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

[Ahovking]

civilization 1. an advanced stage or system of social development. 2. those peoples of the world regarded as having this. 3. a people or nation (esp. of the past) regarded as an element of social evolution (ancient civilizations; the Inca civilization). 4. making or becoming civilized.

yea OK that means Australia is a civilization USA is a civilization Canada, new Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_income_economy
and so on

lol Australia is in the top 5 in ever one of the links above not even USA can beat that apart from is far far far far more larger armed force(just saying (just stirring up the pot))

 

[phungus420]

Nevermind

 

[EMT]

civilization 1. an advanced stage or system of social development. 2. those peoples of the world regarded as having this. 3. a people or nation (esp. of the past) regarded as an element of social evolution (ancient civilizations; the Inca civilization). 4. making or becoming civilized.

yea OK that means Australia is a civilization USA is a civilization Canada, new Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_income_economy
and so on

lol Australia is in the top 5 in ever one of the links above not even USA can beat that apart from is far far far far more larger armed force(just saying (just stirring up the pot))

You don't seem to comprehend that first world status means crap in this game, or else Babylon or India would never get in the game.....

 

[phungus420]

bunch of random bullsh*t, click on the arrow to see the retardation in the post

Be clear and concise because I've already destroyed your arguments in previous posts but this is just random rambling crap. Seriously give me something to work with, I really get irritated repeating myself, which is what I'm tempted to do, but I'm fairly certain you can at the very least restate some sort of cogent argument. Actually not really, but put something down that makes sense enough for me to destroy again please, I'll be happy to again, but this, this post is just crap, as in, my cat's litter box makes more sense.

 

[phungus420]

Oh and to the casual observer, sorry but the poster I am replying to is just a total ******, here is my original reply, which, so far as I can see nothing has changed:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8964073&postcount=325

 

[Thormodr]

Are you sure you want to add phungus420 to your ignore list? Y/N
Y

Ahhh fungicide....much better.

Too much insulting, name calling, badgering and all around trolling.

 

[cardgame]

your loss.

 

[Wodan]

At last. A person I can have a good conversation with. I could't agree more with you. In my original post I wrote:

"What I am trying to say is that if Canada cannot be included, then England should also not be included. But then, who would play the game? So the argument goes. Canada? Why not? Then again, where does it stop?"

This was in resposonse to other people's comments about what makes a civilization and which should be included in the game. Anyone can see that in fact I am posing a rhetorical question about the inclusion of Canada, and I think I make it quite clear that the game should not follow the definition of civilization as applied in the real world because as I myself ask "who would play the game?" and if Canada was included then "where does it stop?". It was the fellow civfan who misunderstood what I was trying to say and launched an attack on me.

Well I don't have a dog in that fight. (Other than that Canada should be out. )

But your England comment gets into another area: once it is decided to include X, what should the name of X be?

See... it's not always terribly clear cut what we should call a Civ. England/Great Britain is a good example. So is Russia/Soviet Union. So is Persia/Iran.

Let's take the latter. Persia and Iran are probably about as different (in culture) from each other as it's possible to be. Are they the same Civ? Or two different ones, despite occupying much the same geographic territory?

Also, even talking about the same entity, we have problems sometimes. England or Great Britain?

If the England in Civ4 is really "Great Britain" but they just chose to call it England, that's one thing. If England is England and does not include Scotland (etc.) that's another. (And, if the latter is true, it opens the door to a Pict/Scotland civ, which would be interesting.)

 

[Wodan]

You don't seem to comprehend that first world status means crap in this game, or else Babylon or India would never get in the game.....

That conclusion doesn't follow, logically. To wit: there are several possible criteria to get included in the game. One of them could be called "first world status". But there are other criteria upon which a civ could qualify to get in the game.

 

[Thormodr]

your loss.

Addition by subtraction is more appropriate.

I am quite fond of these boards. I like to come here to talk about Civ, learn about Civ and talk to people from all over the world. There are many intelligent, well informed and polite posters out there. Good enough for me.

 

[mechaerik]

anyways... has anyone screamed "TIBET" like a snobbish foreigner just to hurt the feelings of some chineses yet?

Actually, Tibet was quite large back in the day. i think it would make a decent addition, but unfortunately, i don't see that happening.

Tibetan Empire:
In spoiler circa 800, below circa 820.

Spoiler :

 

[EMT]

That conclusion doesn't follow, logically. To wit: there are several possible criteria to get included in the game. One of them could be called "first world status". But there are other criteria upon which a civ could qualify to get in the game.

I wouldn't call it so much a criteria, or else we would have Norway and Switzerland in this game. Being a modern industrial power mainly implies 1st world, but Russia gets a boost because of their industrial power, despite being a backwater in many ways, even after world war 2, with World War 2 being the *big* thing that pulls it into Civ, alongside other things. The USA gets in and Germany and Russia get some leverage in being in Civ because of the raw industrial power they put out, not because their people lived cushy lives. Until 1945, even the USA wasn't first world. No nation really was, as a notable minority of people where illiterate, poor, and where struggling farmers(The south during the great depression). I don't think first world status is a criteria, or else India and China would downright fail this one. Even then, these two countries would make it in even if was the most important criteria.

Industrial Power /=/ First World is what I'm trying to get at. Power in economy is the criteria in this case, not being First World. Atleast, that's what I think the criteria is.

 

[mechaerik]

Until 1945, even the USA wasn't first world. No nation really was, as a notable minority of people where illiterate, poor, and where struggling farmers(The south during the great depression). I don't think first world status is a criteria, or else India and China would downright fail this one.

In fact, no country was first, second or third world until the Cold War.

The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States. These countries were democratic and capitalistic.

 

[EMT]

First World in the modern sense is economic, not political.

 

[mechaerik]

Of course that's true. It's really more of a little infobyte than an actual argument against your position.

 

[The_J]

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

I can't really see, where you did the cut.
France, Russia, Germany and Arabia are sure as important as China or the US.

23)Carthaginians
(These three could arguably be on the A-list, but I had to cut it somewhere)

No way that they could be so important.
The carthagians are only known, because they were the enemies of Rome, and there's nothing else about them to say.

25)Cherokee

I don't know much about the history of the native americans, but what makes them in?

29)Polynesians

They are a stone age civ...besides regional effect i can't see anything special about them.

 

[azbestor]

One big problem with Poland historically that wrecked the possibility of it being a "great civ" was that political power was nerfed by a lack of primogeniture or a similar system... in fact, partible descent / inheritance had much the same effect as in Charlemagne's empire.

Before union we had suffered partible descent once. Piasts usually were quite practical people,rivals to the throne weren't meeting their end,just were loosing sight of things (one does that,once eyes are removed). Downfall begun with union.
Our new king,Jagiello,was more interested in saving Lithuania's interests,than Poland's,which led to appearing new country on the map: Prussia,one of 3,that disassembled Poland later.
Inner sources of Poland's fall was Christian zealotry,libero veto and free election.
Durning Piast and Jiagiellon dynasty most of the people were Catholic and for ruling were chosen Protestant's.
Then came Zygmunt III Waza, who forced Catholics everywhere. He even had a chance to acquire Moscow's throne for his son,if young one would change his religion to more Russian one - Orthodoxy. Of course our "great" king refused.
Libero Veto worked simply: one drunk,bribed and stupid noble shouted Libero Veto and whole diet (I'm not sure,that's the word) had to be closed.
Free election appeared once Jagiellon line came to the end. Poland was choosing it's king. In the result we've chosen one very good,Stefan Batory (and cannot choose Batory's greatest aide,Zamoyski as next one),few good ones (Sobieski) and bunch of incompetent guys. Thats Democracy for Poland

 

[Tee Kay]

No way that they could be so important.
The carthagians are only known, because they were the enemies of Rome, and there's nothing else about them to say.

Famous traders, navigators.

I don't know much about the history of the native americans, but what makes them in?

Look them up. They have quite an interesting history.

They are a stone age civ...besides regional effect i can't see anything special about them.

A stone-age civ that managed to colonize almost the entire Pacific on canoes. It's quite impressive.

 

[Wodan]

Before union we had suffered partible descent once. Piasts usually were quite practical people,rivals to the throne weren't meeting their end,just were loosing sight of things (one does that,once eyes are removed). Downfall begun with union.
Our new king,Jagiello,was more interested in saving Lithuania's interests,than Poland's,which led to appearing new country on the map: Prussia,one of 3,that disassembled Poland later.

But didn't Prussia have its roots in the Teutonic Knights? I don't think that really had anything to do with partible descent, it was a totally separate problem on its own. Once the Germans put down roots, they in effect created their own dutchy, which became real over time. (Basically it because another division of the nation, the rest caused by partible descent and other fragmentation.)

Poland fell apart / split several times, as I recall. After first being formed as a recognizable nation in the 10th century, it fragmented apart (due to partible descent) in the 12th century. Reunivied in the 14th century, and then the first union with Lithuania. That fell apart in the 15th century (for all intents and purposes) due to the Mongols. Reunification again in the 16th century with Lithuania that you were talking about. That lasted until the 18th century when war again broke everything apart (this time against the Swedes and Cossacks and caused even more devastation than the Mongols). Reconstitution again in the 19th century, briefly, by Napoleon but broke apart by the Allies in the post-war reorganizations. Reconstitution again in the 20th century after WW1.

I suppose on reflection that partible descent started everybody thinking along the lines of "Dutchies" instead of "Poland the nation". After that, any war and strife caused things to break apart into the Dutchy model rather than the Poland model.

 

[SGRaaize]

I dunno about the popularity (New to the community), but I'm sure Portugal won't be on Vanilla Civ 5, maybe on the expansions, but never on Vanilla