Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity

[phungus420]

Well, since my post failed to start anything. Let me restate.

Vietnam is more worthy of inclusion in Civ4, then any other nation mentioned in this thread. I'm not sure they should be included, I can't justify Vietnam knocking out Spain, for example. But when compared to the oft repeated countries like Poland, and Canada that people want to include, Vietnam rocks them forward, backwards and sideways.

Also even though the thread isn't about it. Emperor Meiji and Attaturk are the two most often overlooked leaders that should have been included in civ. Hell unlike Vietnam, that just makes sense when compared to other missing civs, it would make sense to have Meiji and Attaturk actually replace some of the default leaders, like Stalin or Tokugawa. Historically speaking they are far greater leaders.

 

[Dragonflow]

Also even though the thread isn't about it. Emperor Meiji and Attaturk are the two most often overlooked leaders that should have been included in civ. Hell unlike Vietnam, that just makes sense when compared to other missing civs, it would make sense to have Meiji and Attaturk actually replace some of the default leaders, like Stalin or Tokugawa. Historically speaking they are far greater leaders.

There are some problems with including Japanese Emperors in Civ. IIRC Japan has strict laws of how and when it's allowed to depict the Emperor. If Firaxis sticks to the more caricature style of leaders like Civ4 they wouldn't be allowed to use Meiji. I agree that Atatürk could and should be a Turkish leader, but I fail to see how he could replace Stalin since Stalin is a Russian leader and Atatürk a Turkish leader.

 

[azbestor]

Replacing Stalin? Mastermind behind WW2 ?
As for Poland. We smashed few heads back then. Germans, Russian (should be Moscow), Sweden, also we defended Vienna from Turks And guess who stopped Soviets after WWI? Without Soviet "help" Poland would have had chance of fighting off Nazis too (in short they run short of resources).

Poland as Poland shouldn't be included in the game. Pre-union Poland was strong independent kingdom,one of many in it's times. Greatest peak of power we achievied through/during unions with Lithuania and Ukraine. Claiming it was Poland wouln't be fair for them. Similar to Austro-Hungary. Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow was the name (two last parts are Both Nations, "Rzeczypospolita" is wrongly translated as Republic, but it means more "common thing",than republic,odd name for odd country).

 

[weltraeumer]

also we defended Vienna from Turks

well, acutally it was a combined army of venice, bavaria, saxons, franks, swabia, baden, upper hesse and yes polish. and the polish king demanded for his step in, the command of all troops and the sole honor for himself...

 

[ko3ak]

ko3ak got his knickers in a twist because he felt Canada was being dissed. When, for one, I don't think anybody (including me) intended to do so. And, I'm not sure even ko3ak seriously thinks Canada should be in the game (despite winning the Gold medal in Curling).

I never said Canada should be in the game. I know very well that America will be in the game and Canada will not. My argument was in the reasoning behind it. Whether anyone meant to disrespect Canada or not, a statement was made which suggested that Canada was a poor representative of western culture/society. My entire argument was only to point out that Canada, while not as prominent on the world stage, is as good a representative of western civilization as any other. By all means, speculate on whether or not Canada should be in the game, but at least give reasonable explanations for your opinion, and avoid saying things like: "they are not good enough." That may be an over simplification, but essentially that is what it came down to. Also, in the same post, it was stated that the Mongolian Civilization was "uninteresting." I also defended Mongolia (although with less intensity). Again, avoid giving baseless reasons for inclusion/exclusion of nations in the game. I happen to think Mongolian history and culture is fascinating. I guess what I'm saying is that when discussing eligibility for inclusion in the game, stick to the facts. What historic or cultural facts would qualify a civilization for inclusion. Also, I apologize for making a remark about the USA regarding their past with slavery. Every nation has things in their history that are shameful and regretful. I hope I didn't offend anyone, and if I did, it was not personal, the things I said were in the interest of healthy social debate.

 

[CornPlanter]

Poland as Poland shouldn't be included in the game. Pre-union Poland was strong independent kingdom,one of many in it's times. Greatest peak of power we achievied through/during unions with Lithuania and Ukraine. Claiming it was Poland wouln't be fair for them. Similar to Austro-Hungary. Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow was the name (two last parts are Both Nations, "Rzeczypospolita" is wrongly translated as Republic, but it means more "common thing",than republic,odd name for odd country).

No one can deny Poland was important to some extent mostly in a limited region of Eastern Europe. But as you correctly pointed out - one of many. There were many countries like that. Heck, even my Lithuania was the largest country in Europe by land area at one point. But while United Kingdom's or Spain's influence was felt in almost every corner of the Earth, Poland was really important only in Eastern Europe.

Now if we had nothing better from Europe it would be all OK. Korea wasn't that influent either. But speaking of Europe, Poland has lots and lots of competition: Rome, Greece, Spain, UK, Germany, France, Vikings. Partially Russia, Mongolia and Ottomans. Big list.

Then again, "civilizations" like Zulu make it into Civ every time despite anything. I was really glad when Civ4 finally added Mali and Ethiopia - some real civiliations of Africa, not just a bunch of trigger spear happy guys.

 

[ko3ak]

Perhaps they could add a civilization simply called the Slavs. The Slavic civilization could contain elements from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and all of eastern Europe.

 

[CornPlanter]

Perhaps they could add a civilization simply called the Slavs. The Slavic civilization could contain elements from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and all of eastern Europe.

Technically speaking, Lithuanians are not Slavs. But yes, we have a precedent. After they added "Native Americans", now anything is possible. Even "Native Europeans" to represent, well, Europe.

 

[say1988]

But we will have Russia, making it the equivalent of having Native Americans and Iroquois.

 

[ko3ak]

I think that all civs should begin as their earliest known designation. As the eras advance the earlier civs evolve into their later incarnations. The player should also be able to choose which modern nation to evolve into and which leaders to elect along the way. I suppose that would take a lot of work to get right, and to balance, but it would be more realistic. It would also provide for some added gameplay depth and more distinctiveness between civs.

 

[nunor]

I think that all civs should begin as their earliest known designation. As the eras advance the earlier civs evolve into their later incarnations. The player should also be able to choose which modern nation to evolve into and which leaders to elect along the way. I suppose that would take a lot of work to get right, and to balance, but it would be more realistic. It would also provide for some added gameplay depth and more distinctiveness between civs.

Yes, that would be original and would make the game more interesting. But as someone pointed out, the goal of Civilization is not to mimic history, but to 'rewrite' it.

 

[ko3ak]

Yes, that would be original and would make the game more interesting. But as someone pointed out, the goal of Civilization is not to mimic history, but to 'rewrite' it.

Fair enough. But why couldn't you rewrite history using the proposed system? You could still choose to become a passive diplomatic state, or a cultural hub, or a military power. Regardless of which path you take as an evolving civ, you still get to write it how you want. You also get an opportunity to elect different leaders at various times during the game, allowing you to change your focus if you so desire. As it stands now you actually have less freedom in how you want to play because you are stuck with one leader and a predetermined civ. Allowing the player to evolve and change the civ as the game progresses allows more room for creativity.

For example I could start off as a Slavic tribe. Then as the game progresses I can elect Bohdan Khmelnytsky as my leader and become the nation of Ukraine. Then I can take my Cossacks and overthrow Russia. Nothing like that ever happened historically, but it's still completely possible in the proposed system.

It probably won't happen though. So I don't want to get my hopes up. Haha.

 

[phungus420]

The reason why that's a stupid idea is that would turn civs into straight up ethnic groups. That's a can of worms Firaxis has no reason to open.

Also Vietnam still is a better choice for a new and deserving civ then Poland or Canada combined.

 

[Ahovking]

Gday (lol guess which nation im from) Well ever one is taking about Canada so im here to give ever one a brake be saying:


Australia representative of the Pacific if not at less Oceania why:??
1)1. Norway 0.971 (&#9644
2. Australia 0.970 (&#9644
3. Iceland 0.969 (&#9644
4. Canada 0.966 (&#9644
5. Ireland 0.965 (&#9644
6. Netherlands 0.964 (▲ 1)
7. Sweden 0.963 (▼ 1)
8. France 0.961 (▲ 3)
9. Switzerland 0.960 (&#9644
10. Japan 0.960 (&#9644
11. Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3)
12. Finland 0.959 (▲ 1)
13. United States 0.956 (▼ 1)

2)IMF advanced economies
Countries described as Advanced Economies by the IMF.

According to the International Monetary Fund the following 34 countries are classified as "advanced economies":
• Australia • Germany • Malta • South Korea
• Austria • Greece • Netherlands • Spain
• Belgium • Hong Kong • New Zealand • Sweden
• Canada • Iceland • Norway • Switzerland
• Cyprus • Ireland • Portugal • Taiwan
• Czech Republic • Israel • San Marino • United Kingdom
• Denmark • Italy • Singapore • United States
• Finland • Japan • Slovakia
• France • Luxembourg • Slovenia

3)Development Assistance Committee members
There are 24 members which Aus is one of them

4)High-income OECD members
There are 27 High-income OECD members which Aus is one of them

5)Quality-of-life survey
1. Republic of Ireland Ireland
2. Switzerland Switzerland
3. Norway Norway
4. Luxembourg Luxembourg
5. Sweden Sweden
6. Australia Australia

6)G20
which Aus in a member

7)Australia has been in most modern war starting with Boer War 1899–1902 and ever war from then on see more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Australian_Army
and so on

8) Australia is the only Develop nation that did not contract in 2008

9) and Australia has the largest military in Oceania (wow lol)

Now Canada is no where to be seen lol even Australia is beating Canada lollollollol


to see more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

 

[Arakhor]

Before 1907, Australia was still the British Empire

 

[Tee Kay]

Before 1907, Australia was still the British Empire

You're confusing us with New Zealand. Australian Federation was in 1901

(Edit: hmm, post # 6666 )

 

[Arakhor]

Dominion status was that early? I'm surprised.

 

[Tee Kay]

Dominion status was that early? I'm surprised.

Australia was officially designated a dominion in 1907, but the states were made self-governing much earlier. 1901 was when the Australian nation was formed out of the six colonies.

 

[nunor]

You still recognise the queen of England as your sovereign, though.

 

[Tee Kay]

You still recognise the queen of England as your sovereign, though.

So? De jure and de facto we are a fully independent country.

Our head of state is Elizabeth II, but as Queen of Australia, not Queen of the United Kingdom.