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

[Dragonflow]

Scotland has produced probably the most amount of inventors per capita than nearly any other country in the last 200 years, so it's a little disingenuous to suggest that they weren't significant beforehand.

Dachs, I'll assume that that was intended in humour, particularly with your choice of Iran instead of Persia!

Iran and Persia are the same thing. Persia is a name invented by Greek for Iranians during the Greco-Persian Wars. Already during the Achaemenid Era Persians called themselves Iranians. You can use both words to describe the same thing. You can call an Iranian both Persian and Iranian, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Arakhor]

Fair enough, but dismissing the country with the second oldest surviving monarchy in the world has to be ironic.

 

[Lord Khorak]

Scotland has produced probably the most amount of inventors per capita than nearly any other country in the last 200 years

Hey look at that, right after the unification, Scotland started making a far, far larger contribution to the world scene, how very strange!

so it's a little disingenuous to suggest that they weren't significant beforehand.

No, it isn't. Being a part of English power and economy gave those enterprising Scots that opportunity. Scotland had spent its history squandering itself alone in opposition to England; the union allowed the Scots to show off their greatness as part of something larger than they.

 

[Arakhor]

Scotland and France were long-time allies, you know, and Scotland was hardly alone in wasting its resources in fruitless internal wars.

 

[AtomicPhoton]

Even so, the nation that more or less conquered the world was called the British Empire, not the English empire. It's not pointless political correctness to give the civilization a correct name. And, even though none of those leaders are actually in the game, England was ruled by a Scottish family for roughly a century. Not to mention the Jacobite uprisings, which led to people fleeing London at the peak. I'm not saying Scotland was important enough to warrant a civilization, but to say they were completely absorbed isn't true.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, the line of succession to the British throne is still controlled by your descent from Electress Sophia, the granddaughter of James VI & I. The Scottish link isn't going away.

 

[Wodan]

Iran and Persia are the same thing. Persia is a name invented by Greek for Iranians during the Greco-Persian Wars. Already during the Achaemenid Era Persians called themselves Iranians. You can use both words to describe the same thing. You can call an Iranian both Persian and Iranian, it wouldn't make any difference.

There's a lot of truth to this, but we should keep in mind that modern Iran is a smaller nation than Persia laid claim to in the past. At various points in history Persia included the areas covered by the modern nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Another valid name might be Parthia.

Of course the Iranian peoples (which is a better name if we're talking about the culture, rather than the modern nation of Iran) spread pretty wide especially up into Scythia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan).

 

[dagriggstar]

6. Central Asian Empires
These Empires are actually INCREDIBLY important, but not one actually established an empire for more than a century at best. The Huns folded like paper once Attila died. Other later nomads, such as the Central Asians under the Mongols, where part of a larger empire, Meanwhile, some controlled major trade routes and chose to never migrate(Uzbeks). The question is, does Turks satisfy 'Central Asians' to Fireaxis? Biggest question, IMO.

What counts as an empire though ? The khanates of Bukhara and Khiva both lasted over two centuries (Bukhara for about 250 years before becoming an Emirate for a further 130, Khiva lasted about 400 though was probably less important then Bukhara)...or were they both not big enough ?

I don't think it's so far-fetched to have Timur as a leader of an Uzbek civ either...He did rule from Samarqand which is in Uzbek territory. Otherwise Muhammed Shaybani (yes, it is slightly stupid to be discussing Timur and Shaybani like this, since Shaybani ended timurid rule...) could represent awarlike face of the Uzbeks, while Abd al-Aziz Khan or Abdullah Khan II could represent the trade-fuelled cultural side of things...

 

[EdCase]

Hey look at that, right after the unification, Scotland started making a far, far larger contribution to the world scene, how very strange!

The British Empire made the major impact on the world scene, whether you want to be nationalistic or not, it was not the English alone that built the Empire.

No, it isn't. Being a part of English power and economy gave those enterprising Scots that opportunity. Scotland had spent its history squandering itself alone in opposition to England; the union allowed the Scots to show off their greatness as part of something larger than they.

Now I'm not what you'd call the Scots (or the Welsh or Irish for that matter) biggest fan, however that's just plain hating.

Ask yourself whether the something greater came because of or in spite of Union and the answer English or British becomes self explanatory.

 

[ko3ak]

Didn't Canada have about the same amount of people as the Netherlands/Belgium? I can honestly say I can't immediately think of a great Canadian contribution to WWI. Galipoli was a failure(and may I say, a quite foolish failure) on the side of the Entente, and I know Canadian troops participated in it. The Western Front was a stalemate where all kinds died, from Sub-Saharan French troops to Canadians, to New Zealanders. I'm not exactly sure about what you mean about Canadian contributions.

Look up the battle of Vimy Ridge in France during WWI. It was a major blow against the Germans and the Canadians did it when no one else could/would.

 

[ko3ak]

To be a viable civ, a candidate must have at least one of the following characteristics, and the more it has, the better qualified it is:

1. Representative of a civilization (the United States is a good representative of Western civiliation... Canada is not)
2. Geographic distinctiveness (an area which is under-represented should give added weight to candidates from there... e.g., Inca to represent South America, versus the Dutch or someone from an already-heavily represented Europe)
3. Timeline distinctiveness / representation (ditto, but for time periods in history)
4. Impact upon world history (a civ such as the Mongols, while otherwise quite uninteresting, had a huge impact)
5. Interest in the customer base (pure mercenary marketing... e.g., it may be worth-while to include Australia as a civ, simply because if it is a Civ then that will increase sales in Australia by X amount)
6. Gameplay value (each civ will presumably have unique gameplay, as in CIV; if so, then the unique gameplay of a new civ should be both balanced and unique from other civs)

I'm re-composing that list from memory. I made the same list between CIII and CIV. Anyone should feel free to add to it.

Anyway, let's take an example to pick on. Canada. It might qualify for #5 or #6, if it's lucky. Compare to, say, Germany, which qualifies on #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6.

Why is Canada not a good representation of Western Civilization? Canada may not be as outspoken as the USA but when you boil it down Canada and the USA are very similar and both represent western civilization equally. Also, Canada occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It's population may be small but they govern a large proportion of the world's natural resources. Canada is one of the largest exporters of grain, fish, lumber and beef. Canada is also rich in stone as well as various ores. There was a massive gold rush in the Yukon Territory in north-western Canada. Canada can lay claim to major fossil fuel reserves in Alberta, the Arctic, and at various off-shore sites. Also, one cannot discuss Canada without bringing up the Hudson's Bay Company which is the oldest commercial corporation in North-America and one of the oldest in the world, which made it's name through the trade of fur. As far as natural wonders Canada has the Niagara Falls, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes. For man-made wonders Canada has the CN Tower, the tallest free-standing structure for a long time (I think there are taller ones now). Yonge Street which is a main street in Toronto, Ontario is the longest street in the world. The West-Edmonton Mall (in Edmonton, Alberta) is the largest shopping/entertainment centre in the world. I could go on and on about why Canada is equal to the USA in it's representation of North American civilization. Let's not forget that it could be argued that Canada defeated the USA in the war of 1812. I know it's open to debate, and both sides have their points of view, but in the end, people from what is now Canada, literally burned the White House to the ground. I'm not saying Canada will be in the game, all I'm saying is that you are greatly mistaken if you think that Canada is not as representative of North America as the USA. And if you can justify the USA being in the game, then you must accept Canada as equally plausible.

Also, while I am defending Canada I feel I should also defend Mongolia. You claim that Mongolia is "otherwise uninteresting?" I would completely disagree. Mongolia has a unique and interesting history, much like most nations and cultures. Yes, they conquered much of eurasia and formed a massive empire, but that is not the only reason for their inclusion in the game.

 

[mechaerik]

I always thought it was the British that sacked Washington, not the Canadians.

 

[ko3ak]

I always thought it was the British that sacked Washington, not the Canadians.

Yes, at the time Canada was not an independent nation. It was still a British Colony. However, the Canadian culture, identity, and infrastructure was in its fledgeling stage. That is why it's a debatable subject. I attempted to avoid the controversy by saying that "people from what is NOW Canada" sacked Washington. I did not say Canada sacked Washington. Either way, Canada has a valid case for inclusion in the game.

Also, I admittedly enjoy stirring the pot in regards to the War of 1812 debate. I know Canada won't be in the game, I just want to inspire discussion.

 

[EMT]

Why is Canada not a good representation of Western Civilization? Canada may not be as outspoken as the USA but when you boil it down Canada and the USA are very similar and both represent western civilization equally.

Equally? Canada can invade half the world on whim? Canada dishes out music, movies, and video games that are smash hits throughout the world? Canada has more than 300 million people?

Also, Canada occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It's population may be small but they govern a large proportion of the world's natural resources.

The British are the ones that conquered all of Canada's territory, the Canadians of the time where the British that didn't return to Britain but chose to remain. Kazakhstan and Brazil have huge reserves of resources, and Australia has half the world's Uranium. Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina each have enormous shares of the resource departments relative to their sizes. Peru and Chile together control 2/3rds of the world's copper.

Canada is one of the largest exporters of grain, fish, lumber and beef. Canada is also rich in stone as well as various ores. There was a massive gold rush in the Yukon Territory in north-western Canada.

Grain: Argentina and Brazil exist, you know.
Fish: Peru and Japan
Lumber: I can't argue that
Beef: ARGENTINA

You're not saying that they're the biggest exporter, I know, but other nations cover what you're discussing much better, but they're not in Civ, save Japan. Any nation with a mountain range in it's borders is rich in Stone..........And any nation with sizeable territory has large reserves of ores, if ores where a standard, Australia would be in no question.

Canada can lay claim to major fossil fuel reserves in Alberta, the Arctic, and at various off-shore sites. Also, one cannot discuss Canada without bringing up the Hudson's Bay Company which is the oldest commercial corporation in North-America and one of the oldest in the world, which made it's name through the trade of fur.

The Artic isn't anybody's property as far as any nation that doesn't have a claim recognizes. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have huge amounts of oil. Natural resources doesn't make a country viable. The English set up the Hudson Bay Company, not Canadians. It was owned BY ENGLISHMEN. Never Canadians. Canada is an offshoot of Britain/England, while the USA takes influence from Spain, France, England, and later emigrants of German, Italian, or Greek descent, etc. Canada is a mainly homogenous country.

As far as natural wonders Canada has the Niagara Falls, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes. For man-made wonders Canada has the CN Tower, the tallest free-standing structure for a long time (I think there are taller ones now). Yonge Street which is a main street in Toronto, Ontario is the longest street in the world.

Niagara falls I'll give you, the Rockies extend all the way into Mexico and you share the Great Lakes with America. The CN Tower was replaced a while ago. Meanwhile, any country could make the biggest road in the world within a month if they had a reason to. Random facts don't win a place.

The West-Edmonton Mall (in Edmonton, Alberta) is the largest shopping/entertainment centre in the world. I could go on and on about why Canada is equal to the USA in it's representation of North American civilization. Let's not forget that it could be argued that Canada defeated the USA in the war of 1812.

Because the Canadians as an entity actually existed back then? The BRITISH did it, Canada as an entity didn't exist until the later half of the 1800s. Even then, the majority of soldiers where BRITISH. Even if they lived in Canada at the time, they considered themselves BRITISH. How are they so equal when the USA could squash Canada at the time of it's choosing now?

I know it's open to debate, and both sides have their points of view, but in the end, people from what is now Canada, literally burned the White House to the ground. I'm not saying Canada will be in the game, all I'm saying is that you are greatly mistaken if you think that Canada is not as representative of North America as the USA. And if you can justify the USA being in the game, then you must accept Canada as equally plausible.

Because Canada greatly distinguished itself as the LEADER of Western Civilization after World War II, and is the nation that is disliked by Extremist Muslims, Revanchist Latinos, Liberal Europeans, the Rising Chinese mindset of being the supreme power, Africans that suffered from American intervention, where the ones with overseas territories and NOT AN OVERSEA territory themselves, have an economic clout that can destroy the economy of nearly any given nation, and have intervened in other countries countless times throughout the 20th century, and continued the tradition into the 21st century. Canadians dominate all kinds of media, are the biggest economy, biggest military, and have the Americans as the people that sell them oil, and the Americans are under the protection of Canada.

Yep, Canadians are the undisputable equal of the United States.

Also, while I am defending Canada I feel I should also defend Mongolia. You claim that Mongolia is "otherwise uninteresting?" I would completely disagree. Mongolia has a unique and interesting history, much like most nations and cultures. Yes, they conquered much of eurasia and formed a massive empire, but that is not the only reason for their inclusion in the game.

I agree with you about Mongolia though, but Canada as important as the USA?

 

[mechaerik]

Either way, Canada has a valid case for inclusion in the game.

I'm still not seeing it.

 

[Shiggs713]

great we have pleas for why Benin and Canada should be in. Now I'm done.

 

[Wodan]

Why is Canada not a good representation of Western Civilization?

Because Western civilization already has a representative in the game, that being the U.S. There's no question the U.S. will be in.

What I meant by my statement is that it's a viable reason for a civilization to have a representative included in the game, and if a civilization does not already have a representative then that's a reason to want to include one. However, if that civilization already has a representative that's included in the game, then that does not qualify as a reason to want to include a second representative.

I'm not saying Canada will be in the game, all I'm saying is that you are greatly mistaken if you think that Canada is not as representative of North America as the USA. And if you can justify the USA being in the game, then you must accept Canada as equally plausible.

See above.

Basically, my stance is that Canada may be representative of Western civilization, but Western civilization already has a representative in the game, so that's not reason enough (in itself) for Canada to be included. If Canada is to be included, it will be for other reasons.

Also, while I am defending Canada I feel I should also defend Mongolia. You claim that Mongolia is "otherwise uninteresting?" I would completely disagree. Mongolia has a unique and interesting history, much like most nations and cultures. Yes, they conquered much of eurasia and formed a massive empire, but that is not the only reason for their inclusion in the game.

Every nation can make claim to a "unique and interesting history". The question is do they stand out from other civilizations in this regard? Not really.

 

[Shiggs713]

huh? i hope your not referring to the Mongols in that last statement. I think the Mongols stood apart from every other civilization, being as they were the largest empire ever. You can count them and China in as a lock... Firaxis isn't that stupid.

 

[Wodan]

huh? i hope your not referring to the Mongols in that last statement. I think the Mongols stood apart from every other civilization, being as they were the largest empire ever. You can count them and China in as a lock... Firaxis isn't that stupid.

Read the original statement please.

 

[Shylock]

Seems to me that Hungary's importance is limited to two things:
1) as a staging area for the migrations / invasions of the Huns
2) in the 16th-18th centuries or so, when it was halfway significant in European politics and was mostly Europe's "defense" against the Ottoman Empire. (Kind of the way Gondor was the defense against Mordor... the "bad guys" would have to invade through thee to get to anybody else.) But that also limited its power and influence; the rest of Europe mostly left them alone because to knock them down would be to open the door for the Ottomans; and also because they couldn't really look elsewhere themselves because if they invaded another European power, that too would open the door.

1.) So? The Huns would have used that land no matter who was there. Just because the Huns parked there for a while doesn't make the nation of Hungary anymore significant.