Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity
- Thread starter EMT
- Start date
We are part of the British civilization, in a way (so are the US, Canada, New Zealand, and other British colonies). In any case, Australia has only been a nation for a little more than a century, and we are not politically significant compared to the US, Britain, France, etc. An Australian civ would be nice but I wouldn't mind it not being included.
Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of 15 separate countries in the Commonwealth. She is not and has never been Queen of England, as that country ceased to exist as a political unit 300 years ago, 70 years before the United States even formed!
Aquila SPQR
King
Hmm... Canadians, please... You have your gold in hockey (you absolutely deserved it) but really - Canada should not be in Civ V. Just like Native Americans, Polynesians, Aborigines, Pigmy, Inuits and Amazonian Indians. I am not saying that Canada is unimportant in modern world or that people live there in huts and wear animal skins, but it simply cannot be in Civ V because we could have only few civs and there are more important ones in our history. It's not Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron.
The same thing with Australia or New Zealand - it would be nice to have them in Civ game, but only when there would be 100 civ to choose from, not ~18.
What Civs won't make it but certainly should? Hungary, Scotland, Tibet (censored in Chinese edition
) Izrael and of course... Poland.
"Europe is already well represented". Is it? Holy Roman Empire? So let's add also Sweboz, Prussia and Nazi Germany or DDR. Adding HRE was IMO a wrong decision just like it would be adding modern Italy. Besides - I am sorry, but Europe simply has to be dominant in Civ, because in history it dominated the globe. It was mostly Europeans who changed the world, not Japanese, Aztecs or Native Americans. We are the place where the most popular culture was born and spread around the world. It is now dominant in Americas and Australia and have a huge influence in Asia and Africa. Sorry, friends, but when Europe was conquering the world, other Civs were only a local "empires" or not empires at all. I am not saying that only "empires" should be in the game, but in my opinion majority of Civs should be from Europe. I also am strongly AGAINST balancing game by adding a totally not important nations because "from europe we have 8 civs and from Americas only 2". There is no comparison between for example Hungary and Sioux or Iroquis. Hungarians with their castles, cathedrals, knighthood, royal families etc are far more important than few tribes who lived in shacks like in a stone age. If America was never dicovered by Europeans, they would be still running there almost naked and using bows and spears. I know it may be considered offensive and Native Americans would disagree with me, but this is truth. Native Americans, Inuits, Zulus and Aborigines should not be included in a game as Civs. Maybe as a barbarians, but certainly not as a Civs. Even after a thousands of years they (left completely alone and without european intervention) would still live in their tents and huts and completely not capable of creating a modern civilization.
And Poland? Well, those who knows history (it may be difficult. because Americans - makers of this game, have mostly no idea about eastern european history) knows also why it should be in game. Those who doesn't know history - well, it's actually their problem, not mine, but nevertheless they should go back to school
The same thing with Australia or New Zealand - it would be nice to have them in Civ game, but only when there would be 100 civ to choose from, not ~18.
What Civs won't make it but certainly should? Hungary, Scotland, Tibet (censored in Chinese edition
) Izrael and of course... Poland."Europe is already well represented". Is it? Holy Roman Empire? So let's add also Sweboz, Prussia and Nazi Germany or DDR. Adding HRE was IMO a wrong decision just like it would be adding modern Italy. Besides - I am sorry, but Europe simply has to be dominant in Civ, because in history it dominated the globe. It was mostly Europeans who changed the world, not Japanese, Aztecs or Native Americans. We are the place where the most popular culture was born and spread around the world. It is now dominant in Americas and Australia and have a huge influence in Asia and Africa. Sorry, friends, but when Europe was conquering the world, other Civs were only a local "empires" or not empires at all. I am not saying that only "empires" should be in the game, but in my opinion majority of Civs should be from Europe. I also am strongly AGAINST balancing game by adding a totally not important nations because "from europe we have 8 civs and from Americas only 2". There is no comparison between for example Hungary and Sioux or Iroquis. Hungarians with their castles, cathedrals, knighthood, royal families etc are far more important than few tribes who lived in shacks like in a stone age. If America was never dicovered by Europeans, they would be still running there almost naked and using bows and spears. I know it may be considered offensive and Native Americans would disagree with me, but this is truth. Native Americans, Inuits, Zulus and Aborigines should not be included in a game as Civs. Maybe as a barbarians, but certainly not as a Civs. Even after a thousands of years they (left completely alone and without european intervention) would still live in their tents and huts and completely not capable of creating a modern civilization.
And Poland? Well, those who knows history (it may be difficult. because Americans - makers of this game, have mostly no idea about eastern european history) knows also why it should be in game. Those who doesn't know history - well, it's actually their problem, not mine, but nevertheless they should go back to school
Ingvina Freyr
wants a Steamfree option
Wow, AquilaSPQR, what a refreshing view on native americans. 
Another view that one could have, of course, is that the european pioneers that ventured inland America represented the lowest/poorest form of an agricultural civilisation and that they met with a very advanced and developed hunter/gatherer civilisation wich they completely crushed. If you look upon it this way, native americans certainly has a place in a game like this, especially if Firaxis introduced optional ways of developing a civilisation.
Another view that one could have, of course, is that the european pioneers that ventured inland America represented the lowest/poorest form of an agricultural civilisation and that they met with a very advanced and developed hunter/gatherer civilisation wich they completely crushed. If you look upon it this way, native americans certainly has a place in a game like this, especially if Firaxis introduced optional ways of developing a civilisation.
Aquila SPQR
King
In what they were more advanced than europeans? In Europe we had much more people in much less land and we were able to feed them.
Native Americans represent a civ that never reached beyond stone age. Colonisation and contact with europeans gave them first chance to touch and use modern tools and weapons. Before that they lived in almost the same way for more than 10 000 years and after that contact they managed (of course due to europeans) to jump forward from stone age to modern country in only few centuries. Of course they still live in their villages and preserve their culture etc (which is good), but also speak English, drive cars, use electricity, create websites about their history and of course nuke Aztecs or English playing as a Native Americans Empire in Civ IV on their computers.
Why must you resort to childish name calling? Instead of calling my idea stupid you could have just offered a better one. Also, the idea I proposed above has nothing to do with ethnicity. Nowhere did I ever mention ethnicity. My proposal was based on geographical groupings of people. Civilizations arose in various geographical locations around the world and then spread or evolved from there. That's exactly what my idea is reiterating. I don't understand where you got the ethnic scandal part from.
I do agree that Vietnam would make a good civ. I'm not sure who they would replace though.
Your basis for determining great civilizations seems to be based primarily on technology. However, that is only one part of what makes a people civilized. The Native Americans have a rich culture filled with art, music, and spirituality. They are brave and proud warriors to be feared in battle. They produced many great leaders and people throughout their history. Perhaps they chose to live the way they did because it provided what they needed without destroying the land which they loved. In that sense, I consider them a superior civilization. They were able to live in balance and harmony with nature for a lot longer than most other civilizations. To me that is honourable and worthy of recognition as a great civilization. Maybe the USA should be excluded from the game and the Native Americans fill their position.
CornPlanter
Emperor
By this rationale many nations would still live in their tents without contacts with others. Example: most of Mongolia's military engineering came from China. Islam was created after Christianity. United States happened due to United Kingdom. Russia was founded by Vikings. Byzantium is a direct successor of the Roman Empire. Take any civ in isolation and it suddenly becomes clear it's no longer worth it to be included. That's not a way to judge
That said, I mostly agree that zulu and native americans are just not in the same league as Hungary or most of Europe civilizations. Even if Hungary-with-all-the-knights-and-stuff was just owned by Mongols like no tomorrow
Look, every civ had it's rise and it's downfall. Aztecs conquered everything and were in turn conquered by Europeans. Who knows maybe 200 years later Europe will be wiped by Arabians or Chinese. Why judge the entire game - from 4k B.C. - solely by the Age of Colonization - I have no idea.I also think that we need variety. I want something to represent Native Americans - the best we can find among them. Same goes for Africa and the rest of continents. Till 15th century America lived it's own life with it's own civilizations without any contact with Europe. And Civilization game starts way BC, not 15 century A.D.
CMKMStephens
Serious.
@Aquilla
To me Civilization is meant to be a balance between history as it in fact happened, and the 'what if' element that is essentially the fundamental point of the game.
Your post is entirely focuses on the former, and seems to ignore the later; you don't want to play Civilization, you want to read a general history book. A nice Jingoistic one about the white man’s burden or something. Replete with ethnography.
The gross, gross generalizations however are much more unpleasant; dismissing peoples as barbarians, comparing shacks to castles. It reminds me of some rather outdated books I read today blithering on about ‘the Oriental’s temperament’. Facepalm worthy kinda stuff. I’m hardly a cultural relativist here, but your ranking of the world according to its level of Europeaness…seriously? I mean, "It was ok, and even good to wipe out the majority of Native American people because now who’s left after a long history of disfranchisement have the convenience of a blender, toaster, and Much Much More!" Interesting anachronistic approach to history. I wonder what they’ll write on their websites about their history…oh wait.
No seriously? Your argument is the white man’s burden? Hnnnnnnnnnnnrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh.
The first one earns a simple ‘WTH?’ the second another ‘seriously?’
Back on topic, anything out of me recommending New Zealand as a civ is facetious; I don't expect it in the slightest. Subsequently, I don’t really rank Australia/Canada/South Africa as contenders either. We all have important histories, and are all indispensable in the fabric of the modern world from what we have done and accomplished though; world history could be changed drastically by removing a New Zealander such as Ernest Rutherford (New Zealander, discovered atomic structure, split atom, mentored the generation of scientists that created Nuclear bomb).
What I do think however is that 'civilizations' such as the Maori, Aborigine's, or Polynesian's could easily represent the 'what if' of a Civilization game. Of course, this is almost analogous to the problems of a 'Native American' civilization, the Maori for example didn't identify themselves as the 'Maori' people until long after contact with Europeans…
To me Civilization is meant to be a balance between history as it in fact happened, and the 'what if' element that is essentially the fundamental point of the game.
Your post is entirely focuses on the former, and seems to ignore the later; you don't want to play Civilization, you want to read a general history book. A nice Jingoistic one about the white man’s burden or something. Replete with ethnography.
The gross, gross generalizations however are much more unpleasant; dismissing peoples as barbarians, comparing shacks to castles. It reminds me of some rather outdated books I read today blithering on about ‘the Oriental’s temperament’. Facepalm worthy kinda stuff. I’m hardly a cultural relativist here, but your ranking of the world according to its level of Europeaness…seriously? I mean, "It was ok, and even good to wipe out the majority of Native American people because now who’s left after a long history of disfranchisement have the convenience of a blender, toaster, and Much Much More!" Interesting anachronistic approach to history. I wonder what they’ll write on their websites about their history…oh wait.
No seriously? Your argument is the white man’s burden? Hnnnnnnnnnnnrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh.
The first one earns a simple ‘WTH?’ the second another ‘seriously?’
Back on topic, anything out of me recommending New Zealand as a civ is facetious; I don't expect it in the slightest. Subsequently, I don’t really rank Australia/Canada/South Africa as contenders either. We all have important histories, and are all indispensable in the fabric of the modern world from what we have done and accomplished though; world history could be changed drastically by removing a New Zealander such as Ernest Rutherford (New Zealander, discovered atomic structure, split atom, mentored the generation of scientists that created Nuclear bomb).
What I do think however is that 'civilizations' such as the Maori, Aborigine's, or Polynesian's could easily represent the 'what if' of a Civilization game. Of course, this is almost analogous to the problems of a 'Native American' civilization, the Maori for example didn't identify themselves as the 'Maori' people until long after contact with Europeans…
Aquila SPQR
King
Of course - their accomplishments in several areas are really impressive, and I personally like Native Americans, but they really do not fit into this game. Progress in Civ games is straight and represent overall progress of european or european-based civilization. After middle ages tech tree is trying to recreate technological advance of europe and european colonies. That's why it is good for Civs like Germany or USA and completely strange for civs like Native Americans. I do not make rules and criteria - game does. All european countries (and most other) meet those criteria - Native Americans - don't. There is a difference between Aztecs or Incas and Native Americans (as Sioux, Iroquis, Huron etc). Aztecs or Mayans developed much more advanced civilization than tribes of the Great Plains or eastern coast. If left alone, they could reach much more developed level (of course not so fast as europeans). Native Americans though, if left alone, would still live like they lived hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands years ago.
Agree to some degree. But still Native American Empire in Civ game is, in my opinion, a joke.
Whoa. Did you just condone the near genocide of a people all for a toaster? I hope that wasn't what you were suggesting.
I do like your point about the "what-if-ness" factor of a civ. There are some civs that never really got a chance to flourish for various reasons. It's interesting and fun to play out those scenarios differently and imagine how thing might have been.
CMKMStephens
Serious.
Err...I have fixed the quotation marks to more specifically indicate the sarcasm, though I thought it was within enough surrounding context... Maybe it's my NZ syntax? Maybe I should used a sarcasm mark ؟
CornPlanter
Emperor
If Empire is the word which makes you laugh, well, maybe firaxis renames them. As a matter of fact, any Empire makes me laugh in Civ. I mean, say, England finds two cities and then gets rushed by my Immortals. Was that an English Empire? Two cities, no accomplishments whatsoever, got wasted before invention of Writing so probably nobody is gonna hear about them anymore?
Empire is just a silly word to use in this game. Any nation in civ can become an Empire, but none starts as one.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
I think thats fairly true in some respects because the Natives of America always follow Buffalo or hunt/fish and they traveled with the seasons.They could adapt,ut it was rare for them to make permanent settlements or dwellings.It is amazing how fast some adapted to using european guns and battle techniques.
Also the Native Americans have produced numerous warlords which are still well know to this day.Geronimo,Crazy Horse,Sitting Bull and Pontaic to name a few.
And also I understand exactly what you were trying to say earlier,but i think some people misunderstood.
Also the Native Americans have produced numerous warlords which are still well know to this day.Geronimo,Crazy Horse,Sitting Bull and Pontaic to name a few.
And also I understand exactly what you were trying to say earlier,but i think some people misunderstood.
Progress in Civ is not meant to follow only European and colonial development. Progress in Civ is meant to follow HUMAN development. Whether it developed in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas. The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans did not have a more advanced civilization than the North American Natives. It's easy to believe that because the Meso-Americans built with stone and the North Americans didn't. The Meso-Americans formed large cities and the North Americans were a more nomadic people. If you look at the technology, culture, and belief systems they are all quite similar, and none of them were clearly more advanced than the rest.
Also, if you look at the Mongol Empire during it's height, they were not all that different from the Native North Americans. They were a very nomadic people, with little in terms of technological advances. They had no major architecture. The only difference is that they all banded together in conquest, where the Native Americans stuck to their individual tribes.
Haha. Sorry I misunderstood. I didn't think you meant it that way, but I wanted to clarify.
Even ignoring Mexico and the Southwestern US, there were plenty of permanent settlements. Most groups were, at most, semi-nomadic with a portion of the population going out to hunt/fish seasonally. Many groups grew crops, especially corn.
Groups like the Lakota became more nomadic due to Europeans forcing them off traditional lands and the introduction of the horse.
Aquila SPQR
King
No, not exactly an "empire". Native Americans as a civ. In my opinion adding them as a civ is silly. Of course it is my opinion and I understand that others may disagree with me.
Not exactly. Native Americans were never able to develop architecture, knighthood, gunpowder, radio etc. They were not able to build castles, cathedrals (or other huge, stone temples) or aqueducts. Civilization's tech tree is mainly following european tech progress - Greece, Rome, Middle Ages etc. I like "what if" scenarios, but again - not in this case. Maybe Aztecs or Incas would develop modern tanks after centuries or millennias, but Native Americans... well, I don't think so. Just look at other Indians living deep into Amazonian forest or native inhabitants of Borneo. How on Earth can we think that they may have their own civ in Civilization game, build cities, have knights/riflemen and then at last build and launch a SPACESHIP?
CornPlanter
Emperor
They have much more chances to build riflemen and launch the spaceship than any of the following:
Sumers
Roman Empire
Egyptians (true Egyptian civilization, not Arabs by the name Egypt)
Babylon
Byzantian Empire
Carthage
Sumers
Roman Empire
Egyptians (true Egyptian civilization, not Arabs by the name Egypt)
Babylon
Byzantian Empire
Carthage
Similar threads
