Expansion Civilizations

[AlexHorky]

Canada has to get in, i know, kind of a wussy country militarily, but hey, still an economic giant in the modern world, and we've been around in some way shape or form for over 400 years, long enough i think. Our two leaders could be Pierre Elliot Turdeau (Industrious, Creative) and John A. MacDonald (Organized, Expansive). Other civilizations that could get in are definitely the Vikings, Ottomans, Zulus, Celts, and maybe even the Babylonians.

 

[Crighton]

I believe some of those were in CIV Call to Power, way back when

 

[JBG]

Call to Power was a rip off! They were even forced to change the name because it wasn't made by the original creators! And none of the civs had any differences, other than colours, leaders and cities.

CTP is an abomination!!!

 

[Gingah]

You guys have any ideas how many countries, civilizations have been around since homo sapiens and homo erectus started to wander around the world ? you all have your own identites, if some of you want Denmark in, some other want Hitties, Minoan, Ireland, Romania, Poland, Ibo, Swili, Tibet, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Khmer, Indonesia, etc,(which most people in this forum did), what is gonna happen ?
everybody has a whole bunch of reasons why their nations should be on the list, you guys have to understand that it's not all about "civilizations", it's also about "potential markets" (people from which countries are gonna buy this game) and some other issues that people don't speak about publicly such as "politics". Think about it:
If you look at the current exist civilizations, not all of them are "ancient". Japan was not even a kingdom until 5th century A.D.. Compared to the Choson kingdom of the Korean, and the Co Loa kingdom of the Viet( Vietnamese) which emerged around 4th-2th century B.C. or later the kingdom of Champa, the Japanese civilization was a new one. In a certain aspect, Japanese history before the Meiji revolution was pretty much about civil war and slow developed. There is no doubt that Japanese warriors are tough, but could they defeat the 2 Mongols invasions without the help of the 2 hurricanes ? That I doubt. Bytheway, the mongols lauched 3 failed invasions on Dai Viet (Vietnam) which are slightly bigger than the armies that they sent to Japan. The Vietnamese weren't lucky enough to have any tonardo or hurricane to help them, but they still beat up the Mongols. The Burmese defeated mongol invasion, the muslim Marmuk of Egypt also did that. Failed mongols invasions are not something unique to Japan.
How about United States ? Is there any nation called America 2000 year ago ?
This is not to say that Unites States and Japan shouldn't be on the list. In fact, the contributions of U.S. and Japan for our modern world is quite clear, and these nations also have their own wonderful cultures and histories which we all should respect.
When we talk about civilization, it's not only about warfare and power, it's also about contributions, life's style and many other cultural things. I think that the people who made Civilization IV had thought about this carefullly before they come up with those nations. And I also believe that if there will be new nations, Sid Meier' will give good judgments on what nations should be put on the list.

To Pratputajao:
Combodia is not only vessel of Thailand, it's also vessel of Vietnam, a treaty was signed at the end of 19th century making Cambodia vessel of both Siam and Vietnam. And Laos was also subjected to Siam and Vietnam. It's just like a hamburger. French colonization actually saved Cambodia and Laos from being completely annexed to Siam and Vietnam.
I agreed that the Siam kings were very wise in finding a way to avoid colonization which the Vietnam emperors couldn't do. But both Vietnamese and Siam were never super power, I say that they were pretty much equal in power. The fact is that they both never have much influences on Southeast Asia marine lands. The Siam always had to watched out for the Burmese, while the Viet had to watch out for their thousand-year enemy, the Chinese.

Anyway, I think that if any people in Southeast Asia will be on the list, they should be Khmer, Siamese or Viet

I do agree with extraneus, the next Civ 4 expansion will be based on the market, so I do believe Koreans will be part of the Expansion, because there was big discussion in Korean Gaming association. I don't know if Vietnam or Thai will make the short list but I love to see more SE Asian Civs and Middle Eastern Civs such as Iraq and it's leader as Saddam Husein

 

[Eternalsteelfan]

I do agree with extraneus, the next Civ 4 expansion will be based on the market, so I do believe Koreans will be part of the Expansion, because there was big discussion in Korean Gaming association. I don't know if Vietnam or Thai will make the short list but I love to see more SE Asian Civs and Middle Eastern Civs such as Iraq and it's leader as Saddam Husein

Oh yes, that's a great idea I'm sure "You gotta find a good woman. Not too smart, not too dumb. Not too old, not too young. One that can cook and clean." and "Bang that gavel on your head!" will go over well. Maybe for the new "crazed dictator" techs.

 

[goom]

Personally, though Korea was the first Civ i played in Civ 3 Exp and i did enjoy playing them, i think they should be excluded regardless what they have achieved as a civilzation (because with China and Japan as well as Mongolia already there we dont need one more East Asia civilization) to make place for much more deserved asian civs like Manchus, Tibetan, Vietnamese, Khmer ....

First of all, Mongolia is a Central Asian civilization. But what is your reasoning behind the statement that Korea is less deserving than the other civilizations you mentioned? I'm deathly curious.

 

[extraneus]

Although georaphically, Mongol is a central Asian nation, culturally, Mongol can be classified as an East Asian civilization.
But I'm also a little confused by what Koelle said, because Manchu and Vietnam can also be considered East Asian civilizations.

 

[asylumlost]

I believe every nation has an arrogance in what theyve accomplished, whether they be american, british or otherwise. Every nations history texts are written to make them look like the heros. The US didnt have much impact on ww1 other than speeding it up a little. The germans were out of money, out of supplies and out of manpower by the time the americans joined. Many germans did die on the eastern fronts, the russian men may not have been as effective as the russian climate was. As for britain it could be argued that the commonwealth won the war and not necessarily just the british.
In ww2 most of the US fighting was in the pacific thusly they deserve to be awarded as the winners of the war in the pacific. The british were the mainly in europe and africa, and deserve some accolades there. However the commonwealth again had a large part in that. It was the russians that beat hitler though britain may have freed france and benelux but the russians took out the camps and berlin.
Here in canada i'm sure our texts are a little one sided too but we get a good mix of what the US did and what the british did, as we cant get away from either histories. I wonder how much british or american texts mention canadas roles in vimy, dieppe, normandy or belgium.

 

[SmokeyD]

most revolutions are bloody, french, russian, you name it, but it was a civil war no invasion. The war was between parliaments supporters (roundheads) and the monarchy supporters (stuarts), if it was an invasion it would have known as one, but it isnt. Its known as the english civil war, one of the first european revolutions, james was a not a true king of england but of scotland, so parliament was the basic rulers of england then, which means that when they invited william he was an ally in they roundheads fight, not an enemy. Although personally, i would have liked the stuarts to have won, lol how did we get onto this topic in the first place??

Um. The Glorious Revolution took place in 1688 to replace the Catholic King James II who was accused attempting to (re-)establish absolute monarchy in England, but was mainly just not liked on account of being Protestant. The English Civil Wars took place in the 1640s as a result of Charles I ignoring the rules laid out in the Magna Carta, dispensing with Parliament for 11 years and levying foreign taxes. It was he who was beheaded by the Roundheads. It was Charles' father, James I (VI of Scotland) who was the original Stuart king of England, and was Elizabeth's closest living relative (the son of her cousin Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots).

Is not Britain a Latin term? Is not England a term derived from Latin (from the Greek) for angels because of the blond hair that many of the Angles (German Tribe) who sailed over to that island NW of Europe to get some sunny weather?

Britain is derived from the Roman province name Britanica, which thought to have come from a Brithonic Celtic word pritani, meaning painted people.

The angel story is allegedly from Pope Gregory, who came across some blonde headed slaves in a market and asked who they were. When he was told they were Angles (a tribe from Germany that settled in England after the departure of the Roman legions), he quipped 'non Angli sed angeli' (not Angles but angels).

 

[cthom]

I wonder how much british or american texts mention canadas roles in vimy, dieppe, normandy or belgium.

i don't know about schools now, but i got a very good rounding of both wars (some of my teachers were actually there. my old primary school headmaster fought in the dardanelles!). the dieppe tragedy was certainly mentioned, as were the newfoundland volunteers at the somme. (vague memory of a quote: as they marched they pulled up the lapels of their coats against the oncoming hail of bullets as if it was a gale coming off the sea).

 

[Luxdorf]

My sugestion is to include Portugal, because it was the strongest and the bigest Impire in the 16th century.

 

[Artanis]

I wonder how much british or american texts mention canadas roles in vimy, dieppe, normandy or belgium.

At least in High School, American history texts are horrid. Really, REALLY horrid. I hadn't even heard of Vimy or Dieppe until the History Channel showed stuff about them, and Normandy may as well have been American-only. The coverage of WWII in any of the history texts I've been saddled with can generally be boiled down to "America beat up Germany and Japan. Britain and Russia helped, but they aren't important."

Maybe I was just incredibly unlucky, but that's what I had to deal with

 

[Depravo]

At least in High School, American history texts are horrid. Really, REALLY horrid. I hadn't even heard of Vimy or Dieppe until the History Channel showed stuff about them, and Normandy may as well have been American-only. The coverage of WWII in any of the history texts I've been saddled with can generally be boiled down to "America beat up Germany and Japan. Britain and Russia helped, but they aren't important."

Maybe I was just incredibly unlucky, but that's what I had to deal with

Everything I know about Canada's contribution to civilisation I learned myself. Our GCSE history syllabus went 1919-1939, intermission, 1946-1965. So the nation's children are being taught Versailles in isolation, without any understanding of WWI or prewar politics; about Korea without necessarily knowing China ever fought a civil war. It boggles the mind. Thank Christ we had good teachers.

I could write a whole book on how crappily history is taught in this country.

 

[loui89]

Everything I know about Canada's contribution to civilisation I learned myself. Our GCSE history syllabus went 1919-1939, intermission, 1946-1965. So the nation's children are being taught Versailles in isolation, without any understanding of WWI or prewar politics; about Korea without necessarily knowing China ever fought a civil war. It boggles the mind. Thank Christ we had good teachers.

I could write a whole book on how crappily history is taught in this country.

I had a brilliant history teacher, she taught us everything, well not everything but more that what was required, she really went into detail on things. She was the kind of history teacher, that taught things in a story kind of way, like she was there and it made learning interesting, it wasn't all text book. As she said many times, the published text books only give part of the story, when doing projects and essays, web were given not only the school text books but tons of research that she had collected from websites all over, and many books written by people who were there, from both sides. She was very patriotic when going through many of Britains glorious days, but it didn't effect the information that we needed to know, she was a great teacher and retired last year. Long Live MRS KNIGHT!!! that was her name lol

 

[Depravo]

I had a brilliant history teacher, she taught us everything, well not everything but more that what was required, she really went into detail on things. She was the kind of history teacher, that taught things in a story kind of way, like she was there and it made learning interesting, it wasn't all text book. As she said many times, the published text books only give part of the story, when doing projects and essays, web were given not only the school text books but tons of research that she had collected from websites all over, and many books written by people who were there, from both sides. She was very patriotic when going through many of Britains glorious days, but it didn't effect the information that we needed to know, she was a great teacher and retired last year. Long Live MRS KNIGHT!!! that was her name lol

Teachers like that are heroes. Thank gawd it's not lost on all of us.

I have to say though, 99% of what I learnt was off my own bat. Shame you can't rely on folk to ground themselves the way we did.

 

[Raiju]

I vote for a Tupi-Guarani civ (south american indians)
For a Celt return
For a Viking return
For a Tibet civ
For a Berber civ

 

[Drofd]

I vote for a Tupi-Guarani civ (south american indians)
For a Celt return
For a Viking return
For a Tibet civ
For a Berber civ

I think just because you have to clarify where they're from shows why they shouldn't be in the game

 

[loui89]

I think just because you have to clarify where they're from shows why they shouldn't be in the game

i agree, if a civ isnt well known then it shouldnt be included.

 

[JBG]

To be honset I hadn't heard of the Mali before Civ IV

I agree the Celts and Vikings would be good. In fact the 21 civs in Civ II were all good. The Zulus, Babylonians, Celts, Vikings, Carthaginians and Sioux are (I think) the ones that didn't make the original Civ IV. But DEFINITELY the Baby's deserve a return!

 

[Xineoph]

I've known about Mali, but only from the whole gold thing.

Yes, i for one would like to see the babylonians return....as well as what i've been saying the whole time, the introduction of one of the oldest, persecuted religion/culture of all time that still exists today. The Israelis! =D

C'mon...if there is one civ that deserves to be in it, just due to sheer amount of history & influence in the western world, it is the Israelis. =)

And before anyone says anything about "Oh, but they were conquered, and didn't come back until the modern times"

Yeah well Greece only popped out a century earlier before us. Does that mean they should be kicked out? Well i was planning another mini rant...but i'm too lazy right now.

Go Israel!