Leaders we don't want.

[Arakhor]

Maybe, but I am certainly not a US English speaker and never will be. Maybe in 20. 50 or 100 years, everyone will speak something will more resembles US English, but I highly doubt it. There are more Asians who speak English than anywhere else in the world, so if we're going with the damp spoon approach to language evolution, it's them I'd place my money on.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

That's pretty questionable; there were a variety of far more worthy, and, significantly, far more civilised candidates than the Zulus, they simply happen to be the most widely known example. The other Sub-Saharan civs which have so far appears- Mali, Ethiopia, and the upcoming Songhai- or all far worthier of inclusion. To argue for their inclusion over that of a civ like Songhai is like arguing for the Cherokee over the Iroquois, simply because they better ft the stereotypical image of Africa entertained by the West.

I know. But this game is not designed for scolars, but for random people. White men know Zulu because of the Zulu wars, so they implement Zulus oinstead of kingdoms which lasted longer and were more important in Africa's history that most of us have never heard about.

Africa is already severly sub-represented, I think.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

And subsequently, the teen sued the high school. Sure, people may try to take someone's rights away, but you can fight back, as this teen is doing. Furthermore, you don't have the right to preach religion in public schools, while you do have the right to believe and attend wherever or whatever you want. The US is one of the freest countries in the world in terms of speech, and is definitely up there in religion (you may not like some of the religious beliefs, I know I don't, but people are free to have them).

@Zarathustra: This game is for both people who know a little something about history and random people. My friends who play Civ and don't go on civfanatics or are really that serious don't care if the Zulu are excluded. None of them say, "But Poland is more worthy than the HRE!" They buy it. They don't really care whether its the Zulu or the Songhai who represent the African warrior-nation. Who does care? Us. And a lot of the population of civfanatics is concerned with history when it comes to civilizations.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

And subsequently, the teen sued the high school. Sure, people may try to take someone's rights away, but you can fight back, as this teen is doing. Furthermore, you don't have the right to preach religion in public schools, while you do have the right to believe and attend wherever or whatever you want. The US is one of the freest countries in the world in terms of speech, and is definitely up there in religion (you may not like some of the religious beliefs, I know I don't, but people are free to have them).

Sure, but from a marxist, or even leftist point of view, America is the country of the most accomplished capitalism, and of the most generalized exploitation. Marx has made the critic of bourgeois right long time ago, saying that giving right to people who can't use it is basically an illusion.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Zarathustra: This game is for both people who know a little something about history and random people. My friends who play Civ and don't go on civfanatics or are really that serious don't care if the Zulu are excluded. None of them say, "But Poland is more worthy than the HRE!" They buy it. They don't really care whether its the Zulu or the Songhai who represent the African warrior-nation. Who does care? Us. And a lot of the population of civfanatics is concerned with history when it comes to civilizations.

Pretty much this. The average player is happy as long as the utterly bleeding obvious ones are ticked off- Rome and China, basically- and beyond that it's only the history buffs who are interested.

 

[Ribannah]

The majority of english speakers in the world speak US English.

How do you figure that (and what exactly is that, anyway)? Aussie English, for instance, is something else entirely.
Actually, most people that speak English don't have it as their first language.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

How do you figure that (and what exactly is that, anyway)? Aussie English, for instance, is something else entirely.
Actually, most people that speak English don't have it as their first language.

What most people, myself included, speak is not British nor American English but some kind of bad Esperanto. For me the really beautiful English is to be found in England, though, and only few people really speak it (language is traditionaly so related to class in England that, to summarize, really proper and subtle English has always been the language of the aristocracy there).

 

[Churchill's Hat]

Sure, but from a marxist, or even leftist point of view, America is the country of the most accomplished capitalism, and of the most generalized exploitation. Marx has made the critic of bourgeois right long time ago, saying that giving right to people who can't use it is basically an illusion.

Quoting Marx doesn't make you right. Do I believe the US should change its economic policy? Yes. Do I believe the US should change its political liberties, which is what I was addressing? No.

Also, saying one type of English is more correct because of pronunciation is fallacious. The best English in terms of grammar is spoken by grammarians, and even they can make mistakes. Pronunciation is merely mocked because some people don't like other pronunciations.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Pretty much this. The average player is happy as long as the utterly bleeding obvious ones are ticked off- Rome and China, basically- and beyond that it's only the history buffs who are interested.

Actually even for people like me who do know a good amount of history, I don't really give a damn. As long as they're not throwing in civs like Uruguay or the Belgians, it won't matter too much as long as most of the real big civs are in.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

Quoting Marx doesn't make you right. Do I believe the US should change its economic policy? Yes. Do I believe the US should change its political liberties, which is what I was addressing? No.

Also, saying one type of English is more correct because of pronunciation is fallacious. The best English in terms of grammar is spoken by grammarians, and even they can make mistakes. Pronunciation is merely mocked because some people don't like other pronunciations.

Let say that it is a question of point of view. I don't consider in any way that US is the country of freedom. I would even say that I find the idea hillarious, but that's my humble opinion and I won't go on war against people who don't think exactly like me (or who have oil and other interestig ressources, or anything which can benefit the private interest of my corrupted governement wrongly elected with the help of manipulating medias related to an oligarchy of billionaires kofkofkof).

Point being, about english language, that there is no English Academy to fix the rules in the whole world about what is good and bad english, as there is l'Académie Francaise who basically decide how French should be spoken. English most foreigners speak, me included is a 2000 words vocabulary language, with ultra-flexible grammar and no rigor whatsoever. If you want to call that American English or British English, do so, I can tell you by living in London that the English some people here talk is basically not the same language.

Oh, and I never said one or another type of English was correct and another not. Never even crossed my mind.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually even for people like me who do know a good amount of history, I don't really give a damn. As long as they're not throwing in civs like Uruguay or the Belgians, it won't matter too much as long as most of the real big civs are in.

Well, there you go. Anyone who cares will prefer Songhai to the Zulus, everyone else is happy as long as they have something to represent Sub-Saharan Africa, if they care at all.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Let say that it is a question of point of view. I don't consider in any way that US is the country of freedom. I would even say that I find the idea hillarious, but that's my humble opinion and I won't go on war against people who don't think exactly like me (or who have oil and other interestig ressources, or anything which can benefit the private interest of my corrupted governement wrongly elected with the help of manipulating medias related to an oligarchy of billionaires kofkofkof).

Point being, about english language, that there is no English Academy to fix the rules in the whole world about what is good and bad english, as there is l'Académie Francaise who basically decide how French should be spoken. English most foreigners speak, me included is a 2000 words vocabulary language, with ultra-flexible grammar and no rigor whatsoever. If you want to call that American English or British English, do so, I can tell you by living in London that the English some people here talk is basically not the same language.

Oh, and I never said one or another type of English was correct and another not. Never even crossed my mind.

And yet another thread becomes some moronic e-fight.
I'm just amazed that, for once, a thread on civilizations being added/not added didn't lead to a primarily Poland/Hitler related argument instead.
I'll give you guys points for semi-originality. Only originality in that it's not the norm here, although ******** political troll fights are common elsewhere.

 

[Tusked]

And yet another thread becomes some moronic e-fight.
I'm just amazed that, for once, a thread on civilizations being added/not added didn't lead to a primarily Poland/Hitler related argument instead.
I'll give you guys points for semi-originality. Only originality in that it's not the norm here, although ******** political troll fights are common elsewhere.

Actually, the "America sucks" fight is pretty much as common as the other ones you listed. We're really not doing anything new here.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

Actually, the "America sucks" fight is pretty much as common as the other ones you listed. We're really not doing anything new here.

I do believe that starting a conversation abot which civilization is worthy or not for the next civ is in itself almost a troll. It all started with OP saying that Zulu were savages and had no "civilization" and other racist nice things like that, and that America definitly deserves its place because they had won many wars and were the country of freedom. Sorry, had to react, and I know, the whole thing is moronic.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I do believe that starting a conversation abot which civilization is worthy or not for the next civ is in itself almost a troll. It all started with OP saying that Zulu were savages and had no "civilization" and other racist nice things like that, and that America definitly deserves its place because they had won many wars and were the country of freedom. Sorry, had to react, and I know, the whole thing is moronic.

Doesn't excuse your own political troll attempts, grow up.
We have enough of you people turning every other thread into a huge argument.

 

[JT-101]

Im with the majority that dosent care too much about civ as long as the basics are covered.

Rome with Cesar? Check.

China without Sun Tzu? Check.

America with Washington and little to no chance of Regan ever seeing a non modded civ? Big Check.

after all this anything else to me is pretty much gravy, although i would preferr playing big ol mean Hitler for Giggles, And i certainly hope they bring in Alexander, but I would Buy it even without bolth or one of those guys as they are simpluy good leaders to have imo.(not saying I liked Hitler or anything jjust saying it would be nice to nuke my own cities like a madman lol)

 

[The Almighty dF]

Personally, I'm a giant history geek. For that reason, choices like Wu really, really get under my skin.
I want my Civ leaders to have done something extremely worthy, at least more than just something like a trivial "first leader to do blah" "first blah leader."
Wu was the first female leader of China. good for her. She deserves a cookie, but not placement above Taizong, Qin Shi Huang, Mao, etc.
For that reason, I'd also be angry if they replaced Rameses with Cleopatra, or brought in Elenore Roosevelt as leader of America (she was in Civ2, wasn't she? As America's female leader.)

For the most part, Civ4 didn't fall into this.
Hatshepsut... eh, she didn't accomplish much, but she was atleast fairly notable for more than just being female.
Washington... I'd still prefer to be replaced with a more deserving figure. Jefferson, FDR, JFK, Lincoln, maybe even Einsenhower. He'd be neat, accomplished a lot but normally glossed over in terms of his presidency.

Boudica... was alright. I'd have preferred Vercingetorix over Brennus, though. I mean come on, when you think Celts, you think Vercingetorix.

I also want the same of my civs.
I want civs that have done at least a few notable things. That's why I'm against adding the Zulu instead of another sub-Saharan African civ (Congo civ would be neat.)

It also bugs me that Firaxis does, kinda, put too much of an emphasis on Europe. I want to see more Far East and Middle Eastern civs. Instead of just "Arabia", we could have Arabia (Caliphs/Saudi only), Libya, and maybe either Israel or Pakistan.)

Also, and this is what bugs me about Elizabeth and Victoria both being English leaders... why not make sure each leader represents a different aspect of the civ?
Like for England you could have the explorative/colony-loving Elizabeth, the modern Churchill, and the old Crusader Richard I.
For Arabia, you could have Harun al-Rashid to represent the heavily scientific and cultural era of Arabia, Saladin to represent the bloody middleage wars, and then Ibn Saud to represent modern Arabia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Boudica... was alright. I'd have preferred Vercingetorix over Brennus, though. I mean come on, when you think Celts, you think Vercingetorix.

Well, Gauls, maybe. Not so much "Celts" in it's unqualified form... But I've ranted about this at length previously, so I best let it be.

Also, and this is what bugs me about Elizabeth and Victoria both being English leaders... why not make sure each leader represents a different aspect of the civ?
Like for England you could have the explorative/colony-loving Elizabeth, the modern Churchill, and the old Crusader Richard I.

I don't think that Richard would be a very good choice for England. He doesn't really represent anything about the country, nor did he have any major role in it's shaping. He's remember as a heroic figure, but his exploits are essentially a rather exotic blip in the county's history. Henry V or Edward I may be preferable if a medieval choice is desired, both having had greater roles in shaping the course of English history, as well as more accurately representing the synthesis of English and Norman culture, and the political and military exploits of the nation.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Well, Gauls, maybe. Not so much "Celts" in it's unqualified form...

Using the broad Celts, which is what Civ4 used, which would include Gauls.

 

[Thormodr]

*Ugh* Please no American bashing. They definitely belong in the game.

My paternal grandfather was American, I have many American friends including some American soldiers and I live 5 minutes from the US border.

I would like to see Canada in the game in maybe the second expansion pack but I'd understand if they are left out.

Countries like Hungary, Austria, Vietnam, Thailand and Poland all should be represented.

I've come to have an intense dislike for overt nationalism so I hope people on this forum will remain reasonable and I think most are for that matter.