Civs You'd Like to See

[The_Reckoning]

I vote Poland. They forgot Poland.

And some more SE Asian ones, maybe.

The Gauls? Celts are different...

Cuba, pretty iconic. Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia are pretty important now, too. Very populous.

 

[paydro]

Quick update, I meant the native american empires shouldn't be in there, because they really aren't even civilizations.

i seriously don't understand how you can say this... i don't even know how to begin to defend agaisnst such a rediculous statement...

this is just about the most ignorant and narrow minded statement i've ever heard!

what makes a civilization?
*perminant cities? native north americans did have some perminant settlements, and besides the mongols were pretty much nomadic anyway, so that is out
*written language? ok sure native north americans didn't have perminant written records, but tell me how many european nations developed their own writing? sometimes i wonder if the sumerians and other ancient civ's didn't develop writing, would any of europe have writing? close contact and more far flung trading in europe due to it's easy accessability with other areas (middle east and such) really affected european devopments. i really don't feel that the lack of writing in native north america is basis for dismissing them as a civilization. besides, favoring an oral tradition over a written one is NOT a sign of inferiority.
*religion, art, culture? now if you tell me native north america lacked any of these i would die laughing.
*government? it is well documented that the iroquis nation was largely democratic. some form of intellegent and organized and effective government must have been in place to accomidate this confederation and other settlements. it is estimated that pre european contact populations in native north america was many millions. there had to be more than big chief so and so in order for this many people to live together for so long.

so how is it that native north americans don't deserve to be considered civilizations?
are you still under the illusion of 1950's cowboy movies where natives are depicted as nothing more than uncivilized savages? i'm just curious to hear why you don't feel like they deserve to be properly represented.

i find it awfully funny that there are 5 american civ's in civ 4, including central and south america and the united states. that's 5 out of 32? (i think it's 32 anyway) the americas cover a massive massive portion of the earth and it's lack of representaion is sickening, and it is due to generations of ignorant inconsiderations like your post.

There's a lot of weird logic going on in this post. I'll try to go sequentially:
1) There's no "native north america" that you can treat as a single unit. There was never a pan-Indian consciousness, you really shouldn't go beyond even a small regional language group for a "civilization" for the game.
2) The fact that many of the Mongol people were migratory is irrelevant. So were the Arabs for most of their history. They nonetheless had cities and the largest empire of all time.
3) So your logic for the Native Americans is that writing only expanded from Sumeria? You wonder if Europe would have writing or not without it? How exactly does that impact the fact that there wasn't writing in North America? This is not a question of "inferiority," but whether someone reaches the level of "civilization." Writing IS superior to non-writing. It allows widespread communication, exact transmission of ideas, and cultural cohesion impossible through oral tradition.
4) So what if there was religion/art/culture? Every group of humans, ever, has had all 3 of those. That doesn't mean they count as a "civilization." Besides, "native americans" most certainly did not have a unified culture. Even the Iroquois did not.
5) The Iroquois government was a loose confederation of tribes, united only in their foreign policy. To me, that's not enough.
6) The fact that there were millions of Native Americans means nothing. Many of them hated each other, warred with one another, etc. You have to pick one tribe to have even the remotest chance of justifying a "civilization" out of them.

 

[The Snug]

For me, part of the game is celebrating the cultural richness from all of the regions of the world from all of the eras of the world's history. I think it's a good thing for each region of the world to have each of its era's represented. While some of the arguments against inclusion of a Native American civilization might, on the surface, sound somewhat convincing, I believe that it would be a shame to remove any pre-colonial references to the immeasurably vast land region that covers north america. Certainly, no single tribe dominated that land mass; no solitary language held sway; no unifying conqueror (that we know of) rose to destroy the others that lived. Perhaps it is that last detail that some object to the most--that is, that north america never produced any great, savage conqueror that we can immortalize in the same manner that we do a Napoleon (whose havocs caused the death of a quarter of Europe's population). Indeed, only Lincoln's and Washington's America deserves note as a worthy civ because it did indeed possess the savagery necessary to subjugate the "Indian" nations.

Must a civilization be considered a civilization only if it succeeds militarily on the world stage? For shame. For shame on us for this singularly evil criterion. How can we ignore such a vast region of the world for such a long breadth of time simply because it did not impress our particular tastes.

Perhaps this is why Sid, in his inestimable wisdom, granted the Native Americans inclusion within the game, and for whom, regarding the lack of this singular military distinction, was obligated to simply refer to them collectively, rather than individually.

Moreover, upon further meditation, perhaps we should honor the Native American peoples for this very lack. For in what region of the world have so many peoples lived so long, and so freely.

It does us credit, therefore, to include this region of the world, and even more to honor their singular distinction and achievement. For perhaps, without us apprehending this truth, perhaps the model of the Native Americans is a greater model for human development than that of the civilizing Romans who saw fit to slaughter people who did not speak Greek.

And as to note-worthy achievements, should we also not honor the Siamese with a place in our cherished game? These people, who alone amongst the East Asian nations never fell beneath the sword of a foreign oppressor. Surely, the sight of King Mongkut would provide a familiar and heartening cheer to the color of our game.

I believe at one time during the decades long development of our game, it had been suggested that Africa was neglected and did not recieve its proper recognition, and that either racism or ignorance was behind that lack. The holy makers of our game--of our obsession--have taken great pains to remedy that oversight. It is certainly good to see that they have taken the same attitude towards Asia (with the inclusion of Korea and now the Khmer) and also with the America's who are now well represented (especially with the non-partisan inclusion of the native's of noth america, and the full inclusion of the Inca's to supplement the Mayans and Aztecs). Yet, perhaps they still yet overlook the post-colonial regions of South America. I myself, would favor a pan-South American civ (from Mexico to Argentina) that featured the leadership of Simon Bolivar who helped to free many of their nations from foreign dominance. This region of the world needs its celebration too.

So many wonderful ideas for new civs. Poland. Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yisrael. Scotland/Ireland (the Scots came from Ireland). Vietnam. And so many others. Perhaps the vision of Firaxis is obscured. Perhaps their eyes remain incapable of seeing the great wealth that lies within their grasp. If only they would commission the creation of a comprehensive compilation of civs. If only they would utilize the free talents: the artwork and research of their fans to create such a compendium and celebration of the human existence. Then they could release a fully compatible expansion pack that would include all our hearts desires where we could simply click a check box for those civs we should like to be made available for our games. They could make so much money, and we fans would do all the work of making it for them.

What a fantastic dream it should be, to see William Wallace or Robert the Bruce fighting against England. To see Israel resisting the oppression of Egypt. To see Siam ally with Vietnam to repel the mercantilist hegemony of France and England.

Ah. To see Poland prepare itself for the invasion of Russia and Germany. For Austro-Hungary to win its war of transendence. To see the doge of Vienna-Genoa fight off the Barbary pirates.

We could make it happen, and Firaxis could empower us to help them make that money.

 

[modo_komodo]

What a great post Sirsnuggles.

Allow me to buy you a virtual ale.

 

[noto]

More Civs? If anything there are already too many civs. Why do we have the Romans, the HRE, and the Byzantines? Why do we have the English and the Americans? You can tell that Firaxis was running out of ideas by looking at the crappy UU's and UB's that some Civs got...like the Celts. Poor Celts. I say perhaps one or two Civs should not even be in the game, certainly no more should be added. If you just wanted more variety they could have programmed the game so that each leader had their own UB or something.

 

[paydro]

I disagree noto, there's still plenty of room for more civs. The developers didn't "run out" of Unique Units, they just tried to make them appropriate to the civ, and sometimes that's hard to work into the game (i.e., Celts). There are only 2 unique naval units, zero unique air units, one unique siege unit, one unique modern unit (SEAL), and no unique grenadier, infantry, longbowman, machine gun, or pikeman. There are even more potential UBs.

The bigger issue is running out of trait combos... like I said, there are only 3 left out there. If they were to add another trait though, that would open up another 11, so we could have another 14 leaders, and fit in at least another 8 or so civs.

SirSnuggles: Good post, though I disagree with some points. All of the leaders in Civ are not military conquerers; though I agree there may be too great a bias towards them, many were largely peaceful. You don't have to conquer large territory to be seen as a great person or great leader, even in this videogame, if you strengthen your nation.

The trouble with the Native Americans is that they are too diverse. It would be as ridiculous as naming "Europe" or "Africa" as a single civilization (though I guess Samuel Huntington has suggested that). The problem is, no tribe was ever powerful enough to really be considered a candidate on the world stage. The Iroquois would be the best choice if we really are choosing them for political reasons, but I don't think they really deserve it. I don't think it's a bad thing that there is no pre-US representation of North America. There's no Australia, no pacific islands, no central Asia, etc. etc. Everyone does not need to be included for the game to be thorough and fun.

The idea of a post-colonial central or South American country would be a nice way to flesh out the game. Having a single unifying civilization would be silly, in my opinion, but you could very well do Mexico, or Brazil, or one of Colombia or Venezuela. Simon Bolivar would be a great choice (what would his traits be? Expansive/Creative?), and you could do Che Guevara (Creative/Charismatic).

 

[The_Reckoning]

Really in another expansion, I'd rather see refinement of the features currently in the game, and only a few new Civs, rather than just more Civs.

something I'd like to see is the option to build the normal version of a UU alongside the unique. So the Aztecs can build swords as well as Jags.


But I would like to see replacement UUs for the longbow, grenadier, infantry and MG.

And a unique version of the some of the unreplaced buildings.

Huns would be fun also.

 

[Snaker8]

Wow. You guys sure do like your civs! Seems such a simple list springs up so much confrontation... Anyways, here is an updated list of civs I have gathered that people want. Remember, I do not necessarily support all these civilizations to be included, this is just a way of trying to give an objective list of what people want.
-Austria/Austria-Hungary
-Poland
-Scotland
-Ireland
-Sweden
-Confederate States of America (CSA)
-Mexico
-Brazil
-Israel
-Vietnam
-Tibet
-Australia
-Canada
-Assyria
-Hun
-Hittite
-New Zealand
-Polynesia
-Congo/Kongo
-Uighur
-Serbia
-Bulgaria
-Redone Native America (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
-Redone India (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
-Timurid
-Mughal
-Afrikan(er?)
-Thailand
-South Africa
-Gaul
-Cuba
-Indonesia

 

[bioelectricclam]

I believe one good argument for including the Amerindians as a civilization are the ruins found in Missippi and Dakota - namely huge earthen mounds shaped much like the pyramids of Egypt. This Mississipian culture likely was on route to developing city-states before the smallpox epidemic decimated their population. The reason why us Europeans haven't ever even heard of this culture until recently is that smallpox ran through America long before there were any permanent settlements on the mainland - it got into North America through English fisherman hunting for cod off the coast of Newfoundland. By the time Europeans actually did penetrate into the continent, the bulk of the Mississippian civilization had been wiped out, and without any formal writing system much of the information about what had been was lost to time.

 

[szemek77]

Since I'm Polish there will be no surprise that I would like to see Poles in the game

I'm not surprised though that Russians are the only Slavs that are put in the game, at the same time we have numerous Indians (Maya, Inca, Native Americans).... It is always about target buyers of the game How many copies of BTS has been sold in US, Germany, France etc. and how many in Eastern Europe as a whole?

 

[HerrDoktor]

Since I'm Polish there will be no surprise that I would like to see Poles in the game

I'm not surprised though that Russians are the only Slavs that are put in the game, at the same time we have numerous Indians (Maya, Inca, Native Americans).... It is always about target buyers of the game How many copies of BTS has been sold in US, Germany, France etc. and how many in Eastern Europe as a whole?

I don't quite grasp the reasoning. How many copies of Civ are there running in Nevada's Cassinos?

 

[The Snug]

I don't quite grasp the reasoning. How many copies of Civ are there running in Nevada's Cassinos?

What?! I can go to Nevada now and make money playing this game...wow...cool dude.

It'll become my full time job.

 

[paydro]

Yeah, uhh, I don't think Aztecs and Mayas are the target audience for Civilization IV. You can argue that having 3 USA leaders is excessive for a 225-year-old nation, and is probably because there are a lot of American players, but I don't think Americans were clamoring for the Incas or Native Americans.

Plus the Incas as the Native Americans are much less similar than the various Slavic peoples are. Not that there shouldn't be another Slavic nation (Poland is a great choice), but the various American peoples aren't the best comparison.

 

[bioelectricclam]

So I've started reading the book 1632, and I would like to add that modern Sweden ought to be added .

Great book, by the way.

 

[TheLastOne36]

My very restrictive criteria:

1. Try to imagine what are the consequences of entirely removing a civilization from History.
2. Is there any serious worldwide enduring consequences, politically, culturally, religiously?

I can picture a very Huge and Strong Russia, Germany and Austria without Poland..

Infact i take it back. Austria might not even exist without poland.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Since I'm Polish there will be no surprise that I would like to see Poles in the game

I'm not surprised though that Russians are the only Slavs that are put in the game, at the same time we have numerous Indians (Maya, Inca, Native Americans).... It is always about target buyers of the game How many copies of BTS has been sold in US, Germany, France etc. and how many in Eastern Europe as a whole?

Quite a bit actually...

Fireaxis released an entire version just in Polish. And in Multiplayer people are always complaining about how the Romanian and Russian players never speak english. I also see alot of Czech, Serbian, Finnish, and Baltic layers.

 

[moopoo]

I think there is a different criteria for european nations to get into civ. All the one's in the game either had a strong colonial presence, featured in an alliance in one of the World Wars, or featured prominently in the Middle Ages or ancient times. While I have no idea of Poland's prominence in the Middle Ages (Although the fact that I know nothing of them says something, i suppose), they don't meet any of the other criteria.

 

[paydro]

Well Moopoo, the kingdom of Poland was pretty important from about 1000 to 1600, and was sort of important after that. Was Poland any more deserving than Sweden, Lithuania, or Switzerland? Maybe, maybe not. There's plenty of reason to include them, but they're not exactly a terrible omission.

In my opinion they'd be on the short list to go into a new game, along with Austria, the Hebrews, the Swedes, and then a post-colonial nation from Asia (Vietnam?), Africa (Congo?), and Latin America (maybe even 2 from Latin America... Mexico & Brazil?).

Of course there's the problem of trait combos, but as already noted, a new trait plus the 3 remaining combos would get you 14 available leader combos. So if I were to get my way and get 8 new civs, swap the Native Americans for the Iroquois (a bad civ, but I guess I'm swayed to the logic that it's better than nothing), and you're in good shape regionally and across time.

 

[moggfanatic]

@paydro: there is a pikeman UU the landschnekt (sp?)

 

[paydro]

True, missed that one.