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

The bottom line is that Canada, while not as outspoken as the USA, has an equal share in representing North America on the world stage. I know they won't be in the game, but that is no reason to claim that they're not worthy. My previous post (which is too long to quote here) was in response to a claim that Canada was a poor representation of western civilization. That claim is most certainly false. The rest of the post was to point out various aspects of Canada that make it worthwhile for consideration when looking at great civilizations.
 
Canada is a civilization? Canada became independent of Britain/England in the 20th century, I wouldn't even call it a culture. A culture is a DISTINCT identity. You have stamp and paste anglo-culture that can be found from the USA to Australia to Britain. Canada doesn't represent North America as much as the United States....proportionally, Canada represents less than 10% of North America, by population. Canada is a great country, yes. A civilization, no. A great civilization, most definetly not.
 
I'm Canadian but I certainly wouldn't include Canada. Perhaps in the second expansion pack at best or just let modders do their thing. This goes the same for Australia or New Zealand.

I'd rather see Poland finally make it in or other countries like Vietnam and Thailand. I also think the Malayo-Polynesians should finally be included in an expansion pack.

I am sure that some of these will make it in as City States at the very worst. It probably would be pretty straight forward to mod them in.
 
I get it that some people are riled up about the high levels of Canadian nationalism that they encounter in here. I live in Canada, though am not at all a nationalist, so perhaps I can point out a couple of things that'll sooth the debate (pray not give it more lumber...).

Much of Canada's nationalism is in direct response to its close ties to the United States. The USA has such a massive, pervasive, and influential culture that much of Canadian identity resides in opposition. Much like how many eastern European nationalists identify as non-German (I've spent a lot of time living there with the purpose of studying national identity so I'm well acquainted). This does not validate the nationalism, I bring this up to raise awareness of the origins because the strength of the nationalism often seems to bother people here more than the cases.

As for arts and sciences coming out of Canada: there are massive amounts, both per capita and gross: especially musicians. Again, this often happens in countries that are pressed under the culture of a much larger neighbour; they push back.

A "fact" that is being thrown around in here though which discredits much of the argumentation because it is so absurdly incorrect, is the idea that Canada is some form of cut-and-paste of British culture. This is even more ridiculous when examined side by side with the USA. In as much as Canada claims a unique cultural identity, it exists in the extreme propagation and near veneration of multiculturalism.

After the British lost the Thirteen Colonies they realized that they would have to be more lax or the same thing would happen with British North America (early Canada), especially as they were now trying to maintain control over Francophone established Quebec. Thus political policy in Canada was structured differently than in the USA from before constitution.

Canada's Multicultural Act is the bedrock of her internal affairs. Canada has a higher immigrant population per capita than any other country in the world. And it is the modal of Canadian multiculturalism which other nations such as Australia have tried to adopt. Look up multiculturalism on most major databases and Canada will be cited as the model. The United States, however, does not have a developed internal multicultural policy on a federal level.

Again, I will reiterate that I am not a nationalist, indeed Canadian nationalism generally upsets me as it's usually founded in reactions. But don't claim falsehoods to push your objective or your whole argument will crumble.

Canada IS multicultural if not simply multiculturalism.
 
I love Canada and I'd love to live there (especially Vancouver, god that city is beautiful), but there's no way it deserves CIV billing. The ONLY reason the USA deserves its civ slot is its status as a global superpower for the last ~70 years... and Canada is essentially the USA without its global superpower status (to anyone, American or Canadian, who disputes that claim, just think about it for a second. Ex-British colony on North America with large territories? They're the same damn thing) and as I said, without being a global superpower there's no way a country as young as the US or Canada deserves Civ billing.
 
Canada is a civilization? Canada became independent of Britain/England in the 20th century, I wouldn't even call it a culture. A culture is a DISTINCT identity. You have stamp and paste anglo-culture that can be found from the USA to Australia to Britain. Canada doesn't represent North America as much as the United States....proportionally, Canada represents less than 10% of North America, by population. Canada is a great country, yes. A civilization, no. A great civilization, most definetly not.

Canada became independent in 1867 and the USA became independent in 1776. Therefore the USA is less than 100 years older than Canada. You really think that makes a difference? You simply cannot say that the USA is a great civilization with a unique culture, then turn around and say that Canada is neither. Population has nothing to do with it. Canada is amongst the world leaders in every category. I would say that qualifies as great. Culturally, Canada has as much to offer as the USA, as they are both young nations which were spawned from older European powers. Yes, the USA has a higher population, but Canada dominates more territory. The vast majority of the landmass that is known as North America is dominated by Canada.

Again. If the USA can claim to be a great civilization with a unique culture, then so can Canada. So can Australia for that matter. It's that simple.
 
Canada became independent in 1867 and the USA became independent in 1776. Therefore the USA is less than 100 years older than Canada. You really think that makes a difference? You simply cannot say that the USA is a great civilization with a unique culture, then turn around and say that Canada is neither. Population has nothing to do with it. Canada is amongst the world leaders in every category. I would say that qualifies as great. Culturally, Canada has as much to offer as the USA, as they are both young nations which were spawned from older European powers. Yes, the USA has a higher population, but Canada dominates more territory. The vast majority of the landmass that is known as North America is dominated by Canada.

Again. If the USA can claim to be a great civilization with a unique culture, then so can Canada. So can Australia for that matter. It's that simple.

As I said above, it's entirely a matter of superpower status. If the Cold War hadn't happened, then the US would not be deserving of its Civ spot. It did, so it is. The next time you see Canada or Australia in a half-century nuclear standoff with the only other power on the map, tell me and I'll agree with your arguments wholeheartedly. The USA, Russia, and China are the only three truly modern powers in this game, for reasons that I hope I don't have to explain.
 
^ Your classification of superpower status is mainly based on military power. In which case the USA and Russia win because they got more bombs. But civilizations are not all centred around military power. Diplomacy, Economy, Culture, Technology and various other aspects are all important. Canada didn't have a "cold war" with anyone because they chose to emphasize on other aspects of civilization. Rather than building more bombs Canada chose to fund free health care for all of it's citizens. Again, Canada is amongst the world leaders in all of the above, save military might. That's what I'm getting at.
 
^ Your classification of superpower status is mainly based on military power. In which case the USA and Russia win because they got more bombs. But civilizations are not all centred around military power. Diplomacy, Economy, Culture, Technology and various other aspects are all important. Canada didn't have a "cold war" with anyone because they chose to emphasize on other aspects of civilization. Rather than building more bombs Canada chose to fund free health care for all of it's citizens. Again, Canada is amongst the world leaders in all of the above, save military might. That's what I'm getting at.

But the USA is THE LEADER in all of the above except health care. :p Life isn't a game of civilization, but building more bombs? Canada HAS NO nuclear bombs. Go read a wikipedia article about the term superpower, please.
 
My previous post (which is too long to quote here) was in response to a claim that Canada was a poor representation of western civilization. That claim is most certainly false.
Again, my fault for poorly wording the claim. Now that I've revised the wording, continuing to stick to your guns is basically continuing to joust at a straw man you set up yourself ... seems kind of pointless.

Again. If the USA can claim to be a great civilization with a unique culture, then so can Canada. So can Australia for that matter. It's that simple.
The U.S.A. is going to be in CIV5 because:
#4 Impact on world history
#5 Interest from the customer base

With that understood, Western civilization and North America now have a representative. That doesn't mean the U.S.A. is a "better" representative than Canada or anybody else. It just means there's no longer a reason to go hunting for a representative (like we might want to include Polynesia... because the Pacific region is not represented).

^ Your classification of superpower status is mainly based on military power. In which case the USA and Russia win because they got more bombs. But civilizations are not all centred around military power. Diplomacy, Economy, Culture, Technology and various other aspects are all important. Canada didn't have a "cold war" with anyone because they chose to emphasize on other aspects of civilization. Rather than building more bombs Canada chose to fund free health care for all of it's citizens. Again, Canada is amongst the world leaders in all of the above, save military might. That's what I'm getting at.
So, you're saying Canada should be in CIV5 because of #4 Impact on World History? You're saying Canada is a "world leader" in "diplomacy, economy, culture, technology". Isn't the same true of, say, Dubai?
 
But the USA is THE LEADER in all of the above except health care. :p
Off topic, but I don't think universal is necessarily what defines something as the best. That's the difference between a free market / capitalism and socialism. Is one better than the other? What's "better" mean? We can argue that forever and nobody will ever be "right".
 
^ Your classification of superpower status is mainly based on military power. In which case the USA and Russia win because they got more bombs. But civilizations are not all centred around military power. Diplomacy, Economy, Culture, Technology and various other aspects are all important. Canada didn't have a "cold war" with anyone because they chose to emphasize on other aspects of civilization. Rather than building more bombs Canada chose to fund free health care for all of it's citizens. Again, Canada is amongst the world leaders in all of the above, save military might. That's what I'm getting at.

Yes, but the USA kicks Canada's ass in pretty much all categories EXCEPT healthcare. Denmark's got a great healthcare system too, but it's not in civ. Let's go through your criteria one by one:

Diplomacy - Not an experienced diplomatic historian, so I'll improvise for this one. Diplomacy is based largely on how much the nation matters to the world stage - why people try to strike bargains with North Korea and not, say, Ghana. Canada's played the diplomatic game well, but that alone doesn't qualify them for anything.

Economy - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US dollar still has a higher value than the Canadian dollar (despite its recent economic pants-crap). And who managed to drag down the entire world when they had an economic crisis? The US. Now, that doesn't qualify them for a "good leadership" award, but it does qualify them for importance.

Culture - This one's easy. Hollywood's in California, not Quebec. Canada didn't invent Rock 'n' Roll - choose one: Elvis or Celine Dion. Guess which one was American? McDonalds has an outpost in almost every country in the world - got a Canadian restaurant with the same cache? Y'know those cowboy movies the whole world is so enamored of... guess where cowboys come from? Wanna know how many of the top ten grossing movies of all time are from the US... all of them. (though in all fairness, LotR was filmed in New Zealand) The top one hundred... all of them. Yeah, Canada can suck it.

Technology - Not sure on this one because I bet you can name a thousand small things that canadians invented. But... atom bomb? Internet? Electric guitar? Hell, electricity? Yeah, US got this one too.

All of these things can be pinned on the fact that the US has a larger population than canada. In answer... what, you want Culture per capita or something? That's just silly. In conclusion, I repeat that Canada can suck it.

Disclaimer: I actually really like Canada. But the phrase "Canada can suck it" rings far too much to exclude it.
 
Ah sorry, it was just such a fun open-ended question. I know full well that Cowboys=USA, and to a lesser extent, Uruguay and Argentina.

I should learn my lesson and stop asking rhetorical questions of an entire forum ;)
 
I'd rather see Poland finally make it in or other countries like Vietnam and Thailand. I also

Poland would be a great civilization for an expansion. Very distinct culture and a powerful civilization for much of the Middle Ages-Renaissance. Just not in the vanilla release.

As for nations like Canada and Australia, I'd would much rather see them as independent nations after freeing colonies from England (or maybe USA, just to make their appearance more likely). For example, I get really tired of seeing the Mongol empire pop up after the Ottomans are forced to free some colonies. It would be nice if that aspect of the game (freeing colonies) would be incorporated into the new city-states, with historical reality (Australia, Canada for England, maybe Kush for Egypt, etc.)

Finally, although i definitely don't think they'll make it into the vanilla release, I think the Hittites are a nation that definitely deserves to be in the game. Without the Hittites, iron working would not have been spread as quickly as it was, which would mean the advancement of civilization throughout most of the world would have progressed more slowly. They also used iron to create a huge empire and fight Egypt to a standstill. They were great metalworkers, and definitely had a unique culture. They may have had the first constitutional monarchy, and, uniquely at the time, their king was not seen as a god/ representative of a god. (thanks to my history book/wikipedia)
 
Diplomacy - I agree it is difficult to judge, but I would argue that America has more enemies in the global community than Canada does. So, Canada wins.

Economy - Yes the American dollar is worth more, but the gap is not that large. Also, Canada exports more resources than it imports, most of which goes to America. America, on the other hand imports more than it exports, and is therefore reliant on other nations to maintain it's economy. This means that Canada is more economically self sufficient and sustainable than America.

Culture - This includes more than just movies and music. Besides, many American TV shows and movies are filmed in Toronto and Vancouver. Also, there are major video game developers in Montreal and Vancouver as well. However, culture also includes things like social policies. Canada is far more progressive in terms of education, racial equality, gay/lesbian rights, censorship, freedom of religion, environmental sustainability, and yes, public health care.

Technology - Yes, Americans have invented more technology as a whole, but the quality and type of research that is currently in development is quite similar when you compare USA and Canada. Both countries have similar access to computers, labs and facilities. The education system in Canada is ranked ahead of America, thus producing fewer, but more capable researchers.

In a uni-polar world view, America is a superpower and Canada is not. However, in a multi-polar point of view, which, with increased globalization, is a more realistic perspective, America is a great power. Canada would fall in the Upper-Middle power category - and that is mostly because of it's small military and lack of nuclear arsenal.
 
Economy - Yes the American dollar is worth more, but the gap is not that large. Also, Canada exports more resources than it imports, most of which goes to America. America, on the other hand imports more than it exports, and is therefore reliant on other nations to maintain it's economy. This means that Canada is more economically self sufficient and sustainable than America.

This does not mean Canada is more economically self-sufficient. In this world of globalization, that you spoke of as well, Canada is dependent on foreign markets (primarily the US).

With globalization as it is today, net exporters and net importers rely on foreign markets, just in different ways.
 
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.

It wasn't the huns...and I'm sorry,but Hungary and romania kept Turks at bay.

If it wasn't for Romania/Hungary.Islam would the national religion of the european continent......

plus millions died protecting that "parked land".....

I'm so pissed off....
 
Back
Top Bottom