Canada as a Civ?

[Zaarin]

I see no problem with tagging Civs as ancient and modern. That way it could be an option to play with whomever they like. More options are better.

This attitude that old things are best and modernity has nothing to offer is ridiculous, though.

That certainly wasn't what I was implying; I simply have absolutely no interest in history after the Protestant Reformation--and in fact my interest declines with each passing era after Ancient save for a brief revival in the High Middle Ages.

 

[darko82]

A matter of opinion, though, or as you say, "taste."

Civilization games are associated with history, so historic civs are more desired, in my opinion. Even USA is represented by older presidents, not Bill Clinton, Obama etc. I think it is not a coninsidence. Poland is not represented by Lech Walensa but by a medieval king etc. This is simply a LOT more attractive. It makes me want to play with such civs.

 

[Thormodr]

That certainly wasn't what I was implying; I simply have absolutely no interest in history after the Protestant Reformation--and in fact my interest declines with each passing era after Ancient save for a brief revival in the High Middle Ages.

I assume you quit your games at about 1500 AD, then?

 

[AriochIV]

I assume you quit your games after about 1500 AD, then?

You're being humorous, but some player do. My father loves Civ V and plays avidly, but he usually quits after the Renaissance, because he doesn't enjoy the late game.

I enjoy the whole game, but the early bit is definitely my favorite.

 

[Thormodr]

You're being humorous, but some player do. My father loves Civ V and plays avidly, but he usually quits after the Renaissance, because he doesn't enjoy the late game.

I enjoy the whole game, but the early bit is definitely my favorite.

I do enjoy the initial expansion and discovery era the best, myself.

However, the whole Civ game is interesting to me.

 

[Zaarin]

I assume you quit your games at about 1500 AD, then?

No, but I do start to get bored in the Industrial Era. If there were an option that made it possible to achieve non-conquest-related victories in the Renaissance era, I'd have no problem cutting the Industrial and later eras for most of my games (I do occasionally enjoy the Modern+ eras, but only if I'm aiming for a science victory).

 

[nunor]

Civilization games are associated with history, so historic civs are more desired, in my opinion. Even USA is represented by older presidents, not Bill Clinton, Obama etc. I think it is not a coninsidence. Poland is not represented by Lech Walensa but by a medieval king etc. This is simply a LOT more attractive. It makes me want to play with such civs.

Well, one of the leaders in Civ4 died in 1976, and one other in 1965. So I don't think Firaxis has that kind of prejudice towards contemporary history.

 

[bonafide11]

Remember that one time Enrico Donatello with the help of Hiawatha sacked Copenhagen, the holy city of Judaism, at 455? what kind of immersion are you seeking exactly?
The Polynesian region isn't and never was known for its world dominance but for its distinctive culture across the islands.
while Canada for most of its history was a colony of the crown it has a distinctive history and culture due to influence of the British, French and native tribes.

Realism is different than immersion. I enjoy immersing myself in a historical game and seeing significant and unique historical civilizations encounter each other for global supremacy. I just don't see a place for Canada in this.

Polynesian culture is much more distinct than Canadian culture. In a game like Civ, how do you make Canada feel distinct from the U.S.? It's not a knock on Canada, but in the grand scheme of things, their culture is very similar, and Canada is not and has never been a military power like the U.S. They would add nothing to the game.

 

[darko82]

Well, one of the leaders in Civ4 died in 1976, and one other in 1965. So I don't think Firaxis has that kind of prejudice towards contemporary history.

Only one? And this was probably the one I avoided the most, so...

 

[Thormodr]

No, but I do start to get bored in the Industrial Era. If there were an option that made it possible to achieve non-conquest-related victories in the Renaissance era, I'd have no problem cutting the Industrial and later eras for most of my games (I do occasionally enjoy the Modern+ eras, but only if I'm aiming for a science victory).

I think that was more of a problem with Civilization 5, than anything. The game kind of petered out at the end.

Anyway, the point is, why is is so ridiculous to have modern civs show up in the ancient era (there are still people complaining about the USA in CIV after 25 years. Lol) but not be ridiculous to have ancient civs show up in the modern era?

Historical what ifs/fantasy worlds are the same either way.

However, I do agree that there be game options to include ancient/medieval/modern civs in a game or the option to leave a certain civ out. That way, there shouldn't be any complaining. Well, at least in theory.

 

[darko82]

I think that was more of a problem with Civilization 5, than anything. The game kind of petered out at the end.

Anyway, the point is, why is is so ridiculous to have modern civs show up in the ancient era (there are still people complaining about the USA in CIV after 25 years. Lol) but not be ridiculous to have ancient civs show up in the modern era?

Because ancient era is more attractive. It is as simple as that. People do not want to see Bill Clinton in the ancient era. They want to see something that does not resemble the world we live in nowdays.

Because what is so attractive to see a modern leader in the game? It is boring as hell. And it does not really fit the rest of the leaders who come from the old times...

 

[Thormodr]

Because ancient era is more attractive. It is as simple as that. People do not want to see Bill Clinton in the ancient era. They want to see something that do not resemble the world we live in nowdays.

In another thread, people were complaining about people throwing their opinions around as fact.

Anyway, I highly doubt anyone wants Bill Clinton is the game. That's hyperbolic at best.

Nothing wrong with Sir Wilford Laurier, however.

 

[darko82]

In another thread, people were complaining about people throwing their opinions around as fact.

Anyway, I highly doubt anyone wants Bill Clinton is the game. That's hyperbolic at best.

Nothing wrong with Sir Wilford Laurier, however.

Hyperbols are good to show that Canada sounds, maybe not even so modern, but simply less interesting in terms of history - if you compare it to some other civilizations in the history of the world. Even if you take 18th century leader, it has too little history on its account.

 

[nunor]

Anyway, the point is, why is is so ridiculous to have modern civs show up in the ancient era (there are still people complaining about the USA in CIV after 25 years. Lol) but not be ridiculous to have ancient civs show up in the modern era?

Because most of those ancient civs survived in one way or another until now. You still have Greece, Egypt, China, India, and Japan today. You even have Assyrian peoples living in today's Syria and Iraq. And for the ones which arguably 'disappeared', theoretically they could have lasted until today.

 

[Xandinho]

The intention of civilization is to lead a civilization beginning in the ancient era to the modern age, making it evolve through history discovering new technologies. This way, I see no problems seeing modern civilizations being included in the game. Because I understand that the game runs through different ages of humanity, then we need civilizations representing every age of humanity, if Egypt and Greece are represantes the ancient age, we need representatives of the modern age as well.

If seems strange to have Canada in the ancient age, it is strange also the Iroquois or the Zulus as world powers with nuclear missios in the modern age. So I think that civilization can not be seen as a simulator of real world history.

 

[darko82]

The intention of civilization is to lead a civilization beginning in the ancient era to the modern age, making it evolve through history discovering new technologies. This way, I see no problems seeing modern civilizations being included in the game. Because I understand that the game runs through different ages of humanity, then we need civilizations representing every age of humanity, if Egypt and Greece are represantes the ancient age, we need representatives of the modern age as well.

If seems strange to have Canada in the ancient age, it is strange also the Iroquois or the Zulus as world powers with nuclear missios in the modern age. So I think that civilization can not be seen as a simulator of real world history.

Yeah, but it does not change the fact that ancient civs are a lot more interesting... for most people, at least...

Though, Zulus is more probable (feels more real) to be in the modern era than Canada in the ancient era, basically because Zulu has existed in those eras while Canada did NOT. And if we play alternative history it feels more natural to change ancient history into another eras... than put modern stuff into ancient era that did not exist at that time and pretend it actually existed and evolved into a modern era...

 

[Thormodr]

Because most of those ancient civs survived in one way or another until now. You still have Greece, Egypt, China, India, and Japan today. You even have Assyrian peoples living in today's Syria and Iraq. And for the ones which arguably 'disappeared', theoretically they could have lasted until today.

All those people today are thriving in that wonderful county called Canada.

 

[MadDjinn]

Polynesian culture is much more distinct than Canadian culture. In a game like Civ, how do you make Canada feel distinct from the U.S.? It's not a knock on Canada, but in the grand scheme of things, their culture is very similar, and Canada is not and has never been a military power like the U.S. They would add nothing to the game.

Sigh, why is it that people can't even be bothered to wikipedia something before posting in a "Canada + Civ" thread.

It happens every time, and while most usually just prefer non-modern civs (I do as well), and the thread moves on, there's always someone who says:

"Canada is just the US-lite, right?" or something similar.
"It was just a colony, so didn't do anything, right?", or something similar.
"Canada didn't ever do anything military..."
"Let's mention that the only unique things about Canada would just be jokes!"

All are of course wrong, and basic wiki skills could at least show you that. Granted, since we have most of the comedians in north america (good ones) we've spent years messing with American(s) and their culture to the point where they don't even know better.

Just because Canada doesn't run around yelling about what we've done, doesn't mean we didn't do anything.

 

[Willie5000]

I'd welcome Canada and Australia as Civs... Pierre Trudeau might be too recent, though. No leaders newer than 1970, please.

 

[Thormodr]

I'd welcome Canada and Australia as Civs... Pierre Trudeau might be too recent, though. No leaders newer than 1970, please.

Definitely. Sir Wilford Laurier would be a good choice.