should the "americans" be included in civ? (besides of all commercial reasons)

There are so many reasons America should be included, many of them have identified above, that I struggle to find any logic in the reasoning on the other side.

The favored reason that I came up with is... without America, there is no Civilization series. Enough of a reason for me.
 
In every sense of the word we Americans are indead a civilization. Our ideals and ideas, good and bad, have monopolized the world culture. We are an aggresive diplomatic/millteristic state that has our fingers in every pie and in many ways globalization is another word for americanization; the opening of markets so that we can sell our beliefs, culture and consumer goods to the rest of the world. We are a conglomerate of many ethinicties but we are bound together by our consumer culture and dedication to our "unique" form of government. Yes we borrowed many of our ideas from the enlightenment but we expanded on them until they are hardly recognizeable. Much like the Romans who borrowed all their ideas/beliefs from the people they conquered. And noone is argueing that they shouldn't be a civilization.
 
Some argue that since the USA only emerged as a political/cultural/national force in relatively recent times it doesn't fit well into a game which starts in 4000 BC.

I'm one of those "Colonization" (remember that game?) fans who always wished they built a component of that game into the Civilization series. There is always expansion pack or Civ5! :crazyeye:
 
all but one or two of the civs in the game were around in 4000BC. The bulk of most countries are populated by waves of hordes which moved in killed the men and raped the women.
 
holy king said:
often discussed in other threads, here is the topic's very own one.

i think the us just doesnt fit in the concept of civ, nor it fits to the other civs.

the us isnt a civilization in the very sense of a civilization, as it just started as an independent british colony, and was just a melting pot for refugees during its expansion over the northern american continent. theres no cradle of us-american culture since there is no overall american culture, there are only a lot of different "american cultures".


Firstly, you're wrong. Where else can you find McDonalds, Levi jeans, Hollywood movies, etc? America -does- have a culture, even if some snobby European's and jealous Canadians don't want to call it that.

Oh and by the way, since when were political threads, which this one most definitely -is- allowed on this forum?

Go take your US bashing and stick it where the sun don't shine, it's not wanted here, thanks.
 
America is indeed a relatively young nation. However, depending on how look at it... it isn't the youngest. In a literal definition Germany is younger, albeit also represents pre-unification Germany too (particuarly Prussia).

However consider the follow. Indeed America has a profound effect on the world in many ways: culture, politics, etc. I won't say the US "saved the world" in WWII, however America developed the A-bomb (even if it was inevitable, they did it)... without the USA the war would certainly have been dramaticly different (if you include US Industrial, and Economic assistance). Just look at the Cold War. America and Russia were the primary drive in *global* politics for 60+ years, and America still does. During the Cold War most countries sided with the USA in debates in the UN. Also as people have pointed out American culture (tv, movies, and even literature) is to be found around the world. Music (and music styles) as well.

In less then 200 years America went from a near back-water country to a super-power on Earth (not a region). Not exactly a normal thing for a civ/country. The USA has had a profound impact on the entire planet, both in the past, present, and future. Few countries have had that level of impact, let alone in such a short amount of time. When the USA speaks, the world does listen. Not out of fear, one could point to a number of countries that should've feared the US and didn't cooperate. Most countries listen as they have far more to gain by working with America, on many levels. Sure you could claim America is arrogant, but one could not say that's always the case. Most countries do have a level of arrogance, and America also likes to cooperate as it often has more to gain from doing so.

Also not everyone has respect for the US becuase of the 'or else' aspect. America has done a lot of good things, and not everyone likes admitting that. Even Americans don't like admitting other countries have done good things for them. Many informed people will look at many nations, respect them, but feel free to call them on thier faults. Indeed, many patriotic Americans will aknowledge its faults (past or present), but still love thier country. I'm very conservative, and I don't see America as "perfect", and I love my country. I base my view that America should be in Civ not because I live here or my love for it alone, but on a historical context. I'd also defend other civs left out (ones that have been in civ or ones I think should be in), as I consider them significant. Indeed I may very much respect this country, even if I realize they are imperfect and may have done things in thier history which are objectionable.

As for the comments about "american cultures" there is debate about what multiculturalism is, is there more then one kind, etc. However, if you look at civics and social studies textbooks in the US (past and present) being American isn't a race, ethnicity, faith, etc. It's more of a way of thinking. Look at other countries. One could take, let's say France or China, and divide it up into subcultures if one wanted, however the people of those countries don't concern themselves with those identities even if they are aware of them. Americans see themselves as that, Americans... sure there are differences, we accept this and even appreciate that, although look at our history. When times get tough, we value the things we share in common... and indeed we have many things in common. Are there exceptions? Sure. Bigots? Sure. They exist in every culture/group/etc. However what about as a general concept? Then you see it.

Sure, we have a troubled history... but that's because we're *human*. What you do notice is a general trend forward to get away from that and put it behind us. A progressive attitude. While this certainly isn't unique here, I think it balances things out. Heck, the progressive attitude is something to feel good about (even though one may feel bad it was needed).

Other arguements do stand, America has made many accomplisments other countries have not... and many more still few achieve. We've gone to the moon, and only Russia has ever attempted to aside from us. I think China is looking at doing it. America is the only country to have sent probes into deep space. Voyager I, launched in 1977 is STILL sending signals and should until 2020. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_I If you want verification. America does has a history of inovation. Granted, these modern evaluations don't help the ancient civs... but several civs exist today (both in the game) and 100s of countries today... and only a handful of today's (2-5) could be represented... represented as in due to reasons of the last century... then the USA is at the top of the list with Russian, Germany, and China close behind... although China deserves to be in due to reasons across several millenia (which being millenia is a reason in of itself).

Saying countries didn't exist back then is hardly a fair arguement. Until they create a mechanism for civs to grow out of old ones, etc... then I think that arguement is invalid. Even Rome and Greece would likely be excluded then.

Back to the cultures arguement... have you considered that might be the American culture itself? This can be taken more then one way of course. Elements of each culture adding up to the total American identity, the melting pot analogy, etc are all something you associate with the USA (if not always the other way around). If I wanted to, I could discuss each Civ in detail and discuss how it's not really one specific culture, but has mutliple cultures within it... past and present. I could discuss how each civ merits being in, and I'd say America would be in the top 20 at least... certainly not top 5.... but more then worthy of being in Civilization and even worthy of being in the initial release of such a game.

WIth as "short" a history the US has had, and had this level of impact? I think that speaks in of itself.

Besides: An American did create this game. ;) EVERYONE who plays this game has been affected by America in that way (and likely what they play it on) :lol: Although Linux (IIRC) is Swedish. ;) Computers are primarily due to the US. Sorry, it's true... but somewhat humerous to end my post on a more positive note. ;)
 
bman003 said:
This would all be fixed if we could have civil war or rebelion. I want CIVIL WAR!

Or something similar at least. If civs could be created mid game (and be viable!) based either by tech, year, cultural development, or other factors... then I wouldn't mind America being relegated to later time periods. However, I'd want to be play later civs then. IE, I pick America, Germany, or the Ottomans... and I won't start in 4,000 BC... but later... that'd be cool. Until then though, Americans should be in.

Either that or the Civ you selected starts at the dawn of time, but others come in later. Essentially you'd be (Assuming you won) the civ that lasted millenia (like China).
 
My answer is yes. The United States might not be an ancient civ but they still are a civilization. One to be reckon with as well ;)
 
I noticed alot of you are reasoning the US not bieng included because they didnt have a place in ancient times. The game starts in 4000BC, so that rules out alot of civs right there. You cant go simply by the year system because its skewed. Time is a linear progression but the speed at which society develops is exponential. Think about how much time you spend playing up until you get musketmen, and then how much time you spend playing after that. For me i spend more time on the second (if im not blitzing for the win.) That whole time is time that america should rightfully exist. put that to the romans, who were gone long before the musketman. You could say that the romans simply split up and became other civs, but then you could say that the reverse happened with america, it formed from other civs.

But the main point is that your not recreating the world, so what does it matter that your playing against the americans in the times BC and not the egyptians. You could easily mod "america" into "phonecia" or something and it wouldnt make a difference. So why not include it in the game?
 
Well, of course the USA is a civ, and of course it's an important civ, there should be no argument about that.

However, it's a civ that's existed in modern times only (since 1776 AD), and there should be no argument about that either.

To me, it seems grossly anachronistic to have "Americans" running around in ancient times, and for that reason I suspect I'll simply erase Americans from the game when playing single-player. Admittedly, it's also anachronistic to have "English", "Spanish", etc., running around in ancient times, but subjectively it's not quite so bad.

As some people have said, it would be an improvement in principle if civs could emerge in mid-game by splitting off from older civs -- which is how the USA was created in reality. But, from a practical point of view, how many players would want to enter a game after most of it had already been played?

I have to admit I think Firaxis has done the right thing by providing the Americans for those who want them, but allowing players themselves to exclude particular civs from the game (I presume that is possible).
 
Jonathan said:
As some people have said, it would be an improvement in principle if civs could emerge in mid-game by splitting off from older civs -- which is how the USA was created in reality. But, from a practical point of view, how many players would want to enter a game after most of it had already been played?

i agree, of course the u.s. of america is a civilization... !

also IMO, no other civ makes it more visible that a concept of spin-offs (colonial spin-offs, separation through civil war or by revolution, referendum..) is what's urgently needed.

spin-offs shouldn't be allowed to happen easily, and there should be a transition period of say 10 turns during which the mothercountry should have the chance of controlling the revolution, if that fails the new spin-off should become a real new nation (before that it should have barbarian-status or something similar). the new nation could then be taken over by A.I. or in MP by another player joining in, which i think could well be a fun thing to do for the new player!

even after nation spin-offs, players should be able to reunite the spin-off and the mothercountry, with the possibility to negotiate power sharing in a joint constitution for the new (old) joint country (example: one player takes unit control, other takes rest. or each controls "his" cities, the rest is shared control. or: everything shared. or: one takes all...many possible ways... )

think of it, in MP, shared control has other positive aspects: one player has to go (pee, work, whatever), the game still goes on:lol:
kinda like a small democracy game...

remember, in pre-frenchrevolution times, countries united by royal marriage (like spain and germany once)... i don't think civ MP-players should go that far though...:king:


edit: added reference to previous post
 
I think america should be the last civ to be involved. If civ started in later years it would be included, as america has had a reasonably large part in MODERN history, not ANCIENT and medievil.
 
sela1s1son said:
America is the only country to have sent probes into deep space.
You are forgetting the Huygens Probe which was developed in Europe.

Computers are primarily due to the US.
Many civilizations contributed to the development of the computer, starting with Babylon.
 
There's absolutely no reason why this topic should get so heated. Personally I don't tend to include America in my games because it doesn't sit right in my mind to have America in 4000BC. There's no pro- or anti- anything in that, it's a simple preference. Most people who object to America being in the game have exactly the same reasoning.

America has many similarities to the superpowers of the past, so I can of course see why many would want to include it in their games. Similarly, I'm sure everyone can see why America sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the great ancient civilizations for many players, particularly those, like myself, who play with a historical perspective.

Of course, for Firaxis, this is a non-issue - commercial considerations make it essential. Beyond that though, it's clear to me that America should be in the game because a great many Civ players very much want them in. It should nevertheless be uncontroversial to state that America does stick out as a somewhat uncomfortable inclusion for many players for very good reasons.
 
Oh god not another one of these

Well it doesnt matter becuase they are already in the game

So will you people quit talkin about this

Firaxis is American and Most of thier profits will be American

Thats the bottom line

Money talks
 
America has had a profound impact on history. I may not agree with our meathodsbut still America has had an impact that is worthy of civ. the atomic bomb, is grounds enough for enduction
 
Top Bottom