How many European Civilizations!?!

[Nyvin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom

We are fourth. Besides which, influence is not just economy. It also includes historical importance, military power, nuclear power and cultural significance.

It's going by nominal value there, which really isn't acturate at all if you look into it, it's like saying since they have a higher per capita they have a larger economy.

It's a simple fact, China is larger and has a population of 1.3 billion. Of course they're going to produce more then the UK overall. That's what economy is about. The same goes for India. The UK does not have the fourth largest economy, it's not the fourth largest producer.

 

[Truronian]

It's going by nominal value there, which really isn't acturate at all if you look into it, it's like saying since they have a higher per capita they have a larger economy.

It's a simple fact, China is larger and has a population of 1.3 billion. Of course they're going to produce more then the UK overall. That's what economy is about. The same goes for India. The UK does not have the fourth largest economy, it's not the fourth largest producer.

They are fourth in terms of GDP, not in nominal volume per capita. GDP is generally accepted as the best measure of economic power on the international stage. Do not forget that London is also the largest financial center in the world.

You also seem to have ignored my point that influence is not based solely on economy. It is not. Germany has a large economy, comparitively little influence when compared to France or the UK

 

[Kyriakos]

I dont think that any euro nation has much of a global influence, not even russia. Since there are nuclear weapons around the regular armies have become useless, and only indirect imperialism (as in the case of iraq) is viable. the sooner all europeans realise & accept that war/military might for them is something that can only exist in a computer game, the better.
the usa, on the other hand, is more like a continent and less like a country. 250 mil (?) population, vast size, why would the people there care about being part of a planet, when they can travel the distance between london and athens and still be inside their own country.

 

[Atrebates]

My point on the army is that we do have one and it costs money. Russia never had a huge navy - what's the point? no all year ports. Even [as USSR] access via the Black sea and the Med was undesirable as they were hemmed in by 3 major choke points with British Gibraltar right in the middle of one. The navy might have been a reasonable size but it was nothing compared to USSR's power beacause their naval position was so unfavourable esp. in Europe where it mattered.

from Wikipedia on the Royal navy
it remains the largest Western European navy, and one of the world's most technologically advanced. It formed the basis for most other navies with few exceptions.

The French navy is the second in Europe....
China, I haven't got a clue. In terms of power it seems to be between Japan and UK for 2nd. However article 9 (of J's constitution) forbids Japan having offensive forces, so its navy is crippled in vital ways. I've only see an online 'japantoday' paper say this so I rather assume the mantle rests with the UK.


As for the army, well that was not entirely serious... but I said best elite infantry. i.e. the SAS and SBS are man-for-man the best in the world, they are all terrain specialists and 'selection' is a 6 month process (+ extra for those who attempt SBS). Its naturally very hard to prove who's best but they are certainly in with the front runners.

The nuclear deterrent is not cheap to maintain, any weapons alloted to Britain are British built, thermonuclear secrets were traded (reputedly for VX gas) after Britain had suceeded in independent construction of an H bomb. The US design was forced onto the scientists so the UK could reduce expenditure and to allow cross-country compatability. Incidentally your rocket was jazzed up by Rolls-Royce as it was slightly 'unrefined'.
As for ' what does 400 mean' well it places us in third, what is your point? The whole reason for my argument was disagreement with the UK's military being feck all and practically free as implied in post #74 ('lack of any major military')

The noting of variation in sources is fair, but they place the UK ahead by varying degrees so consensus is there, but we don't exactly dominate France- true. 150%...heh heh, well it is (barely) true, and France has been walloped by the Euro - they've probably dropped down some more.

 

[Civrules]

Moderator Action: This thread should get back on topic now.

 

[DBear]

My 18:
Classic era: Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Persia, Carthage, China, India.
Modern era: USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Arabia, Spain
others: Inca, Azteca.

So by my count, 7--unless Greece and Rome are to be counted as Mediterranean.

 

[Kyriakos]

hm, why should greece and rome be counted as med, and spain as "european"?

+ "europe" is a figure in an ancient greek myth

 

[The End Is Nigh]

I think Greece and Rome (along with Egypt, Carthage and the rest) should be counted as Med Civs as they all developed more or less during the same period. They were the dominant Civs of their time.

By the same account, Germany, Russia, England, France, etc, also developed into great nations during the same time when the Med Civs became irrelevant and Europe became the dominant continent.

 

[Crayton]

That is a good reason.
Again, I believe religions will 'characterize' civilizations in Civilization 4 as 'culture group' did in Civilization 3. If true 'Mediterranean' would be a mute point whereas 'Christian' would be the 'culture group' of the civilization.

Either way, I think civilizations should not represent exclusive epochs of time (Mediterranean civs of the first half of history and European civs of the second half of history). Then again, thats just me.

 

[Crayton]

Will Civ 4 have regional city graphics like "American" or "Middle Eastern"? I kind of think (because regions will be completely different in a random game) "Taoism" or "Judaism" should have separate city structures.

What will happen?

 

[sweeneygov]

Why only 18 civs in Civ4 in the first place. Surely the more the better? Id like to see the Holy Roman Empire which would be a good one, with perhaps Prussia (Germany was not always Germany after all), Poland was a strong power as was Sweden at one point. England should be 'Britain' really but there should be the option of both along with Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It would be cool to do a British Isles map with a war between them. Perhaps an Eastern European map with all the corresponding countries involved.

Outside Europe Id like to see the 'Americans' re-classed as the United States and perhaps Canada introduced! Also a US Civil War Scenario with Confederate and Yankee armies would be cool, perhaps different tribes of Indians available.

 

[Crayton]

Why only 18 civs, indeed. In reality there are hundreds of civilizations and cultures in the world today, no to mention in history. This is called real-life. The game-creators are bending the definition of civilization by bringing us 18 of the most prominent civilizations of today and days gone by.

The purpose of this thread is to determine what parts of history and geography should be represented in the most-limiting 18 civiliations.

I liked the ideas of different scenarios that can be created for different parts of history (especially, the one with Prussia and the HRE), but give us your opinion on (within the imposed 18 civ limit) which civs should make it and/or how many civs from Europe should make it.

 

[Legionary37]

One of the few matriartical societies (Women ruled) ever to exist might be good to add too.

I fail to see how this matters in the slightest.

Europe in itself is a eurocentric concept. There's no better reason for Europe to be a continent than for India or North America. However, there's more people considering the Americas (North and South) as one continent than people considering Europe is not a continent.

As in, EurAsia? Personally, I'm fine the way it is. The continents are all different from each other in terms of culture, general terrain, climate etc. so i'd say they could be counted as seperate continents.

Anyway, I don't believe either that civilizations should be determined according to the continent they belong to. Asia represents half of world population and it would be stupid to give them as many civs as America or Africa for this reason.

I think Asia certainly deserves some representation. Japan, China, Mongolia, and Russia. The only American civs I can think of that should be in civ is the Aztec and
Inca.

As far as Africa goes, besides mali, and the African Medeterrainian civs (Egypt and Carthage) I don't really think we need anymore.

 

[RCL]

I think Asia certainly deserves some representation. Japan, China, Mongolia, and Russia.

Russia belongs to Europe geographically, ethnically and culturally. I don't feel myself like Chineese :> The fact that Siberia and Russian Far East are in Asia doesn't change anything, would you consider British an Asiatic civ if they continued to rule India?

 

[almogaver]

I agree somehow with legionary....mostly european plus some representation of the rest...

Nevertheless it is funny to think that we have broken the world in artificial separate structures (continents)....in fact...the civs from what we call europe are as humans as any other civs...so I guess that the reason to choose the civ that has to be in the 18 Civ4 civs should be by historical importance...not by where they come from.

Historical cultures for me are: Greek, Egiptians, Chinese, Japanese, Incas,...who cares where they are located?

Most european countries had a huge influence in world wide history,....hence...they should be most in (UK, France, Castille, Rome, greece).

Some others influence is pretty recent (germans, US or Japan)...but they should be in too....

However I think that some other nations influence is well over-rated....vikings,...are a curiosity,....aztecs...hmmmm....should be mexica, aztecs are kind of a modern history invention....spanish?...not really...they should change to Castilians who are the real civ that influenced half the world...

Just to expose that history is a very tricky subject....and very very subjective,....

later on there might be always expansion sets....with extra civs....

 

[wolf_brother]

Before anyone says something like this isn't right...just remember, it's the same that they did for all the other cultures outside of Europe....

This argument alone crushes all others. Civ isn't so much a historial recreation game, as it is an alternate history. I mean come on, who honestly wants to do nothing but repeat what others have done?

 

[Nyvin]

Most european countries had a huge influence in world wide history,....hence...they should be most in (UK, France, Castille, Rome, greece).

Some others influence is pretty recent (germans, US or Japan)...but they should be in too....

The UK didn't exist until 1707. England didn't have much more influence on the world until 1648, so I don't see why they're considered above Japan or Germany. They did just as much if not more then England ever did. Japan is the only eastern asian country never conquered by the mongolians. They're probably the oldest existing country on earth.

Germany held out against the Romans throughout their existence and had a huge part in Rome's downfall.

It's annoying how biased some people are.

 

[doronron]

I believe the oldest existing country on earth is China, having had a cohesive ruling body since around 2200 BC, and the only real reason Japan wasn't conquered by the Mongols is that horses don't swim too well

Rome's contempories in Germany were not a cohesive nation, but a number of different tribes that warred among themselves as much as they did Rome -- a good example would be, say, the Native American tribes vs. the United States without the steadily increasing gap in technology. Germany proper was united briefly under the Holy Roman Empire, but imploded once again into a number of petty principalities that really didn't get their act together until Prussia beat the snot out of Austria and France, and the southern states like Bavaria decided it'd be a good idea to ride Bismark's coattails.

The name change from Britain to the UK was more or less just a formality by 1707. The Welsh, the Irish, and the Scots had pretty much been subsumed by that point. I believe at this point in time, the UK was in the middle of a cold war with France over colonial holdings in Asia and the Americas, both nations having already eclipsed the Spanish in terms of overall power and wealth. The UK had its ups and downs, but it did build a large enough oceanic empire to boast that the sun never set on it. Not something either the Germans or the Japanese could lay claim to.

 

[mastertyguy]

By the same account, Germany, Russia, England, France, etc, also developed into great nations during the same time when the Med Civs became irrelevant and Europe became the dominant continent.

Europe dominant?

 

[doronron]

Europe dominant?

During the Dark Ages, most definitely not!

The muslim world at the time was far more powerful, and encroaching through the Iberian and the southern mediterranean. Things didn't start looking up for Europe until the Crusades bore fruit in the form of the Renaissance. Once Columbus brought back word of the New World, then things really kicked off...

Up until that point, Europe was another backwater, with Asia and the Middle East remaining the centers of culture and learning.