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

[cybrxkhan]

And what an imprint did the Vietnamese leave on the world history besides beating USA once with the help of democratic congressmen?

This will be a little biased, since I'm Vietnamese, but I'll try to present Vietnam's case as objectively as possible.

Vietnam's imprint on the world was more than just defeating the US. We beat the hell out of a whole bunch of invasions, including:

- China
- China
- China
- China
- China
- Mongolia
- China
- China
- China
- Thailand
- France (well, it took us a century, I admit)
- America
- (guess who...) China

Alright, that list is not really an exaggeration. We really spent almost every century of our existence as a political entity trying to fight off China. Admittedly, they did dominate us for 1000 years, but even then it was piecemeal, and sometimes we'd be more or less independent, and sometimes they'll come back in and we'll just be like "screw this". "@#$% you China" has been so embedded into our national spirit it's kind of... hiliarious, in a way.

Anyhow, the point of that is, that Vietnam has had a longer history of military 'success' than just the US. IN fact, we've had a way longer history than the US, or any of the European powers, period - the Vietnamese culture has been in existence for at least 2500 years, and although we take in a really heavy load of influence from China, many Vietnamese tend to be, as they always have, still fiercely - very fiercely - nationalistic. We take a lot of stuff from the Chinese, but we still do it our way. One particular way in which we have diviated (somewhat) from the Chinese is in the treatment of our women. Unlike in other East Asian countries, where women are basically told to sit in the kitchen, period, the Vietnamese have been a lot more liberal when it comes to women and their roles in society. Now, how much 'better' Vietnam was is a subject to debate - some say it was only superficial at best, and in the end males still dominated; others say that women did have a good degree of autonomy and could buy and sell property and initiate divorce for example; and a few argue that there is a possibility that in pre-Chinese-influenced Vietnam, that the Viet people were a matriarchy, or at least heavily female dominated. Which brings me to an interesting fact about Vietnam - arguably our greatest national heroes are two sisters, the Trung sisters. Leading an army of mostly women, they led a massive rebellion against the Chinese in 39 CE, and were fairly successful, and they ruled an independent kingdom until 42 CE. And, anyhow, from personal experience, I've seen that Vietnamese wives tend to be a lot more assertive and extroverted than their husbands, who usually sort of shut up... But that's sort of more interesting tidbits than the actual matter here...

Admittedly Vietnam probably shouldn't be too high on Firaxis' list (civilizations like Scandinavia and Khmer are more important, I can understand that), but I think Vietnam would be an interesting choice as a 2nd expansion civilization. Vietnam's achievements, after all, are equal if not better than that of the Zulus or Hittites.

I admit that most of our achievements are in the military, but even so, as phungus240 said above, so are many of the civilizations in Civ4 - the Mongols, the Zulus, the Aztecs, just as a few examples. Vietnam would be great as a extremely defensive civilization that's really a @#$%! to kill. Again, we've had a longer history than most people realize (I've basically only seen one book on Vietnamese 'history' that talked about something other than the Vietnam war).

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Vietnam's achievements, after all, are equal if not better than that of the Zulus or Hittites.

Much better than theirs. It would be good to have Vietnam in Civ V

 

[klaidonis]

Speaking of Canada... well, none of the countries in top 5 of HDI ranking had ever made it to an official Civilization release (however, there are 3 "Civilization countries" in top 10).

I would say -- let keep it this way. Canada is a perfect place to live, not to dream about historical grandeur.

phungus420, I've just begun to understand what the American lefties are. Thank you very much!

 

[Manfromx]

This thread is just twisted.

The biggest problem is so many people have differing criteria for what makes a great Civ.

You can't have a bias for your own country and then take the things that make it great and proceed to use that as a measuring stick against every other country out there.

Every Civilization out there made some impact on the world stage. Repercussions of some of the oldest are still felt today. I'd say the only limiting criteria here is the time Firaxis wants to use in developing short lived/smaller civilizations that people don't know much about.

If I were Firaxis I'd simply be trying to get a good mix of commonly known empires that most people feel familiar with and sprinkle it with a few surprises from different time periods and try to cover most the globe.

Canada doesn't make the cut, Vietnam might not, Poland might not. I'd love to play any and all of the Civs listed throughout this thread. I'll leave it to the modders to help make that a reality (many thanks to them). These countries have the right to be represented in the game of course. Time and money is the limiting factor.

Bottom line is it's mostly a popularity contest (which is understandable) but it seems like it's quickly becoming a pissing contest.

Just as a quick thought experiment. Think of all the Civ games that have been released. Now use your "superpower, cultural, longevity, impact,technological" criteria on any of the civs in those games. I'm sure you could argue for days about "better" Civs to have included in any of the games that have been released thus far.

Let's just be happy with what we get .

 

[ko3ak]

They lived in cities and weren't nomads. They were capable of building giant monuments and pyramids. They were good at gold working. They had a well organized state with governmental institutions.
I don't remember North Americans doing anything of the above.

The Native North Americans lived in cities, albeit small ones. They were capable of building giant monuments and pyramids (although they saw no reason to do so). They had a well organized tribal system with various clans and chiefs fulfilling many different rolls. They practiced agriculture, growing corn, beans, squash, etc. They made various jewelry and paintings (maybe not with gold, but with antler and leather, etc.) They constructed amazing birch bark canoes that are still impressive today in terms of weight and stability. The weapons and tools they used were of equal sophistication to the Meso-Americans (mostly wood and stone).

The only differences between them were the Meso-Americans built with stone, while the North Americans preferred lighter materials like wood and hide. That's not to say one is better or more advanced than the other, it's just that they fulfill different needs. Also, the Meso-Americans had larger city centres, again, not necessarily more advanced... just different. Finally, the Meso-Americans had a more complex written language, where the North Americans exchanged information mostly through the oral tradition. That is not to say that their language was any less sophisticated, they just saw no purpose in writing it down in detail.

Basically, the North Americans were capable of all the same feats as the Meso-Amercans but their way of life worked better for them within their environment.

 

[cybrxkhan]

This thread is just twisted.

The biggest problem is so many people have differing criteria for what makes a great Civ.

You can't have a bias for your own country and then take the things that make it great and proceed to use that as a measuring stick against every other country out there.

Every Civilization out there made some impact on the world stage. Repercussions of some of the oldest are still felt today. I'd say the only limiting criteria here is the time Firaxis wants to use in developing short lived/smaller civilizations that people don't know much about.

If I were Firaxis I'd simply be trying to get a good mix of commonly known empires that most people feel familiar with and sprinkle it with a few surprises from different time periods and try to cover most the globe.

Canada doesn't make the cut, Vietnam might not, Poland might not. I'd love to play any and all of the Civs listed throughout this thread. I'll leave it to the modders to help make that a reality (many thanks to them). These countries have the right to be represented in the game of course. Time and money is the limiting factor.

Bottom line is it's mostly a popularity contest (which is understandable) but it seems like it's quickly becoming a pissing contest.

Just as a quick thought experiment. Think of all the Civ games that have been released. Now use your "superpower, cultural, longevity, impact,technological" criteria on any of the civs in those games. I'm sure you could argue for days about "better" Civs to have included in any of the games that have been released thus far.

Let's just be happy with what we get .

Part of the fun is arguing about all that. Most of us know the debate here is kind of pointless when it comes to convincing Firaxis, but it's still kind of fun anyhow.

 

[mechaerik]

Speaking of Canada... well, none of the countries in top 5 of HDI ranking had ever made it to an official Civilization release (however, there are 3 "Civilization countries" in top 10).

Iceland and Norway can be more or less considered under the "viking" name. Maybe not very well, but they can. Canada, Australia, and Ireland also probably aren't civ worthy.

phungus420, I've just begun to understand what the American lefties are. Thank you very much!

phungus does have a point, however.

 

[Tusked]

The Native North Americans lived in cities, albeit small ones. They were capable of building giant monuments and pyramids (although they saw no reason to do so). They had a well organized tribal system with various clans and chiefs fulfilling many different rolls. They practiced agriculture, growing corn, beans, squash, etc. They made various jewelry and paintings (maybe not with gold, but with antler and leather, etc.) They constructed amazing birch bark canoes that are still impressive today in terms of weight and stability. The weapons and tools they used were of equal sophistication to the Meso-Americans (mostly wood and stone).

The only differences between them were the Meso-Americans built with stone, while the North Americans preferred lighter materials like wood and hide. That's not to say one is better or more advanced than the other, it's just that they fulfill different needs. Also, the Meso-Americans had larger city centres, again, not necessarily more advanced... just different. Finally, the Meso-Americans had a more complex written language, where the North Americans exchanged information mostly through the oral tradition. That is not to say that their language was any less sophisticated, they just saw no purpose in writing it down in detail.

Basically, the North Americans were capable of all the same feats as the Meso-Amercans but their way of life worked better for them within their environment.

So? Civ is about civilizations that did great things, not that could have done great things. Could Uzbekistan have grabbed some horses and conquered an area the size of Russia ala Genghis Khan? Possibly (don't know what the range of horses were historically) but they didn't. Civilizations with the possibility of doing great things have no purpose in Civ - we have Sumer 'cause they were one of the first known empires. We don't have other random city states from the Fertile Crescent that COULD have had an empire if they felt like it but never got around to it. They're like the couch potatoes of history.

Leaving things behind is part of the definition of greatness in a civilization. Why is Egypt so famous? Pyramids. Greece? Parthenon, Temple of Artemis, not to mention the entire course of western statuary. I'm not saying the northern native americans were a bad civilization or anything, but I don't care what the extenuating circumstances were that caused them not to leave behind massive stone temples: the fact is they didn't.

 

[mechaerik]

What about the Mississippians? They were a pretty good Native civilization.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The problem with the Missipians is that no one really knows any of their leaders... So it'd be pretty hard to get them in, no matter their achievements.

But they are evidence of a well-developed "Native American" civilization, nevertheless.

 

[ko3ak]

So? Civ is about civilizations that did great things, not that could have done great things. Could Uzbekistan have grabbed some horses and conquered an area the size of Russia ala Genghis Khan? Possibly (don't know what the range of horses were historically) but they didn't. Civilizations with the possibility of doing great things have no purpose in Civ - we have Sumer 'cause they were one of the first known empires. We don't have other random city states from the Fertile Crescent that COULD have had an empire if they felt like it but never got around to it. They're like the couch potatoes of history.

Leaving things behind is part of the definition of greatness in a civilization. Why is Egypt so famous? Pyramids. Greece? Parthenon, Temple of Artemis, not to mention the entire course of western statuary. I'm not saying the northern native americans were a bad civilization or anything, but I don't care what the extenuating circumstances were that caused them not to leave behind massive stone temples: the fact is they didn't.

Why must a civilization leave something behind in order to be dubbed a great one? The North American tribes still exist. Their culture and way of life survive to this day. All that's left of the Mesoamerican tribes is crumbling stone. The Mongols didn't leave behind anything great. The Vikings didn't leave behind anything great. The Zulus didn't leave behind anything great. Many of the Civs in the previous games didn't leave behind massive structures. The ability to build with stone is NOT the be all and end all of great Civs. Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

[ko3ak]

I think the Atlantian Civilization should be in the game. They were the greatest civilization to ever exist. Too bad they didn't leave behind any stone buildings...

 

[Tusked]

Why must a civilization leave something behind in order to be dubbed a great one? The North American tribes still exist. Their culture and way of life survive to this day. All that's left of the Mesoamerican tribes is crumbling stone. The Mongols didn't leave behind anything great. The Vikings didn't leave behind anything great. The Zulus didn't leave behind anything great. Many of the Civs in the previous games didn't leave behind massive structures. The ability to build with stone is NOT the be all and end all of great Civs. Which seems to be what you are suggesting.

No, it isn't. I said it's PART of the definition. And the Mongols and the Vikings both leave behind amazing legacies - the Mongols conquered the largest not-Britain empire in the history of the world, the Vikings had a HUGE influence on the development of Europe (hint: without vikings, no russia). As for the Zulu, a lot of people dispute their inclusion. The simple matter is that the north american tribes never did anything particularly great. Seriously, what warrants their inclusion beyond an overinflated sense of the PC? The issue is that whatever great things they did do were disparate. There were mound-builders in the midwest, great cliff-dwellings in the southwest, and a strong federation of tribes in the northeast - and they were never unified under one banner. That's why the Civ 4 Sitting Bull lump-together-ness feels so patronizing, because it's WRONG. None of the specific Native American tribes can stand on their own, so we lump them all in as one? That's insulting. And "their culture and way of life still survive today" is a TERRIBLE justification for a civilization. So do the Hutus and the Tutsis, and yet somehow we're not playing as them. The "Native American" phenomenon is just as insulting as if you'd put in a "African" civilization and had Shaka be the leader. But unlike africa, which has Nubia, Mali, Benin, and some other worthy civilizations, North America has, and let me be completely frank here, jack all.

I think the Atlantian Civilization should be in the game. They were the greatest civilization to ever exist. Too bad they didn't leave behind any stone buildings...

Wait, so your argument here is "you're an idiot because your qualifications would exclude a fictional civilization"? Peachy keen, dude.

 

[Thormodr]

Why? No one asks what accomplishments the Mongols made that weren't borrowed from China and weren't related to war. In fact the Mongols probably had a net negative impact on the development and progress of human society. Doesn't change the fact they were a noteworthy and "Great" nation, even if that greatness was earned through bloodshed.

Is this some kind of a joke?

Perhaps you should read this book. I quite enjoyed it.

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford

The Mongols bridged the gap between East and West. The free flow of ideas, technology and trade flourished under the Mongols. It could even be argued convincingly that the Renaissance would not have happened without the Mongol Empire. There was also religious tolerance practiced that was unheard of in the Middle Ages. The Forbidden Palace is a Chinese national treasure and yet it was built under the Mongols.

The Mongols impact was so much more than just warfare.

I do agree with you about Vietnam though. Defeating 3 major world powers in the 20th century (France, China, USA) was simply amazing.

 

[Tusked]

Is this some kind of a joke?

Perhaps you should read this book. I quite enjoyed it.

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford

The Mongols bridged the gap between East and West. The free flow of ideas, technology and trade flourished under the Mongols. It could even be argued convincingly that the Renaissance would not have happened without the Mongol Empire. There was also religious tolerance practiced that was unheard of in the Middle Ages. The Forbidden Palace is a Chinese national treasure and yet it was built under the Mongols.

The Mongols impact was so much more than just warfare.

I do agree with you about Vietnam though. Defeating 3 major world powers in the 20th century (France, China, USA) was simply amazing.

Also, there's the fact that the Mongols had some absolutely amazing gender policies for 1200 AD - homeland Mongolia was basically run by women because all the men were off... well, raping other women. I didn't say it was perfect.

 

[Thormodr]

Also, there's the fact that the Mongols had some absolutely amazing gender policies for 1200 AD - homeland Mongolia was basically run by women because all the men were off... well, raping other women. I didn't say it was perfect.

In a harsh climate, everyone has to pull their own weight.

When I went to Mongolia in 2007 a Mongolian friend of mine told me, "In Mongolia, women are the doctors and lawyers while the men are truck drivers." While this is not entirely true, gender equality has been much greater in Mongolia then in basically any other Asian country.

 

[Tusked]

In a harsh climate, everyone has to pull their own weight.

When I went to Mongolia in 2007 a Mongolian friend of mine told me, "In Mongolia, women are the doctors and lawyers while the men are truck drivers." While this is not entirely true, gender equality has been much greater in Mongolia then in basically any other Asian country.

Never been to Mongolia. How is it there? I don't even have a really good picture of the landscape in my head, the closest thing I have is the flashback scenes from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

 

[Thormodr]

Never been to Mongolia. How is it there? I don't even have a really good picture of the landscape in my head, the closest thing I have is the flashback scenes from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I absolutely loved it. I went there for only a week but I had a great time. I met this woman on the plane (I was traveling alone from Seoul, South Korea) and we hit it off. She was a Morin Khuur player. (Mongolian horse head fiddle)

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

The day I arrived it was +39 C (102 F) and the day I left it was +15 C (57 F) The weather was still nice though. When it rained it was still refreshing.

I ended up spending a week with her and her family. (Mother, Father, her son and Sister) My female friend Batsetseg spoke excellent English as did her sister. Her mother and father knew very little English so we had to converse in Japanese.
Her father was a driving instructor but I have never ridden with a more aggressive driver in my life. He also drove a Japanese car which is right hand drive. There were many left and right handed cars on the road. Pure chaos. Hee hee.

We saw all the sites in Ulaanbaatar including the State department store (4 stories!), Sükhbaatar Square (Like Red square), the Black Market (I managed not to get pick pocketed ) and others. I also got to meet the most famous Morin Khuur player in all of Mongolia. 80 years old and still going strong.
Ulaanbaatar has its charms. It was run down and the sidewalks were crumbling but it had a good spirit. The people were awesome and the food was delicious.

I visited her mother's side of the family and stayed in the countryside. Her aunt was a Buddhist shaman and let me participate in a Buddhist ritual with her. It was pretty cool handling some religious items that had been in her family for over 300 years. I got offered a job teaching English in Hovd in Western Mongolia which I still regret not taking.

We then drove out for 5 hours south of Ulaanbaatar to visit the father's side of the family. We stayed with her uncle who is a nomadic herder. In honour of me arriving he went out and shot two wild marmots for me. It was delicious actually and I didn't even contract the bubonic plague.
I got to ride around the countryside on horse and stayed in a ger for a few days. Very fun. (Except there weren't any toilets.)

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed Mongolia and I'd love dearly to go back. The people were very kind and generous. Everything was also dirt cheap and there were no chain stores anywhere. No McDonalds or KFC or Starbucks.


Mongolian horses. Very beautiful.

The Mongolian Steppe. I use this for my wallpaper.

 

[Tusked]

Wow, that steppe is just completely gorgeous. Absolutely breathtaking. It sounds like a really cool place - I'll have to add it to my list of places to go. Think I'll put it after Cambodia...

 

[Thormodr]

Wow, that steppe is just completely gorgeous. Absolutely breathtaking. It sounds like a really cool place - I'll have to add it to my list of places to go. Think I'll put it after Cambodia...

It really is awesome and I will definitely go there again. Most beautiful country on earth and places like this take your breath away.