

 

[Takhisis]

Haven't all centuries been eventful? The scale should be changed, because the bias is really horrible.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

The difference between 2200-2100 BC and 1900-2000 AD (In game language) is that in 1900 they had a lot of libraries, universities, wonders and things to research... so they did it much faster than in 2200-2100, but in 2200-2100 BC you can have a lot of wars, discoveries and explorations than 1900.

So it's a matter of infrastructure and not time...

 

[Camikaze]

I would think it fair to say that 'civilisation' has progressed a lot more in recent centuries than in centuries long past. The rate of change has been exponential. And I've had the argument many a time before about historical relevancy and recentism, but suffice to say, I would think it fair to say that in choosing what parts of history to place in the game, it would make sense to go for the more recent years, do to their more direct and hence important impact on the modern world.

 

[TheDS]

Why Africa has two Civs and South America has just one?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to point out that Africa has a lot more known history than South America, and it's about twice as big. It's the second-largest continent.

Some people consider everything south of the Rio Grande to be South America, and if that's the case, then you've got the Aztecs too. (I forget; are the Mayans in this one? If so, include them too.)

 

[Camikaze]

Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't Africa have five Civs? Carthage, Mali, Zulu, Egypt and Ethiopia? I mean, sure, 2-1 might be fair, but 5-1 is a bit of a different story.

 

[Silurian]

Carthage is a colony of the Phoenicians which came from the Lebanon area !

 

[Camikaze]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage

Looks like Africa to me.