Canada as a Civ?

[Ribannah]

Including both Canada and the Iroquois, in addition to the USA, seems too much territorial overlap to me.

 

[Mobfire]

I'm really not sure where you're getting your information. First of all, they didn't form in the 900s. No one knows the exact dates, but most estimates say that Hiawatha, one of the great peacemakers who formed the confederation, lived in the 16th century. Others say that it was 1451, but this estimate is based on eclipses. They were a regional power, nothing more, at least until later. Before they became a confederacy they weren't very significant.

The most interesting aspect of the Iroquois are the Beaver wars. They hunted beavers for the Europeans and got firearms and tools in return, and used this technology to conquer other tribes and hunt beavers on their lands. This is when the majority of their expansion and domination of neighbors occurred, not before the Europeans came.

The Iroquois are certainly interesting, but have not had nearly as much of an impact as Canada has on the world. Objectively, they don't have as much history, fan demand, significance, or material to work with for a civ game.

Canada is...

• A member of the G8
• The largest economy in the world that doesn't have a civ yet besides Italy (which has Rome anyways)
• Currently the second largest nation on earth
• The inventor of things such as basketball, electric wheelchairs, bowling, ice hockey, insulin, java, kayaks, newsprint, pacemakers, computerized weather forecasting systems, snowmobiles, canadarm and many others
• The discoverer of stem cells, plate tectonic theory, mutagenesis, free radical molecules, and more
• The third largest consumer of civ games, and the largest without a civ yet
• One of the, if not the most requested civ for the game

Canadian History includes...

• Playing a relatively large role in WWI and a much larger role in WWII (at the end of the war Canada's military was overall probably in or around the top 5 in terms of numbers, especially when it came to navy and airforce)
• New France, and the exploration of rivers and land throughout North America
• Wars between the British and the French for domination in the 18th & 17th centuries
• The Métis, Red River Colony, and North-West Rebellion
• Settlement of Hudson's Bay and Rupert's Land to commercialize fur trading
• Coureurs de Bois and Voyageurs
• Interaction, wars, peacemaking and treaty making with thousands of diverse native peoples
• The individual histories of each of those native groups
• Disputes and wars against the USA like the war of 1812
• Playing a major role in modern peace keeping and humanitarianism

As for TSL and territorial overlap... Who cares? They wouldn't not add France because it's too close to Spain.

 

[darko82]

Let's be honest: Brazil got into BNW because of the upcoming Olympic games - Ed himself spoke about that at Firaxicon.

I can see Canada getting in simply because by the looks of it Civ 6 with all future expansions might accommodate more playable civs than Civ 5. But not in vanilla - I will laugh and cry at the same time if Canada gets into the game before Babylon, Spain, and Netherlands.

Canada is kind of boring. I will disable this civ in most of my games. Inuit is a lot more interesting.

 

[Ribannah]

I'm really not sure where you're getting your information. First of all, they didn't form in the 900s.

We have this information first of all from the Iroquois themselves. They identified as separate from other Iroquoians in the 10th century when they improved their agriculture. Later, the Cherokee split off and went south to form their own civilization.

No one knows the exact dates, but most estimates say that Hiawatha, one of the great peacemakers who formed the confederation, lived in the 16th century.

The great peacemaker is Dekanawideh. Hiawatha is a name from Longfellow's poem, the man who initiated the League was named Ayonwentha.

Others say that it was 1451, but this estimate is based on eclipses.

There is no 'but'. We know there was an eclipse because it's in their recorded history. The discussion is only about which one. There was another in 1142. When they first met the Europeans, they told them the league already existed for (IIRC) 6 generations, which makes 1451 more likely.

They were a regional power, nothing more, at least until later.

Which goes for most civilizations.

Before they became a confederacy they weren't very significant.

They were more advanced than their neighbours, not only in agriculture but also in citybuilding and warfare.

The most interesting aspect of the Iroquois are the Beaver wars. They hunted beavers for the Europeans and got firearms and tools in return, and used this technology to conquer other tribes and hunt beavers on their lands. This is when the majority of their expansion and domination of neighbors occurred, not before the Europeans came.

It is correct that this is when they had their Golden Age. With 3000 muskets, their military was regionally more powerful than any European tribe, despite their small population. But I think the Great Law of Peace, the participative democracy, women's rights and their diplomacy skills were more interesting than hunting some beaver. That was just a means to an end.

Canada is... (...)

Sorry, I'm not impressed. I hate bowling, and the Iroquois didn't need to explore. They knew the land already.

 

[Loaf Warden]

What does any of that have to do with Canada? If you want the Iroquois so badly, make a thread about it. Your fascination with the Iroquois has absolutely nothing to do with whether Canada should be a civ or not.

The closest you've come to an actual argument relevant to Canada is that there's too much territorial overlap between them and the Iroquois for both civs to get in. Considering every Civ game from III to V has had the Byzantines and the Ottomans in together--two civs whose territories overlapped so much they had the same capital--I see no reason to believe the developers will look at Canada and the Iroquois and decide only one can go in the game. If they want to add them both, they'll add them both. Therefore arguments in favor of the Iroquois are utterly irrelevant to a thread which has as its central question, "Should Canada be a civ"?

 

[Staler87]

In fear of pointing out the obvious most TSL maps are fairly big. North America is the second largest continent. I think we can figure out a way to fit three civs in there. I realize that Canada and the Iroquois would have capitols fairly close to one another but it would just result in a drive west, which, considering the history, would be kinda cool.

That all being said I don't think saying, "I hate bowling" Implying that since Canada invented this one thing you hat they shouldn't be in the game is really a valid argument. That, and the Iroquois did need to explore they just did it a lot earlier because they were there a lot earlier. You can't know the land without exploring it at one point.

 

[SMcM]

How so? Care to elaborate please?

Canada is a much less good choice than the Iroqouis I would agree; the Iroqouis have been around a lot longer, and are much more culturally distinct.

Canada has achieved more than Brazil however; in spite of being a significantly younger sovereign nation (seeing as, though it was already self governing decades earlier, it only left the British Empire in the early 1930s, whilst Brazil had been independent since the mid 1820s), Canada has played a major role in diplomatic relations, being very important in the solving of some international disputes, e.g. the Suez Crisis. As others have pointed out, Canada is far more successful than Brazil, with rich inhabitants compared to Brazil's backwardness, and a more prominent place on the world stage.

However, the fact that Canada makes more sense than Brazil in terms of putting it in the game is not saying much; I don't think, outside of being a mod civ, Brazil makes sense being in the game anyway.

Canada is, like Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, etc, a break away from a bigger empire. Some of these are awesome places, and perhaps would be nice to see as DLC, but I really don't think they make sense as civs in the Vannila game where there are only 18 civs represented anyway.

USA is different, thus its inclusion in the Vannila game is warranted; it has been independent for centuries, and at the time of its independence, it was far smaller, and it has expanded greatly, making it very much a successful empire in its own right. Additionally, unlike the USA, the vast majority of land in Canada is not ideal for living in.

In fact, since Canada's independence from Britain, Canada has been very reliant on the USA; it's being in the shadow of a much bigger power which is very culturally and ethnically similar for all of its short existence, and the amount of intergration the USA has with it's is perhaps reason enough not to include it. Most Americans and English people don't know when they are talking to a Canadian, likely assuming they are American. Canada's location compared to that of the USA is also awkward. It is essentially faced on three sides by the USA, due to it having Alaska to its west, USA to its south, and Thule Air base to its east.

 

[Xandinho]

I do not think it's right to compare the intention of both countries to enter the game, both Brazil and Canada has its own peculiarities:

Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world, one of the 10 largest economies in the world, home to the largest biodiversity on the planet. Brazil is a cultural giant, is a synthesis of various peoples and etinias, with Carnival one known large party in the world, some people say it is the world's largest street party (Although I do not like so much). Brazil has 1 of the 7 wonders of the world: Cristo Redentor, and 2 of the 7 natural wonders of the world: Amazon forest and Iguaçu Falls (although shared with other countries). And the Empire of Brazil which lasted from 1822 to 1889 was one of the greatest empires ever. Member of the BRICS.São Paulo is one of the largest cities in the world.

Canada is the second largest country in the world, a very developed country and member of the G8. Canada is one of the most multicuturais countries. A Giant diplomatic and economic, very influential in world affairs.

So I think both Brazil and Canada has its reason to be in the game.
We have seen that Brazil follows the cultural focus.
I believe it would be interesting we have Canada with diplomatic focus.

 

[SMcM]

I do not think it's right to compare the intention of both countries to enter the game, both Brazil and Canada has its own peculiarities:

Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world, one of the 10 largest economies in the world, home to the largest biodiversity on the planet. Brazil is a cultural giant, is a synthesis of various peoples and etinias, with Carnival one known large party in the world, some people say it is the world's largest street party (Although I do not like so much). Brazil has 1 of the 7 wonders of the world: Cristo Redentor, and 2 of the 7 natural wonders of the world: Amazon forest and Iguaçu Falls (although shared with other countries). And the Empire of Brazil which lasted from 1822 to 1889 was one of the greatest empires ever. Member of the BRICS. São Paulo is one of the largest cities in the world.

Canada is the second largest country in the world, a very developed country and member of the G8. Canada is one of the most multicuturais countries. A Giant diplomatic and economic, very influential in world affairs.

So I think both Brazil and Canada has its reason to be in the game.
We have seen that Brazil follows the cultural focus.
I believe it would be interesting we have Canada with diplomatic focus.

Both Canada and Brazil can at best hope to be in DLC. But in the base game? Not a chance, unless the Devs really make strange decisions. Brazil will in the future possibly be a major power, given its resources and population, but not yet, and not in the past. And, with it expected to cut down huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest, and massive problems with accommodation for hgyene by the government in some areas, immense problems with corruption, etc., the direction of the Brazilian government is not currently one which will pave the way to it being a particulatly respectable or responsible power. Brazil might have a bright future, but it needs to change course drastically. Portugal should definitely be in the game ahead of Brazil, seeing as it was a major colonial power in the past, and amongst the earliest nations to have colonies all over the world.

 

[Staler87]

I agree that both Canada and Brazil have no hope of being in the base game nor should they have a hope there are far better choices.

I do think that Canada has more merit to be in the game though. Canada has become a world power a major player on the world stage. I just don't think Brazil has done that. I doubt cultural reasons warrant their inclusion either. Many countries have strong cultures and if that was a reason to be included then there are so many countries warranting inclusion. I think status as an international power, having a seat at the 'table' is a much more exclusive, and much more important factor in warranting a civs inclusion. To say any civ has a 'poor' culture, or 'worse' culture is usually just a result of never having been there. Saying it is a synthesis of various cultures in an argument for its inclusion in the same paragraph as Canada is not a good point. Canada is probably one of the most diverse nations on the planet (look at my demographics stats above) and if anything this would be a reason to include Canada not Brazil.

 

[Xandinho]

Both Canada and Brazil can at best hope to be in DLC. But in the base game? Not a chance, unless the Devs really make strange decisions. Brazil will in the future possibly be a major power, given its resources and population, but not yet, and not in the past. And, with it expected to cut down huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest, and massive problems with accommodation for hgyene by the government in some areas, immense problems with corruption, etc., the direction of the Brazilian government is not currently one which will pave the way to it being a particulatly respectable or responsible power. Brazil might have a bright future, but it needs to change course drastically. Portugal should definitely be in the game ahead of Brazil, seeing as it was a major colonial power in the past, and amongst the earliest nations to have colonies all over the world.

I agree that neither Brazil or Canada deserve to be in the base game, that's right. However, it is likely that both countries are in future expansions or DLCs.

I particularly hope that Canada and Brazil is future in the game. As I said earlier, each one these countries has its peculiarities to be in civ, so do not think it compare deserving to be correct.

 

[Liex]

Canada has become a world power a major player on the world stage. I just don't think Brazil has done that.

Let's be real, guys: Canada isn't much more of a world power than Brazil is - which isn't much. Leading a few peacekeeping missions, arbitrating some international disputes, creating and leading international organizations, having influential diplomatic figures - Brazil has been there and done that, and it all pales in comparison to the actions of countries like the USA, Russia, China etc. At least Brazil is a major regional player, for what is worthy.

I doubt cultural reasons warrant their inclusion either. Many countries have strong cultures and if that was a reason to be included then there are so many countries warranting inclusion. I think status as an international power, having a seat at the 'table' is a much more exclusive, and much more important factor in warranting a civs inclusion.

You're forgetting that Brazil was included in Civ5. You're also creating some unrealistic criteria, as not every civilization included in the games are/were an international power.

Anyway, this thread has more posts about how the Canadian GDP per capita is high and how Canada is better than Brazil and the Iroquois than posts about potential Canadian unique abilities, units and buildings and leader's historical agendas and personal bonuses, which are particularly important now that Civ6's playable civilizations seem to be a lot more unique and cohesive.

Personally, I don't mind Canada being included, but if we're talking about modern nations I'd rather see Argentina or Australia.

 

[SMcM]

I agree that neither Brazil or Canada deserve to be in the base game, that's right. However, it is likely that both countries are in future expansions or DLCs.

I particularly hope that Canada and Brazil is future in the game. As I said earlier, each one these countries has its peculiarities to be in civ, so do not think it compare deserving to be correct.

Clearly there is a market for civ games in Brazil; you're proof of that. But not a large one. So I think in terms of bringing Brazil back, they can easily afford not to. It's appearance as

I have already stated reasons why I doubt that Canada will be included, but what stands out most to me is that Canada being in America's shadow; it would be like including the Ptolemaic empire under Cleopatra alongside the Roman Empire (Oh, whats that you say? That's already happening?)

Obviously, both nations are possible for DLC, but you cannot be certain.

You're forgetting that Brazil was included in Civ5.

Not very significant. If anything, that makes seeing Brazil less likely; they are more likely to choose another civ for DLC for varity; maybe Argentina, as that prospered a lot earlier than Brazil- 'In the 1870s real wages in Argentina were around 76% relative to Britain, rising to 96% in the first decade of the 20th century. GDP per capita rose from 35% of the United States average in 1880 to about 80% in 1905, similar to that of France, Germany and Canada'.

 

[Liex]

Not very significant. If anything, that makes seeing Brazil less likely; they are more likely to choose another civ for DLC for varity; maybe Argentina, as that prospered a lot earlier than Brazil- 'In the 1870s real wages in Argentina were around 76% relative to Britain, rising to 96% in the first decade of the 20th century. GDP per capita rose from 35% of the United States average in 1880 to about 80% in 1905, similar to that of France, Germany and Canada'.

I wasn't arguing for Brazil's inclusion. The other guy was saying that there is no cultural or geopolitical reason for Brazil to be included; guess what, it already was.

But just like you, I expect - and kind of wish, I must be a traitor to my nation - that they'll pull a Siam/Songhai and will choose Argentina over Brazil to fill the eastern South America. Not for the reasons that you stated, though; before Argentina's economic prosperity in the late 19th, the country was a political mess while Brazil enjoyed relatively stability and growth. Brazil actively interfered in Argentina's internal affairs - take the Platine War for instance. But no, I'd like to see Argentina because between strong and interesting leaders, geographic position, gaucho culture and tango-inspired soundtracks, I believe they'd make a nice bellicose, cultural and/or growth civilization.

 

[Staler87]

I think you mis-understood me. I was not saying there is no reason for Brazil to be in, just that it is not as strong a choice as Canada.

 

[SMcM]

I wasn't arguing for Brazil's inclusion. The other guy was saying that there is no cultural or geopolitical reason for Brazil to be included; guess what, it already was.

But just like you, I expect - and kind of wish, I must be a traitor to my nation - that they'll pull a Siam/Songhai and will choose Argentina over Brazil to fill the eastern South America. Not for the reasons that you stated, though; before Argentina's economic prosperity in the late 19th, the country was a political mess while Brazil enjoyed relatively stability and growth. Brazil actively interfered in Argentina's internal affairs - take the Platine War for instance. But no, I'd like to see Argentina because between strong and interesting leaders, geographic position, gaucho culture and tango-inspired soundtracks, I believe they'd make a nice bellicose, cultural and/or growth civilization.

Your arguement about Brazil isn't relevant to what I said; Brazil's comparative power has always come from it being more populous. But, Argentine people were far better off in the late 19th century, and reached a level of development equivalent to that of a western power; something that, as far as I know, Brazil has never managed to achieve. This is, to me, a good reason for inclusion of Argentina.

 

[Liex]

Personally, I think Argentina's potential leaders, abilities and unique components are good reasons for Argentina's inclusion. Lots of places have better quality of life than late 19th Argentina but would make poor playable civilizations - and vice-versa.

And I also think we should be talking Canada, eh?

 

[qwerty25]

Just wondering if Canada was a civ what units/ leader would it have?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SMcM]

Personally, I think Argentina's potential leaders, abilities and unique components are good reasons for Argentina's inclusion. Lots of places have better quality of life than late 19th Argentina but would make poor playable civilizations - and vice-versa.

And I also think we should be talking Canada, eh?

Yeah, I might be off topic a bit, but whatever.

Anyway, the point I made was precisely that there were not a lot of places doing better than late 19th century Argentina! It really was doing a lot better than most of the rest of the Latin Americas, and was right up there with the most developed nations in terms of wages and quality of life. Sure, people have had higher quality of life since it, but Americans have a better quality of life now than they did under Teddy Roosevelt; does that stop him being in the game? How much better our quality of life is now versus how it was in different civilizations at different stages of history is irrelevant; by that logic, Babylon should never be in Civ games. We can only rank the success of civilizations by comparison to others of their time.

If you don't believe Argentina was prosperous, then you should go and read a book or talk to an Argentine history professor or something.

Concerning Canada, hasn't everything already been said that needs saying?

 

[Liex]

I'm actually familiar and fond of Argentine history and I'm not trying to deny anything.

I may be having trouble making myself clear, though. What I'm trying to say since my first post in this thread is that I believe the process of choosing and creating a civilization is much more practical than all this. High GDP per capita, high HDI and other socioeconomic or demographic data may be suitable for indicating how great a country is to live in the real world, but they don't necessarily translate into a good playable civilization. At least that's what I think.

For instance, in the loading screen, the narrator can tell us all about Argentina's unprecedented and unmatched prosperity in the late 19th and early 20th, but after that we need a nice theme song and some practical, interesting, distinctive and cohesive unique abilities, units, buildings and/or improvements. And, as I said, I believe Argentina got it all, and that's why they would make a good civilization.

The same applies to Canada. It's probably one of the best countries to live in, it's multicultural, it's prestigious, but what does that mean in practical terms? How would they translate all that into nice gameplay features, specially now that the bar seems to be set higher than in the previous games? Again, I'm not trying to demean Canada or anything, I just don't enough about them and their potential unique units/buildings/improvements, and this thread isn't doing them any favors.