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

[ko3ak]

Exactly! Thus, Canada shouldn't be in!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Haha. Fair enough.

Although Canada would be fun to play as. Building igloos instead of cottages and Mounties instead of cavalry. Maybe a +1 from beaver fur. Maybe they could have a canoe instead of a work boat or something. They could even harvest maple syrup from forest tiles. They would also have some sort of diplomatic advantage due to increased politeness, however, to counter that, they are not capable of declaring war.

See, they provide for some interesting gameplay mechanics.

 

[ko3ak]

The fact that you can claim the United States is not in an advanced stage or system of social development, or having a people or nation only demonstrates you can't be taken seriously. It's impossible to argue with someone who points to the sky and claims it's neon pink, all you can do is gather the person is deluded. There really isn't any logical argument to contest, only thing in your post to see are lunatic ravings.

It's no better to resort to childish name-calling. Attack the person's argument, not the person themselves.

 

[Thormodr]

Haha. Fair enough.

Although Canada would be fun to play as. Building igloos instead of cottages and Mounties instead of cavalry. Maybe a +1 from beaver fur. Maybe they could have a canoe instead of a work boat or something. They could even harvest maple syrup from forest tiles. They would also have some sort of diplomatic advantage due to increased politeness, however, to counter that, they are not capable of declaring war.

See, they provide for some interesting gameplay mechanics.

This has great mod potential.

It would be nice to see igloos in the game however.

 

[Thormodr]

It's no better to resort to childish name-calling. Attack the person's argument, not the person themselves.

No kidding. Even if a person (a certain fun guy) has a valid point it tends to get lost when that person starts flinging mud.

 

[phungus420]

Here's what Webster's has to say about a Civilization:

Civilization, n. 1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. 2. those people or nations that have reached such a state. 3. any type of culture, society, etc., of specific place, time or group: Greek Civilization. 4. the act or process of civilization or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable. 5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sevigne reveal her wit and civilization. 6. cities or populated areas in genera, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas: The plane crashed in jungle, hundreds of miles from civilization 7. modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology: After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again

To claim The United States does not fit definitions 1 & 2 is either irrational, at best, or more likely dishonest in the case of The End Is Nigh.


As far as Han not being a Chinese ethnicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

Thank you for playing The End Is Nigh, try not spouting complete nonsense next time. It's somewhat irritating to go through the effort of dragging up specific citations refuting and utterly destroying your arguments. Though I do somewhat enjoy showing publicly what utter fools people like you are, and dismantling the arguments you present at the same time.

 

[phungus420]

It's no better to resort to childish name-calling. Attack the person's argument, not the person themselves.

Actually I do both. When an argument is as spurious as those conjured by The End is Nigh, the person and the argument become interrelated. As the argument has very little percievable validity to contradict. I quash the claims in literally a single sentence and citation, they are so absurd one must question the motives and mental state of the poster.

No kidding. Even if a person (a certain fun guy) has a valid point it tends to get lost when that person starts flinging mud.

Sometimes an argument is only worthy of disdain, and the person making such foolish arguments should expect nothing less for supporting, defending and presenting such claims. Given that we've sparred before, in this thread no less, I think your comment is more personal in nature, and not directed at this particular incidence though.

 

[ko3ak]

Here's what Webster's has to say about a Civilization:



To claim The United States does not fit definitions 1 & 2 is either irrational, at best, or more likely dishonest in the case of The End Is Nigh.


As far as Han not being a Chinese ethnicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

Thank you for playing The End Is Nigh, try not spouting complete nonsense next time. It's somewhat irritating to go through the effort of dragging up specific citations refuting and utterly destroying your arguments. Though I do somewhat enjoy showing publicly what utter fools people like you are, and dismantling the arguments you present at the same time.

False appeal to authority and ad hominem. Both are logical fallacies and you have just committed both.

First, you speak as though you are some sort of superior authority that should be respected and therefore all of your arguments MUST be true.

Secondly, you continue to attack the integrity of others, rather than simply dispute their arguments. Did you not read the above posts? You reduce your own credibility by making posts like the one above.

You may have some great and interesting things to say, but no one will take you seriously if you keep attempting to bully your ideas on everyone.

 

[phungus420]

ko3ak I clearly demonstrate that the US is a civilization, by citing Wikipedia, thus utterly destroying The End Is Nigh's argument. Then I cite that Han is indeed an ethnicity, as The End Is Nigh claims they are not, thus, once again destroying his argument. There is nothing ad hominem about these facts.

Now because these arguments are so unreasonable and foolish, I question the mental abilities of the poster, as I find them relevant. In all likelihood the poster is either mentally ********, or has a personal interest in degrading the US, and these motives or causes of the spurious arguments being conjured by The End is Nigh are relevant, as they demonstrate that any further claims made by this poster should be viewed more critically then claims being made by one of sound mind.

 

[cardgame]

2+2 = 4

oh wait, I can't be "bullying" my "ideas" on people with false appeals to authority. Better scratch that out.

 

[phungus420]

False appeal to authority...

Riddle me this, how is Webster's not an authoritative source on the definition of a word? How is using this as a citation a "false appeal to authority"?


Based on your post, I can reasonably conclude that you apparently have the mental acuity of The End is Nigh. I see why you are motivated to attack my rebuttals, as your own arguments also lack any logical legitimacy and coherency. ko3ak pointing out a claim is spurious is topical if the argument completely lacks any legitimacy or logical coherency, like in the instance of your quoted rebuttal.

 

[Arakhor]

Why does it matter though? We have already established that Canada and Australia will not make it, despite their fervent supporters, so surely that's all there should be to it?

 

[cardgame]

Do you guys think Korea will make it in?

 

[Thormodr]

Actually I do both. When an argument is as spurious as those conjured by The End is Nigh, the person and the argument become interrelated. As the argument has very little percievable validity to contradict. I quash the claims in literally a single sentence and citation, they are so absurd one must question the motives and mental state of the poster.



Sometimes an argument is only worthy of disdain, and the person making such foolish arguments should expect nothing less for supporting, defending and presenting such claims. Given that we've sparred before, in this thread no less, I think your comment is more personal in nature, and not directed at this particular incidence though.

It's certainly not personal. I could care less if you think your E-Cred is somehow better than others. You seem to attack everyone. I'm not even saying your argument is wrong. It's the way you present it. Name calling and insulting language adds nothing to your argument and frankly makes you look foolish.

By insulting and belittling other posters you've effectively conceded the argument even if you are 100% correct.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Personally, I'd love to see Mali, but it has very low chances of getting in on the first expansion when compare to, say, Persia or Babylon, which is much more well known and influential, but just to make it interesting, I'll list a few reasons why they SHOULD be in the game if not now then later.

1. They were a power in their day to rival the power's of Europe, and European explorers saw them as that. They were the main power in West Africa for several centuries until their downfall (as all civilizations have them) by Songhai.
2. They were made quite wealthy through the salt-gold trade and Mali was one the centers of learning in the Islamic world, which was the most advanced region at the time.
3. They are from a region quite underrepresented in Civilization (I.E. West Africa, or more specifically, Africa) and have a unique culture that is very different from any other culture.

I REALLY think Civ 5 would benefit by the inclusion of Mali just like Civ IV had, but in an expansion, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Thormodr]

Do you guys think Korea will make it in?

Probably in an expansion pack. The Civilization series has sold well in South Korea and would sell even better if Korea was included.

 

[cardgame]

I'm not even saying your argument is wrong. It's the way you present it. Name calling and insulting language adds nothing to your argument and frankly makes you look foolish.

By insulting and belittling other posters you've effectively conceded the argument even if you are 100% correct.

Sometimes an argument is only worthy of disdain, and the person making such foolish arguments should expect nothing less for supporting, defending and presenting such claims.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Personally, I'd love to see Mali, but it has very low chances of getting in on the first expansion when compare to, say, Persia or Babylon, which is much more well known and influential, but just to make it interesting, I'll list a few reasons why they SHOULD be in the game if not now then later.

1. They were a power in their day to rival the power's of Europe, and European explorers saw them as that. They were the main power in West Africa for several centuries until their downfall (as all civilizations have them) by Songhai.
2. They were made quite wealthy through the salt-gold trade and Mali was one the centers of learning in the Islamic world, which was the most advanced region at the time.
3. They are from a region quite underrepresented in Civilization (I.E. West Africa, or more specifically, Africa) and have a unique culture that is very different from any other culture.

I REALLY think Civ 5 would benefit by the inclusion of Mali just like Civ IV had, but in an expansion, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I agree that Mali or one of the other West African states would be a decent addition.

Personally, after the Zulus, I think the Malians have the best chances of being the token African civilization. They have their chance.

 

[Mango Elephant]

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!

Norway and Iceland WERE Vikings, so that put's out your first argument (unless you mean separate civs) and if Canada was a perfect place to live, why do I not want to live there? I would live in any other western nation (or non-western) nation just as much as I would Canada.

 

[phungus420]

Do you guys think Korea will make it in?

It's certainly possible. With only 18 civs being in the chances are pretty low though, there are likely much "better" civs to pick then Korea. Korea does represent a developed market though, and so it would be a sound business decision to include them, plus very few people are going to be offended and Korea's inclusion so it's a safe civ to add; unlike Israel, for instance.

I still think Vietnam is a "great and often overlooked B list civ. For what it's worth, this would be my lists:

Must be included due to historical importance (no number as I can't declare a good way to order them in importance)
*)China
*)England
*)Egypt
*)Greece
*)Rome
*)India
*)United States
*)Spain
*)Babylon
*)Mongols
*)Persia

A list - (should be included for one of many reason, historical importance, regional effect, etc)
12)Russia
13)Germany
14)Ottomans
15)Arabia
16)Aztecs
17)Inca
18)Zulu
19)Iroquois or Sioux
20)French

B list - (Certainly "worthy" of inclusion --for various reason, including commercial ones--, though I can't reasonably argue they should bump one of the A list civs, and certainly not any of the must have civs)
21)Vietnam
22)Portugal
23)Carthaginians
(These three could arguably be on the A-list, but I had to cut it somewhere)

24)Maya
25)Cherokee
26)Netherlands
27)Korea
28)Austria
29)Polynesians
30)Israel
31)Sumarians
32)Poland


And that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm probably missing a B list civ or 2, possibly even an A list one. Also some posters may think something on my A - list should be moved to the "must list" or vice versa, and etc, but generally speaking this order is how I would present a list to Firaxis if asked, as I could see any civ on that list being used, and I can't imagine removing any civ from the must category, and find it difficult to not include civs on the A list.

 

[phungus420]

By insulting and belittling other posters you've effectively conceded the argument even if you are 100% correct.

No, you personally find the argument less effective. And you personally are willing to accept a false argument due to presentation. I personally could care less if you ignore facts and reason if it is not laid out in a way you would like it to be.