Do you think they should add more Civilzations in C3C?

[Chinghis]

I like the idea of Civs changing names... and I wish they'd bring back the "civil war" option from Civ 2. You know, where, if you took a civ's capital city, it could break apart into two empires. Have something similar (maybe not the fall of a capital city, but maybe a good chuck of it descending into unhappiness for a while) happen to certain civs, resulting in the creation of an American, Mexican, or whatever civ. Could code it so that it was more likely to happen if the colonies were separated by oceans, or if the makeup of their cities - commercial vs. religious vs. military, for example - was different from the core of the civ.

 

[whoknows888]

Well, taht sure has convinced me. I think that this one statement will be able to convinve all those people who think America shouldn't be a civ that they're completely wrong! The amount of supporting evidence, the elaboration, this could be published in some sorta civ magazine (There's bound to be at least one of these.....And if there's not, well, there should be.)

If you can not read sarcasm then I pitty you. If I misunderstood you I pitty myself. America has had alot of influence over world affairs the past 80+ years. Too take out America of Civ because they haven't "been around" as long as the Roman Empire has been then that is complete arrogance by the persons assumption/knowledge. America can be considered a modern Rome in 1) America had slavery like Rome did 2) America has had a people's government much like Rome had during their Republic (America has gotten its government through different cultures and groups) 3) America has improved the standard of living and has brought industry into most nations even though it may be bad to do so 4) America is a military police just like Rome was with their territory 5) America like Rome has been a military power house, has had culture diversions etc.

America may not have been around as long as some cultures/countries, but they have definately impacted the world alike. To take America out of Civilization 4 would be to take the Iroquois, Portugal, Korea and other civs that only were around for a few hundred years. You may disagree or not with me on this, but to those who disagree list points why America should be taken out without bashing my views. Disagree yes, but don't hate. Later.

 

[Dachs]

I think the Zulu were there to give the Africans a civ, for the whole continent. They were in the first Civ, too, it's just a matter of course to keep them in.

 

[whoknows888]

Dach, I believe you are correct. If a civilization/culture group/empire were to live up to the standards of how people perceive them to be then alot of the civilizations would be taken out.

 

[Nobody]

That is when the civil war for independence comes in: if, for example, England starts colonizing an island between the middle and industrial ages, theres some chance of those cities on that island become America, Portugal to Brazil etc. So do conquered cities may become to their original Civ, like India -> English colony -> India.
But we could make this even more complicated, so I doubt Firaxis will get something like this on Civ 4...

That would be awsome.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

i beleive that america should not be in civ, because, quiet simply, it isnt a civilization, it is part of the anglo-saxon civilization(although it would be cool to have civil wars where the resulting is of the same nationality of main civ just diferent name...), as is australia and canada(altough they havent assimilated some french people...) and as to the suggestion of moari civ, it would be good to see a pacific islander civ and an aboriginal australian civ...

 

[whoknows888]

i beleive that america should not be in civ, because, quiet simply, it isnt a civilization, it is part of the anglo-saxon civilization(although it would be cool to have civil wars where the resulting is of the same nationality of main civ just diferent name...), as is australia and canada(altough they havent assimilated some french people...) and as to the suggestion of moari civ, it would be good to see a pacific islander civ and an aboriginal australian civ...

Why is it not a civilization? How is Zululand a civilization? How is France, Germany, England, Spain, and Portugal a civilization? Could you elaborate on the anglo-saxon civilization part? I know that America was founded by WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants), but that doesn't make all of America anglo-saxon. Australia and Canada never had a Civil War. Are you saying the Phillipines(sp) are a civ? Sorry to seem rude, but are you just making a basic assumption?

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

ok, well as far as i see, america, although of many difering nationalitioes, is dominated by the desendants of the british settlers, and even after the split, they still retained their culture, as w/ aus, so i see them as part of the "english" civilization.
what i am trying to say, is that civilization is a game about civilizations, not countries, and america is only another country within the "english" civilization,
and all of the acheivements of america culturaly, have generaly advanced that civilization, although, if cIV alowed for different countries within the same cultural border, the existence of america would be justified.
this is why i also oppose the introduction of austriaor as a civ, because although a diferent country historicaly from n. germany (ie:the german lands under 2nd reich controle after the unification, notto be confused w/ the n. german league.), it is still the same civilization, the same as w/ the scandinavians, they arent included as seperate civs just vikings.

 

[mikezang]

I don't think it is necessary for more than 31 civs, because it is hard to distinguish the difference.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

But, the Anglo-Saxon Civ is a split-off from the German Civilization. While France is Celts+Germans. Spain is Rome+Celts+Arabs+Germans. Byzantium?
There aren't many 'unique', isolated civilizations on Earth...

 

[whoknows888]

ok, well as far as i see, america, although of many difering nationalitioes, is dominated by the desendants of the british settlers, and even after the split, they still retained their culture, as w/ aus, so i see them as part of the "english" civilization.
what i am trying to say, is that civilization is a game about civilizations, not countries, and america is only another country within the "english" civilization,
and all of the acheivements of america culturaly, have generaly advanced that civilization, although, if cIV alowed for different countries within the same cultural border, the existence of america would be justified.
this is why i also oppose the introduction of austriaor as a civ, because although a diferent country historicaly from n. germany (ie:the german lands under 2nd reich controle after the unification, notto be confused w/ the n. german league.), it is still the same civilization, the same as w/ the scandinavians, they arent included as seperate civs just vikings.

I completly understand where you are getting this from, but then this would mean that the British and Americans are barbarians. Australia as you have said before was part of the British, but the reason for Australia to be part of the British was for dumping criminals off there as the same thing was Georgia during the colonial period. What I am getting at is like Doc said there would not be many civilizations because of descendants from the Anglo-Saxon's. Civilization is not always based on "historical" accuracy.

 

[Zelda's Man]

What about if they add Switzerland, but they are never allowed to go to war with anyone?

And what about an Eskimo civ that thrives in the tundra? No one else seems to use it so why not?

 

[Zelda's Man]

I think the Zulu were there to give the Africans a civ, for the whole continent. They were in the first Civ, too, it's just a matter of course to keep them in.

Egypt is African too.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

What about if they add Switzerland, but they are never allowed to go to war with anyone?

Is that irony?
Switzerland was one of the most aggressive countries in Europe for centuries, even with vassal territories. And their entire economy was based on mercennaries (Reisläufer. Why do you think the Pope has a Swiss Guard? Or the Dutch UU?
And today, they're armed to the teeth, really.

 

[Dachs]

Egypt is African too.

Egypt was more of a Mediterranean civ, as is Carthage. African in the sense of Kush, Bantu, Mali, Songhai, etc., in other words, sub-Saharan and southern Africa.

And I agree w/ Doc on the Swiss thing...the "Swiss Army knife", the fact that they have one of the largest modern air forces in the world. I know someone from die Schweiz, and they said that there were always soldiers with rifles in most places in the country.

Switzerland is more like Sweden, fiercely neutral, but willing to fight to protect that neutrality. There have been some exceptions, like the financing of the Third Reich in WWII, but overall the Swiss have stayed away from alliances for a long time. They're not even in the UN...

 

[Tigerclaw]

The Swiss might warrant a Civ, but Europe is glutted already. The Songhay and the Kingdom of Siam would be a good geographical fit...

 

[GeneralZed]

Is that irony?
Switzerland was one of the most aggressive countries in Europe for centuries, even with vassal territories. And their entire economy was based on mercennaries (Reisläufer. Why do you think the Pope has a Swiss Guard? Or the Dutch UU?
And today, they're armed to the teeth, really.

Just because today, who goes to the military may keep his/her weapon. But we still dont go running amok.

What about if they add Switzerland, but they are never allowed to go to war with anyone?

Of course we are allowed to go to war! About 100 years ago there was a voting, to chose if we want to be neutral or not. Our military is there just to defend ourselves and not to attack, but I doubt some country will attack us in the next 50 years.

***

I completely agree with Whoknows of keeping America in CIV 4. The argument "they weren't long enough around" is completely rubbish. This would mean many Civs should be taken out too, like the Mayan, Aztecs, Zulu, Wikings. But I say the Mayans, Aztecs, Zulu and Iroquois should be taken out and surely leave America, England, France, Russia, Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, Germany and Arabia in the game.

I remember for reading somewhere that CIV 4 will have 18 Civs, 2 more than in the original CIV3.

 

[Chazbagel]

Egypt is African too.

And Carthage

 

[Chazbagel]

take out.... Byzantines... and add..... something else

America is in Civ because they are a civilization, how can you say taht they aren't They are the world superpower right now, the only one too. We have a bigger and better military, culture, economy(cept for japan i think) than anyone else. We are much more influencial on the world than the Koreans, Zulu, or even Carthage. If it wasnt for america, you wouldnt be reading this post, on the internet, on a computer, in a house with electricity. Now why cant US be a civ?

 

[S!n!st3r]

I think China is the only one that has a better economy then America.