New Civilizations

[RedAlert]

Oh, I see... you're trying to say Eskimos.

The more common (and I believe, proper) term for them nowadays would be 'Inuit'.

 

[norwegianviking]

Hebrews:Needed
Eskimos:NO!
Aboriginis:needed
Mali: Good

 

[Teabeard]

We can't have Hebrews in the game because no one could do an AAR about how they wiped them out. They are too controversial to include.

 

[mitsho]

just the hell why?
1) don't be political correct. This is a history game. Of course, we don't want to favor anti-semitic feelings, but that has nothing to do with including them or not
2) HEBREWS ARE NOT JEWS. Jew is a person who believes in Judaism. Hebrew is a person who belongs to the ancient people of the Hebrews who formed some ancient mediterannean states with the capital of Jerusalem.
Please distinguish.

Also, more modern: Not all Israeli are Jews and not all Palaestinians are Muslim!

mfG mitsho

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Of all African states, Mali, Ethiopia and Egypt are the most important IMO.

The problem with the Hebrews is that they accomplished nothing beyond religion, and a lot of people absolutely despise them (I'm not one of them even though it may sound like it). The Hebrews are not an important civ, adding another crappy empire to Europe - Middle East.

 

[Teabeard]

I agree with Mongoloid Cow. What have the Hebrews done to deserve to be included as a Civ? The only reason anyone can think of is because of religion and IMHO that just isn't good enough. I think including them would open a big can of worms because, as I said, who could post an AAR of how they wiped them out? Anyone who tells of how they conquered the Hebrews will be labelled anti-semetic by some people. The Hebrews would basically be a civ that no one could touch because of the controversy involved in doing so...

 

[Greek Stud]

I think we need to distinguish what elitest Westerns will publish in a dictionary compared to what is considered an influential culture.

Civil compared to Civilization. Civil in the anthropoligical sense of having a distinct culture through trade, social habits, ethnicity, language, religion, tools, innovation, and influence.

It is really obnoxius to hear people say particular groups are not important enough. Most of these groups would not be known up to today had they not been important. For example: The Amazons that invaded Greek States in Anatolia, should be excluded from the game because we do not know enough about them, not because they are not worthy...

Inuit Empire has existance up to today, if you would like to speak of influence. The province of Nunavut gained independence in 1999, but because they wish to exist separate from global issues, Canada represents their well being. The word Eskimo comes from their language and means 'leather skined'. It is offensive to them and they have always asked to be documented under the name they call themselves which is: Inuit. From Alaska to Greenland, the Inuit tribes incompose quite a large plot of tundra land. They introduced much important things to Europe like using whale stomachs to make boats and clothing. The massive Fur craze in Europe had Inuit alter their weapons from hunting to warlike. THere's a rich history which I can go on and on but just because you don't know about it does not mean they are not worthy enough to be on the game.

The Hebrews should be included because of their religious influence. When you make a game that stresses the importance of Civilizations, religion is a large factor of that. I would compare the Hebrew's wars as being much like the Byzantine Crusades. Then they split into to States: Israel and Judea. Government, Culture, Religion, Ethnicity, Art, Language. How are they not globally important today? How globally important are the Hittites today?

I think the main reason the Hittites were added was to show what makes a Civilization important. A distinct culture and influence on the world. That would explain the Mongol inclusion. And the main reason particular Civs are included are because they are fun to play!

So I'll make a composite list of fun civs I thought should be playable:

Europe:
1. Prussia
2. Poland
3. Austria
4. Soviet
5. Minoa

Asia Minor:
1. Assyria
2. Hebrew
3. Canaanite

Asia:
1. Khmer (Cambodia)
2. Siam (Thailand)
3. Vietnamese
4. Malay
5. Indonesia

Australia:
1. Aborigines
2. Mauri
3. Polynesia
4. Tonga

Africa:
1. Ethiopia (Abyssinia)
2. Nubia
3. Ashanti Kingdom
4. Mali
5. Afrikans

America:
1. Inuit Empire
2. Apache
3. Hawaii Kingdom
4. Confederate States of America

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

How globally important are the Hittites today?

I think the main reason the Hittites were added was to show what makes a Civilization important. A distinct culture and influence on the world. That would explain the Mongol inclusion. And the main reason particular Civs are included are because they are fun to play!

The Hittites have had significant impact on the world though. They are considered to be the people which invented the techniques and instruments necessary to forge iron. They revolutionised ancient warfare. They developed new trade routes and it is believed they spread much of the knowledge of the Middle East to Greece. And if you think that isn't enough, they also invented the medieval fashion craze - pointy shoes.

The Mongols are also the only civ which comes from the extremely important historically Asiatic nomadic culture. Turgish, Gok Turks, Seljuqs, Uighurs, Kyrgyz, On-Okh, Qarluqs, Scythians, Sarmatians, Qarakhanids, Hepthalites, Chionites, Kushanids and Yue-Chi, Xian-Bei, Xiong-Nu, Huns, Sacae and Massagetae, etc.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, to compare Serbia with Russia is complete Serbian nationalist delusion. I mean, everyone who's followed the news over the past half decade knows that the Serbs are pretty nationalist, but that is pretty extreme.

If I were to pick, say, 10 new civs:

1. Scotland (or the Gaels, but that's awkward given the Celts are already a civ)
2. Lithuania (last great pagan empire in Europe; the Lithuanian monarchy takes over Poland, but sadly for Lithuania, Poland ends up taking over Lithuania)
3. Khazars great Turkic state whose rulers converted to Judaism
4. Wagadu (Ghana) powerful kingdom in western sub-saharan Africa; I'd chose them over their successors, primarily because they did not convert to Islam
5. Israel
6. Abyssinia continuous area of highly sophisticated civilization, often reffered to as Ethiopia - although that is a misleading word.
7. Xinjiang an area dominated politically for much of its history by China and/or Altaic nomads, it is home to the "little silk road" and home to of what n the western world are some of the most underappreciated civilizational achievements
8. Austronesians they are to south-east asia what the Indo-Europeans were to Europe; neolithic technology spread the from Madagasgar (off Africa) to Hawaii and Easter Island (off the Americas)
9. Aboriginal Australia A simple must, because of their geo-biological and cultural distinctiveness. DOn't give me the crap about them not being a "civilization", Civ is about what might have happened
10. Khmer culture of unknown extent in south-east asia. their monumental ruins have left their mark

- I should add that I am Scottish, and therefore biased.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I really don't care what the civs are as long as they're differentiated and fun to play.

 

[DBear]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=85656&page=6&pp=20

 

[GeneralX]

9. Aboriginal Australia A simple must, because of their geo-biological and cultural distinctiveness. DOn't give me the crap about them not being a "civilization", Civ is about what might have happened.

An interesting notion, but not one I endorse. The Aboriginals are and excellent people with a sound cultural identity, however they were, and remain, far too fragmented. If I felt motivated enough I would find you a map of tribal areas for Australia (there is a good one out there somewhere) and you would see just how fragmented they are. They also fought each other (sporadically) so there was limited "national identity" if any. Australia is a bit of a problem as far as Civ IV goes . The Aboriginals were in Australia for many 1000’s of years, but never got past living in a tribal, hunter/gatherer existence. Europeans settled/colonised/invaded (depending on your politics) a little over 200 years ago but since then have turned the land into the home of a modern cosmopolitan nation that is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Choosing between the two is not easy. I favour the latter option. Civ has done it previously (the Americans as a precedent). We are a strong nation, even though we are quite small, but our achievements are just as important as some of the other countries that have been mentioned.

 

[rhialto]

I don't think the "Hebrews" should be included as a civ. As others have noted, their prime contribution to world events is their religion. Since we know religion is going to be a major item anyway, that leaves that civ without anything else noteworthy. After all, why include a civ specifically to represent Judaism when Judaism is explicitly included anyway?

 

[Cuivienen]

Well, to compare Serbia with Russia is complete Serbian nationalist delusion. I mean, everyone who's followed the news over the past half decade knows that the Serbs are pretty nationalist, but that is pretty extreme.

If I were to pick, say, 10 new civs:

1. Scotland (or the Gaels, but that's awkward given the Celts are already a civ)
2. Lithuania (last great pagan empire in Europe; the Lithuanian monarchy takes over Poland, but sadly for Lithuania, Poland ends up taking over Lithuania)
3. Khazars great Turkic state whose rulers converted to Judaism
4. Wagadu (Ghana) powerful kingdom in western sub-saharan Africa; I'd chose them over their successors, primarily because they did not convert to Islam
5. Israel
6. Abyssinia continuous area of highly sophisticated civilization, often reffered to as Ethiopia - although that is a misleading word.
7. Xinjiang an area dominated politically for much of its history by China and/or Altaic nomads, it is home to the "little silk road" and home to of what n the western world are some of the most underappreciated civilizational achievements
8. Austronesians they are to south-east asia what the Indo-Europeans were to Europe; neolithic technology spread the from Madagasgar (off Africa) to Hawaii and Easter Island (off the Americas)
9. Aboriginal Australia A simple must, because of their geo-biological and cultural distinctiveness. DOn't give me the crap about them not being a "civilization", Civ is about what might have happened
10. Khmer culture of unknown extent in south-east asia. their monumental ruins have left their mark

- I should add that I am Scottish, and therefore biased.

Scotland -- covered by the Celts and England. There isn't much left to say.
Lithuania -- covered by the Celts and Russia. In any case, Lithuania was less important than Poland and we don't need more Europeans.
Khazars -- Essentially covered by the Ottomans, religion notwithstanding. The Ottomans just need to be renamed "The Turks."
Ghana -- Very small and insignificant. Mali or Songhai were both much larger, more powerful and more successful.
Israel -- "The Hebrews." I agree.
Abyssinia -- I agree.
Xinjiang -- Essentially covered by the Ottomans and Mongols (they were a Turkic-Mongol mix)
Austronesia -- "Srivijaya." A certain possibility.
Aborigines -- No. They had no civilization at all, just a rather primitive culture.
Khmer -- May overlap somewhat with Srivijaya, but still a good choice.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Scotland -- covered by the Celts and England. There isn't much left to say.

Only that it isn't covered by England in any way; and while, theoretically, it might might be covered by the Celt, in practice Celt is meant as "Gaul" (see city list). Like I said, I'm biased. But I would prefer the Gaels.

.
Lithuania -- covered by the Celts and Russia. In any case, Lithuania was less important than Poland and we don't need more Europeans.

No offence or anything, that's just pure ignorance.

WTH does Lithuania have to do with the Celts?
Lithuania was only conquered by Russia for a very brief period.

Lithuanian was much more important than Poland. The Poland-Lithuania commonwealth was formed when pagan Lithuania, five times the size of Poland, took over Poland.

Khazars -- Essentially covered by the Ottomans, religion notwithstanding. .

Hardly. Kinda like saying France or Portugal covers Rome.

Ghana -- Very small and insignificant. Mali or Songhai were both much larger, more powerful and more successful.

Both converted to Islam. Ghana did not.

Xinjiang -- Essentially covered by the Ottomans and Mongols (they were a Turkic-Mongol mix)
.

Nothing to do with the Ottomans or Mongols. Ottoman Turkish has less in common with Xinjiang Turkic than English has with German. The idea that the Ottomans represent all Turkic peoples is like saying the English represent all Germanic peoples, or Portugal represents all Romans.

Austronesia -- "Srivijaya." A certain possibility.
.

Er... nope, Austronesians!

Aborigines -- No. They had no civilization at all, just a rather primitive culture.
.

I already answered that.

 

[Teabeard]

I think the Celts could be broken up into two or more groups. I personally would like to see Irish and Welsh and Scottish included. The Welsh could have a better longbowman unit and the Scottish could have a highland warrior which would replace medieval infantry and have an extra movement point, or something. As for the Irish, I don't know what UU they would have, and I am ashamed to say that because I am of Irish descent.

As for the continental celts: those could be broken down into Gauls, Galatians, & Galicians. I don't know much about them though, sorry.

 

[Teabeard]

Australia could use a Civ because the continent is empty of any sort of nation, but I don't think it should be the Aborigines. The only possible civ to include for Australia is modern day Australia. I know they only existed for a few hundred years, but hey, so did America and America is included. And yes they are not that influential, but there are many other civs that that could be said about also and they are included, so why not include a modern day australian civ?

Why not also include Canada and New Zealand too? The more the merrier, provided they can be kept unique, interesting, and not just there for the heck of it.

 

[Arminius]

For the sake of a good count, I offer 36 civs.

Abyssinia
Arabia
Assyrians
Aztecs
Babylon
Carthage (or Phoenicia)
Celts (sorry, I can't see breaking them down)
Cherokee
China
Egypt
England (or Britain for better coverage)
France
Germany
Ghana (Songhai/Mali)
Greece
Inca
India
Inuits
Iroquois
Japan
Khmers
Lakota (or the Sioux, but I relate this to calling Inuits Eskimos.)
Lithuania (or Poland)
Malay
Maya
Mongols
Persia
Polynesia
Rome
Russia
Scandinavia
Spain
The Hebrews
Tibet
Turks
Zululand

 

[Greek Stud]

I'm going to side with calgacus and Arminius. Very good and open minds as to which cultures offers a distinctive and influential identity.

I never in my life would have known how influencial the Inuit Empire was to Europe if I never studied in depth. The point to having groups like Lithuania and Australian Aborigines is to educate people who would not take the time to research these cultures and open peoples minds to see how much these groups actually have influenced our standing cultures.

If you want Australia, then play England and conquer the Aboriginal lands. America as a civ is not the same as the Colonial States, AMerica is actually the Yankee representation of the USA, and its influence on modern technology and warfare. That's why the C.S.A. would be a great balance off of the Americans.

 

[Francophile]

Austria-Hungary, Mali/Songhai, The Khmers, and the Ethiopians (Maybe Poland). I think that these are the farthest you can go without getting obscure.