Is there a civ that doesn't deserve to be in Civilization?

[Genghis Khaiser]

Is there a civ that you think that doesn't deserve to be in Civilization?

In my case, they are:

The Huns: They were not a civilization, they were barbarian nomads. I think the only reason they are in the game is because of their importance in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Besides, they don't have a city list. Just a capital (Attila's Court) and city names borrowed from other players city list bottoms.

Venice: If Venice was included, why would another civilization (like Italy) not take its place? I think Venice deserves to be a Civ as much as the other Italian City-States (Florence, Naples, Genoa, etc).

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

Huns are unworthy. Scythians would have been much better. I am disgruntled by Venice's inclusion since there were better options, but I'm not going to say they aren't "good enough." Anyways, Firaxis seems to be turning away from generalizations like "Vikings" or "Native America", despite having included "The Celts", So that may be one reason why they turned away from Italy.

 

[rkade8583]

HEY! I'm a Duncan and I always play the Celts. Now granted, I'd prefer to play the Scots but I takes what I gets.

And I agree with both the Huns and Venice.

 

[AriochIV]

As Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that Venice and Huns don't offer unique play experiences.

 

[Goldkoron]

Venice is more legitamate as a civ than any other city state, it had its own little empire in the Medieval Era.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Zulu is the most obvious answer.

Huns are much better, because while they were barbarians too, unlike Zulu they at least accomplished SOMETHING, were actually dreaded and the Huns weren't 2000 years behind in technology/culture/agriculture/everything that makes a civilization like the Zulu.

Polynesia. It was never united. At least it has a bit more interesting gameplay, which makes up for it, so I'm fine with it.

Not a fan of Shoshones either, but they're okay I guess.


Venice accomplished a lot, and seems like it will be very fun and unique, so it deserves its place in my opinion.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

As Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that Venice and Huns don't offer unique play experiences.

I think that's the main reason why they added the Huns in G+K. They really made a point out of the battering ram and it's uniqueness. That was probably an important reason why Venice was included as well; that as well as exploiting the trade system.

 

[gunnergoz]

I think it's a pretty arrogantly phrased question. Are there civilizations that are perhaps more interesting to play, or had a bigger role in history? Sure, those are valid questions. But to use the word "deserve" is just asking for an argument and not a debate.

 

[Navelgazer]

Eh. Venice was it's own kind of empire and The Huns are nicely representative of the broad range of "barbarian" cultures of the time, plus both play so differently that it would be sad to lose either.

The only civ I'd trade for another one is probably the Shoshone, just because there are so many options to go with for NA civs that are better on flavor and wouldn't be so boring in execution. (To be even clearer I'd really, really love an Inuit civ in their place.)

 

[Bad Wolf]

Huns would work better if they were locked from building settlers (like Venice). This would force them into early and constant conquest, which is pretty much what they do anyway. But the whole stealing city names from other civs thing is just weird, since it very conspicuously highlights the fact that the Huns didn't have any cities of their own.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

For me personally:

Huns- already explained

Venice- much better picks. The game calls them a city state and they're ability/ units sound like a wonky crippled mess, not a mighty civilization, nor even a mediocre civ.

Denmark- wait wait wait, put down your pitchforks and put out your torches, at least let me explain my point. First, I am not AGAINST Denmark per se. I am against them getting in as early as they did. Nearly every civilization to come after them (nearly) was more deserving or more diverse. Second, the lumping of vikings and norway into them was ridiculously stupid. The vikings are not a civ and Norway is too culturally distinct from the Dane's to clump properly. Lastly, they are very weak, which isn't a major problem unless they already shouldn't be their. If you can fit a better civ in gameplaywise AND historicality wise, do it.

Brazil- I'm happy that south america is getting more coverage, but I'm not entirely sure Brazil is ready for prime time. I'm not sure if they've done enough or shaped our world enough YET to be included. However I am not strongly opposed, as they are a quickly growing economy and will soon be a world super power, so they're almost ready.

Celts- what the hell is this? Either it is a tiny and minor set of clans in Scottland and whales, or such a wide and undefined cultural monicer as to be utterly meaningless.

 

[Yzman]

Is there a civ that you think that doesn't deserve to be in Civilization?

In my case, they are:

The Huns: They were not a civilization, they were barbarian nomads. I think the only reason they are in the game is because of their importance in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Besides, they don't have a city list. Just a capital (Attila's Court) and city names borrowed from other players city list bottoms.

Venice: If Venice was included, why would another civilization (like Italy) not take its place? I think Venice deserves to be a Civ as much as the other Italian City-States (Florence, Naples, Genoa, etc).

I tried to explain this in another topic. The reason I believe that you will never see an Italian Civ is that it would have to share Rome as its capital with Rome. Rome is unlikely to not be included in any future civ since it had such a huge impact on history and 2 civs, at least at this point, can not share a city name, much less a capital name. I believe because of giving Italy the shaft for this reason for so many iterations they tried to get as close as they could to an Italian civ that would not actually overlap with Roman city names and they came up with Venice. I think they did pretty well with the limitations.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

For me personally:

Huns- already explained

Denmark- wait wait wait, put down your pitchforks and put out your torches, at least let me explain my point. First, I am not AGAINST Denmark per se. I am against them getting in as early as they did. Nearly every civilization to come after them (nearly) was more deserving or more diverse. Second, the lumping of vikings and norway into them was ridiculously stupid. The vikings are not a civ and Norway is too culturally distinct from the Dane's to clump properly. Lastly, they are very weak, which isn't a major problem unless they already shouldn't be their. If you can fit a better civ in gameplaywise AND historicality wise, do it.

Brazil- I'm happy that south america is getting more coverage, but I'm not entirely sure Brazil is ready for prime time. I'm not sure if they've done enough or shaped our world enough YET to be included. However I am not strongly opposed, as they are a quickly growing economy and will soon be a world super power, so they're almost ready.

Celts- what the hell is this? Either it is a tiny and minor set of clans in Scottland and whales, or such a wide and undefined cultural monicer as to be utterly meaningless.

Ever played as Civ 4 "Viking" Civilization!? With Ragnar Lodbrock as the leader!?!? WEARING A FRIGGIN' HORNED HELMET!?!?!?


That may have went a little too far.

 

[Yzman]

For me personally:

Huns- already explained

Denmark- wait wait wait, put down your pitchforks and put out your torches, at least let me explain my point. First, I am not AGAINST Denmark per se. I am against them getting in as early as they did. Nearly every civilization to come after them (nearly) was more deserving or more diverse. Second, the lumping of vikings and norway into them was ridiculously stupid. The vikings are not a civ and Norway is too culturally distinct from the Dane's to clump properly. Lastly, they are very weak, which isn't a major problem unless they already shouldn't be their. If you can fit a better civ in gameplaywise AND historicality wise, do it.

Brazil- I'm happy that south america is getting more coverage, but I'm not entirely sure Brazil is ready for prime time. I'm not sure if they've done enough or shaped our world enough YET to be included. However I am not strongly opposed, as they are a quickly growing economy and will soon be a world super power, so they're almost ready.

Celts- what the hell is this? Either it is a tiny and minor set of clans in Scottland and whales, or such a wide and undefined cultural monicer as to be utterly meaningless.

Norway was part of Denmark at one time, so there is nothing ridiculous about including it. I am not even sure what you mean about the vikings. No one said vikings was a civ, unless you mean in the older civs. The Celts is no more ridiculous than Polynesia. I don't see anything wrong with including certain regions that would otherwise get no representation with a group term. Its better than nothing. For example, its unlikely that any of the polynesian civs would be included individually, so I am ok with them being included together than not at all.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Norway was part of Denmark at one time, so there is nothing ridiculous about including it. I am not even sure what you mean about the vikings. No one said vikings was a civ, unless you mean in the older civs. The Celts is no more ridiculous than Polynesia. I don't see anything wrong with including certain regions that would otherwise get no representation with a group term. Its better than nothing. For example, its unlikely that any of the polynesian civs would be included individually, so I am ok with them being included together than not at all.

You (as a member of the USA) were once part of england, france, spain, and the netherlands. Would it be fair then to lump you into those civs? No, because the US is very culturally distinct, as is Norway with Denmark. The polynesians shared a very similar culture and language throughout, and while at first I did oppose them, I have grown to love and accept the side. The celts on the other hand shared little with each other and are a very ill defined area, with much debate as to who is celt and who is an offspring, sister clan, influenced neighbor, unrelated, etc. where as what we call Polynesia is usually an agreed upon set of islands

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Ever played as Civ 4 "Viking" Civilization!? With Ragnar Lodbrock as the leader!?!? WEARING A FRIGGIN' HORNED HELMET!?!?!?


That may have went a little too far.

Yes, and I opposed it then as well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

As Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that Venice and Huns don't offer unique play experiences.

S'truth, brother.

 

[Uberfrog]

As Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." Being in Civilization is not an award. It's an opportunity for yet another slightly different play experience.

This. People really need to stop seeing Civ as some sort of best-of compilation album of historical cultures, and more as, y'know, a videogame.

 

[theadder]

This. People really need to stop seeing Civ as some sort of best-of compilation album of historical cultures, and more as, y'know, a videogame.

Firaxis probably contributes to this, because they understandably flatter the included civs in these terms. It's a good way of selling copies of the game for them.

 

[cakes]

nope.