Do you think they should add more Civilzations in C3C?

[Hyena]

OK, just a quick quote here. I am Canadian, and VERY proud of it. However, putting Canada in as a Civ is probobly one of the worst choices you could make. Our country was only formed in the 1860s (until then we were British), and even then we were not truly independant of British rule until after the second world war. As for our role in world history, with the exception of our participation in the two world wars, and the fact that we are one of the G7 nations, our role in history is negligible. What has Canada really done to warrant being ranked alongside civs such as Rome and China? Nothing, thats what. Sure, we're probably one of the most peaceful and advanced nations the world has ever seen, and we're unstoppable in hockey, but that hardly means we're a Great Civilization.

As for others... Australia has never really done anything other than being part of the British empire, and fighting at Galipoli. Mexico is represented as the Aztecs, and Brazil has never really made themselves a part of world history either. Ok, so they're big and they have a rainforest, but just like us Canadians, Brazilians just have not changed the course of history to any great extent.

In conclusion....I think that anyone who wants to suggest a civ to add to the game, or wants to put in a comment on which civs should be taken out, etc. eyc. should at leats have a valid historical reason that takes into account more than patriotism or fairness. This is a game about dramatic historical civilizations, and not one where Canada belongs.

Oh, and although I hate to admit it, the last century was almost completely dominated by America, and though they are a young nation, they have more than earned their role in civ. Ciao.

 

[Stormfalcon1970]

The problem is that there aren't really any more North American nations that could become civs. In fact, only the Anasazi really come close to meriting inclusion at all, and they were more like the Aztecs than the Iroquois

Personally, if culture groups are kept, I would like to see:

American (the Maya, the Inca, the Aztecs, the Iroquois, the Anasazi)
European (America, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Russia, the Vikings)
Mediterranean (Rome, Carthage, Greece, Egypt, the Byzantines)
African (Songhai, Abyssiia, the Turks, the Hittites)
Southern Asian (India, Khmer, Thailand, Srivijaya)
Eastern Asian (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea, the Mongols)

I like!
I also like the idea of cities spliting off and turning into one of these other states. (Rebel scum!)
Galactic Civs had that happen occasionally. It was irritating but admittedly realistic.
Why not have minor powers with thier own set of rules (example : Limited range or # of cities? Limited # of units or can build only certain UUs?A ceiling on thier tech development?)
Call them 'Barbarian Civs' or 'Native Civs'? The Brits certainly thought we 'went native' or somesuch in our attitudes here in the colonies.
Freedom? Self government? Pfhaa! Barbarians! Papa George is gonna spank you now. BAD CHILDREN!!!

 

[azzaman333]

i have always wanted there to be an australian civ, even though i find that very unlikely. really, have we done anything to warrant an appearance in this game? first of all, we have only been independant from Britan in the last 100 years, and in that time, we have had very little influence. We fought along britan in WW1 because we felt we were them, and we fought in WW2 because we were attacked. we never really significantly altered these wars either.

even though i personally dont like america as a civ, they significantly altered the result of WW2 (hiroshima ).

if there was every going to be an aussie civ anyway, we'd be bundled with New Zealand, UU probably ANZAC something. But to put it plainly, we haven't done enough to be included in civ.