Most Popular Excluded Civ?

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Parsifal

Aborigines? Khmer? Tibetans? - I thought the inclusion of failure civ8ilizations like the Zulu, Iroquois and Aztecs was bad enough. Is this game Civilization 3 or Savagization 3. Yeh, I've heard all this garbage about "balance" and "how history could have been". Cummon man, extend that to its logical conclusion and none of the civilizations in the game would be included. Yuv gotta have only the best civs or yuv gotta have real balance like:

W.Europe: the Romans and the Germans
E.Europe: Russians and Greeks
M.East: Egypt and Babylonians
C.East: India and Persia
F.East: China and Japan
Africa: Ethiopia And Zulu
Americas: Inca and Aztecs
Australasia: Polynesians and Aborigines

There, that's 16 and that's "balance". But we all know that it is the superiority and fame of a civ that counts, so there should be no Iroquois nor any of the silly "civilizations" on the poll. So the civs should be:

Mesopotamia
Egypt
Persia
India
China
Rome
Greece
Germany
Italy
Spain
England
Russia
Arabs
Mongols
America
Japan


...and maybe for the expansion pack

Turks
Hebrews
Portuguese
French
Scandinavians
Scots
Dutch
Byzantines

If anyone thinks the Canadians or Australians should be included I'll possibly die laughing.... . They should be included along with the Irish in the English civ, because they are now essentially English. And PLEASE don't give me all the silly arguments based on statehood and dead languages.


Some ideas for UUs:

Aborigines: either a cannibal or something which can take away the land of other civs by exploiting their guilt

Americans: some kind of UU that will wipe out the indigenous inhabitants of a country but campaign against imperialism without anyone noticing the hypocrisy

Arabs: a UU which makes up religions to spread their culture

China: a UU that kills rare animals on the verge of extinction

Egyptians: a dumb American documentary maker

French: An effeminate charlatan who makes people think their culture is great without actually doing any thing of merit

Scots: a drunken scrooge who can hoard money for the civ

Sorry, all light-hearted.

That post was a little bit cynical. I think most gamers would like to see a little bit of balance, even if they would like some of the "successful" civs.
I don't see how you can suggest that Canada should be part of the English civ when there is also an American civ on your list. Aren't the Canadians more similar to the Americans than the English. And what about the French-Canadians?[

 

[Stuka]

Of COURSE Parcifal wants CANADA! He's a CANADIAN!

Which, in HIS opinion, Renders the U.S.A. nothing but a rich, rogue nation. LOL... what an ass.

 

[Parmenion]

Nobody has mentioned a British civ. I think we can bin the English and have the British instead, or rather the Britons (ancient Britons that is). The leader could be King Arthur (oops, don't want to start a 'did Arthur exist or not war' on here), and the characteristics associated with them would be Militaristic (from constantly fighting off the hordes of Teutonic invaders - oh yeah and dragons of course) and Industrious.

It would even be possible to have the UU as legionary. The early Britons were heavily Romanised and did utilise Romanesque tactics for hundreds of years after they left.

Alternatively, you could do what I did and change Elizabeth's name to Boudicca, change the Civ to Britons, and give them the ability to build Legionary instead of MoW.

The reason I say this isn't to start a flame war about national heritage, rather it is to make the point that I believe the representation of English rather than British as a major civ is wrong. Although I am English, I am of mixed descent (Irish, Scottish, Welsh and French) and can understand that the other countries that form the UK are extremely under-represented. Think of all the great people that contributed to "English" culture but were in fact from outside England. I'm not just referring to modern day people either, you could include all the Celtic peoples in a British civ and have great leaders like Caractacus (who led the Romans a merry dance through Wales for many years) and genius inventors, poets and cultural heroes such as Baird, Burns and Stevenson.

Sorry if someone has had a similar rant already, but I felt this had to be said and I ain't heard anyone mention it yet.

 

[Stuka]

Originally posted by Parmenion
Nobody has mentioned a British civ. I think we can bin the English and have the British instead, or rather the Britons (ancient Britons that is). The leader could be King Arthur (oops, don't want to start a 'did Arthur exist or not war' on here), and the characteristics associated with them would be Militaristic (from constantly fighting off the hordes of Teutonic invaders - oh yeah and dragons of course) and Industrious.

It would even be possible to have the UU as legionary. The early Britons were heavily Romanised and did utilise Romanesque tactics for hundreds of years after they left.

Alternatively, you could do what I did and change Elizabeth's name to Boudicca, change the Civ to Britons, and give them the ability to build Legionary instead of MoW.

The reason I say this isn't to start a flame war about national heritage, rather it is to make the point that I believe the representation of English rather than British as a major civ is wrong. Although I am English, I am of mixed descent (Irish, Scottish, Welsh and French) and can understand that the other countries that form the UK are extremely under-represented. Think of all the great people that contributed to "English" culture but were in fact from outside England. I'm not just referring to modern day people either, you could include all the Celtic peoples in a British civ and have great leaders like Caractacus (who led the Romans a merry dance through Wales for many years) and genius inventors, poets and cultural heroes such as Baird, Burns and Stevenson.

Sorry if someone has had a similar rant already, but I felt this had to be said and I ain't heard anyone mention it yet.

Not bad, not bad! Of course you can change it yourself in the editor, but the leader.. Yeah... You can't really make a King Arthur.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The problem that I have with a "British" civ is that the only culturo-historical unity the British Isles have is shared by other English-speaking nations. For instance, the way English is spoken in Scotland has more in common with American English than the British English spoken in the south of England. I think the idea of an Anglophonic civ has more to it than a British civ.

Besides, the Scots have simply contributed too much on their own to be included in another civ. You mentioned Burns, Baird and Stevenson. There was also Duns Scotus, Michael Scott, David Lyndsay, Robert Henryson, William Dunbar, John Buchan, James Hogg, the monumental Walter Scott, Thomas Carlyle, Francis Hutcheson, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, James MacPherson (Ossian), Lord Kames, the legendary Adam Smith, the superlative David Hume, not to mention the scientists and inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, Alexander Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, John Napier and James Hutton. These are just a few. Without the Scots, there would be no social sciences, no marxism (Scottish Enlightenmet historiography), no televsion, no telephone, no industrial revolution nor many other important things in the modern world. Or at any rate, these things would not have happened as quickly.

 

[newfangle]

The mongols are included, who aren't civilized (nomadic). Yet Canadians aren't.

 

[Stuka]

Originally posted by newfangle
The mongols are included, who aren't civilized (nomadic). Yet Canadians aren't.

EAT IT CRYBABY CANADA BOY!

 

[Stuka]

What has Canada given the world? What has Canada indigeonously created? What wonder of the world has Canada made? If you want 'em FINE, I don't CARE but I see them as a very INSIGNIFICANT worldwide culture. They're almost an extension of the USA!

And CURRENTLY they're housing a bunch of terrorists who want to kill everyone they can in the USA. HAR HAR HAR...

 

[Pangur Bán]

Let's not Canada-bash. In a thousand years time they'll probably be an important and distinctive civilization.
The evil Canadian empire is on its way to nemisize all those who make fun of it. :rocket:

 

[newfangle]

Stuka, its getting annoying how uneducated and ignorant you are. Read a god damn history textbook. I'm tired of your BS.

What about the trans-canada railway, some (mainly asian migrants) would consider that a wonder.

 

[newfangle]

I just read your extension of the US comment (sorry I have a tendancy to skip most things you say), and I must say you have now gone into negative credibility. Honestly to Jebus why do you even speak.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Moderator Action: Chill out guys. I don't want to start banning anyone at this time of night...if you can't all play nicely together than you will have to leave the sandbox.

Stuka, we can live without your attitude. Kindly lose it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tspencer83]

The Americans, Canadians, Spanish, Portuguese, Romans, Germans, Russians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Indians, Israelites, Babylonians, Siamese, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Khmer, Tibetans, Lao, Javanese, Nepalese, Mongols, Turkmen, Ashanti, Xhosa, Zulu, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Vikings, French, Aboringines, Iroquois, Sioux, Cherokee, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Mende, Ethiopians, Persians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese, English, Celts, Scots, Irish, Ottomans, Prussians, and Serbians among others can all be considered civilizations. You go to Portugal for example and I'm sure you'll hear of the great Portuguese "civilization." Same for Canada. A civilization can be what you make it. For example, why should the Americans be considered a civilization and Canada not? Both were greatly influenced and grandfathered by European nations. Both today have great differences in culture. Also, what makes the Aboringines any less of a civilization just because they made no big impact on the world scene? Honestly, it really doesn't matter what constitutes a "civilization" because people will certainly have differing opinions. Once again, this is Firaxis simply trying to best please its likely audience of American, European and Japanese gamers. It's nothing to get upset over. Any group of people, diaspora or nationality can be considered a civilization. Heck, even the East Timorese I'm sure could be justified as a civilization. Peace!!

 

[JoeM]

The Saxons! Down with the Normans! Oh dear a thousand years too late...

 

[spiky82]

personally i would like to see:

Mongols (fast horse-archers)
Koreans (an early iron clad...turtle ship)
Incans (no clue)
Sioux (the brave)
Carthageans ( or Phoenicians...some sorta naval unit since India has elephants already...Carthage was known for their superior navy in the first war against rome while rome boasted better army)
Spanish (conquistadors or naval unit...they did have an armada)
Celts (separate from English...highlander!!)
Vikings (viking boats or berserks like it is in Age of Kings)

Two more asian civs, 2 more american civs, 1 from mediterranean, 1 from europe, 1 from scandinavia, and celts...i think this would be pretty balanced

 

[kurt]

Originally posted by Parsifal

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the civs should be:
Mesopotamia
Egypt
Persia
India
China
Rome
Greece
Germany
Italy
Spain
England
Russia
Arabs
Mongols
America
Japan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with most of the civs but Mesopotamia is not a civ. It's a part of the world. Saying that Mespotamia is a civ would be like saying that Europe is a civ. Mesopotamia is part of the world in which were "created" civs like Babylon or Asyrians.

 

[dingclancy]

i would prefer the jews because although tey were not a big civilization and they were broken up and dispersed by the romans... i say that they are strong culturally beacause afetr a long time osrael still survived... and it may have a better twist on the game with all the civs ganging up on them!!!!!

 

[dingclancy]

i would prefer the jews because although tey were not a big civilization and they were broken up and dispersed by the romans... i say that they are strong culturally beacause afetr a long time osrael still survived... and it may have a better twist on the game with all the civs ganging up on them!!!!!

 

[Parmenion]

Israel didn't exist as a nation until after the second world war, although I know that Hebrew peoples have lived in that area since the flight of the slaves from Egypt.

Also, please enlighten an ignoramus as to what is the difference between being Jewish and being a follower of Judaism? Aren't they one and the same? If so, is there grounds for having a civ on the basis of religion? That would be like having a Muslim or a Bhuddist civ, when there were lots of civs that had these as their main religion.

 

[newfangle]

Jews are one of the only people in history to build an empire on the complete basis of religion. For the last 5000 years it has not been nationality binding Jews, but rather religion. I think they should be a Civ because they have contributed an enormous amount to the history of the world, and the old Israel was a powerful empire. At least thats what's my Grade Religious History classes taught me.