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

I definitely think that America should be included in Civilization. I agree that it’s a little bit odd to start as America and found Washington 5000 BC, but on the other hand it is equally odd to speak to Mao Zedong in ancient time.
 
Jonathan said:
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).

Hey, mod the American's out and while you're at it mod it so the Romans, Greeks, and all the ancient powerful cultures shrink down to OCC (or just a few anyway) about the time musketeers come into play as well. Also mod so that French, English, Spanish, German and most of your European countries can't have more than a handful of cities until the 'modern' or 'industrial' times as well since historically they weren't very powerful until different times (none of them ancient) in history as well.

I mean if you're going to use that flimsy excuse "Oh the US is a new country" then you might as well mod the game to be in line with doing that for -all- countries across the board. Unless you really want to be hypocritical and who would want to do that? ;)
 
Enkidu Warrior said:
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.

So, you only play the game with Egypt, China, Babylonian, Inca, Maya, Zulu and that's it? I mean England wasn't an 'ancient power' nor were any of the 'modern' European countries. It must get boring to pnly play the game with the same 6 or so "cradle of civilization" civ's. Unless of course you're a hypocrite and include other more 'modern' (and yes, England was more an late Middle Ages/Industrialization nation not ancient so would be excluded) civ's in there when you play...
 
Isn't it nice that we get so many civilizations we can exclude and include whoever we want when we are playing (I won't touch modding here). You can play with only the "cradle" civs, or you can play only modern civs. You can play an all European game (map and civs) and see who takes over. The more civs that get left out, the fewer options we have as the players of the game.

I don't care who I'm conquoring, I just play.

While I do think the Americans should be included, I'd like to point out that I have never played a game as them.
 
Ozymandous said:
Hey, mod the American's out and while you're at it mod it so the Romans, Greeks, and all the ancient powerful cultures shrink down to OCC (or just a few anyway) about the time musketeers come into play as well.

That's not necessary at all. In history as we know it, the Ancient Roman civ was wiped out by others. Whether it gets wiped out in the game depends on the players. Maybe the Roman Empire, well played, will thrive until 2050 AD. No reason why not.

Ozymandous said:
Also mod so that French, English, Spanish, German and most of your European countries can't have more than a handful of cities until the 'modern' or 'industrial' times as well since historically they weren't very powerful until different times (none of them ancient) in history as well.

I mean if you're going to use that flimsy excuse "Oh the US is a new country" then you might as well mod the game to be in line with doing that for -all- countries across the board.

Most of the civs in the game started later than 4000 BC in reality, but some started later than others, and the Americans started much later than all the others.

The game lasts about 60 centuries. Americans have existed for less than 3 centuries. For 57 centuries covered by the game, there were no Americans at all.

The ancestors of the Americans were mostly European: English, French, Spanish, German, etc. -- civs that are already represented separately in the game.

There were people living in North America before the Europeans arrived, but they were a different civ and they were virtually wiped out by the people of European origin whom we now call Americans.
 
Ozymandous said:
So, you only play the game with Egypt, China, Babylonian, Inca, Maya, Zulu and that's it? I mean England wasn't an 'ancient power' nor were any of the 'modern' European countries. It must get boring to pnly play the game with the same 6 or so "cradle of civilization" civ's. Unless of course you're a hypocrite and include other more 'modern' (and yes, England was more an late Middle Ages/Industrialization nation not ancient so would be excluded) civ's in there when you play...

London was probably founded about 2000 years ago. Washington D.C. was founded a little over 200 years ago. Playing from a historical perspective, including England, for all the inconsistencies that entails, causes me no problem. Including America does. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, that's just my preference. That isn't hypocrisy according to any definition I'm aware of.

I'm not saying that including America is "wrong", just that it doesn't sit right with me because America has a mere fraction of the history of the other civs. This clearly isn't a problem for you, nor for many other players and that's fine by me - people play the game for different reasons. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are wholly legitimate reasons for some players to object to America's inclusion. It doesn't mean that you have to concur.

On a side note, if we're talking ancient civilizations, you've got quite a few misconceptions. For a start, there a great many more than 6 civilizations with a credible link to ancient times - many more than could ever be included in a single game. The Inca (1483AD-1533AD) and Zulu (1709AD-present) however would certainly not count among these. Indeed, the inclusion of the Zulu is seen as even more objectionable than that of America by many players of a historical persuasion. On the other hand, the Sumerians, Hittites, Maya, Arabs, Celts, Carthaginians, Ottomans, Koreans, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Japanese, Persians and Romans can all reasonably claim links to ancient times and that's just out of the civs in the basic C3C list.
 
Civ does not equal history.
(group of people A) did not exist durring the same time as (group of people B).
etc...
etc...
(which came first the chicken or the egg) :roll eyes:

sorry guys but we have heard these same arguments in every incarnation of Civ. The bottom line is that it is a game that takes part of world history and organizes it into a game setting.

Could it work just like history? Sure.
Should it work just like history? Absolutely not! Otherwise you already know who is winning at a specific point in history.

Scenarios is where history is repeated and changed, not in the normal play mode.

oh well, just my thoughts.
 
weakciv said:
Civ does not equal history.
(group of people A) did not exist durring the same time as (group of people B).
etc...
etc...
(which came first the chicken or the egg) :roll eyes:

sorry guys but we have heard these same arguments in every incarnation of Civ. The bottom line is that it is a game that takes part of world history and organizes it into a game setting.

Could it work just like history? Sure.
Should it work just like history? Absolutely not! Otherwise you already know who is winning at a specific point in history.

Scenarios is where history is repeated and changed, not in the normal play mode.

oh well, just my thoughts.

That's cool, I know many players are a lot less interested in the history side of things than others. As long as you realise that many players do very much enjoy the historical aspect of the game. A game with the scope of civ is bound to attract players with very different perspectives and a number of different reasons for playing. Arguments like this spring up because these different groups of people misunderstand each other (and in this case maybe because of a bit of oversensitivity to perceived insults to national pride).
 
Enkidu Warrior said:
That's cool, I know many players are a lot less interested in the history side of things than others. As long as you realise that many players do very much enjoy the historical aspect of the game. A game with the scope of civ is bound to attract players with very different perspectives and a number of different reasons for playing. Arguments like this spring up because these different groups of people misunderstand each other (and in this case maybe because of a bit of oversensitivity to perceived insults to national pride).

Understood.
But the game is basicly a sandbox. Then they add scenarios to allow for Historical reenactments and allow for "what if" so-and-so did this.
 
As for the argument that only the original human civilisations should be included , that leaves only the fertile crescent ( the the form of Babylon ) , Egypt , India , China , Greece , and the central American civilisations . A grand total of . . . . . . . . six .
 
aneeshm said:
As for the argument that only the original human civilisations should be included , that leaves only the fertile crescent ( the the form of Babylon ) , Egypt , India , China , Greece , and the central American civilisations . A grand total of . . . . . . . . six .

Come on now, in 4000 BC the world was covered with hordes of different tribes. The main problem is that most of them are unrecorded in history... But specialists in ancient history could probably name dozens of them at least. Firaxis chose civs that mostly weren't around in 4000 BC because it felt we'd like to play as civs that we'd heard of.

And in most cases it isn't too ridiculous. If we play as the English, well, the English as such didn't exist until the Angles invaded the British Isles and gave us their name, but before that there were Ancient Brits going back for a long time, and the modern English must at least have some genetic connection with them.
 
Until holy king gives his definition of civilization and shows how other included civs meet it, but the United States donesn't, no one should really bother posting here.

i think i made that clear by saying there's no overall us-american culture...
a unified culture may not be the only criterium for a civilization, but i'd say it certainly is one
i dont consider mcdonalds or levis as culture (which is what some posters stated), since those are merely just products sold all over the world. i wouldnt say a chinese or indian restaurant is part of their culture, and i'm chinesified or indianified because i go there either.

@holy king: If you make this kind of thread it is smart to give it a neutral start. Else it will spawm much unhappiness to early.

thought about that, but i concluded i couldnt start it without telling my own opinion at all...

Yes thier impact is huge. We are living in the modern time. The only way you can take america out is if you take the modernage out of the game

its not about impact, its about wether you wanna call the us a civilization

I want to hear holy king respond with his reasons.

In other words, joke of the day

hm... here i am
 
holy king said:
there's no overall us-american culture...

I don't think many people are going to agree with you on that. Every nation has a culture of some kind, even if you don't personally like it.

Some people in France, I believe, complain about being invaded by American culture. If you think there isn't any, you should tell them, they'd be delighted.
 
America is in there because of the impact on the world it has had. All of the reasons people say that America should not be in civ can be applied to many other civs. True, America didn't exist at 4000 BC, but neither did Germany, which is in fact even younger then America. Most of the civs weren't around in 4000 BC. Rome wasn't. The Persian Empire wasn't. England, France, none of those were around either.

Come on now, in 4000 BC the world was covered with hordes of different tribes. The main problem is that most of them are unrecorded in history... But specialists in ancient history could probably name dozens of them at least. Firaxis chose civs that mostly weren't around in 4000 BC because it felt we'd like to play as civs that we'd heard of.

Who are rather irrelevant. The reason we don't remember them is because they really had no impact on history. Also, I would say they barely even fit the real life defenition of "civilization", let alone the defneition for the game.

I'm not saying that including America is "wrong", just that it doesn't sit right with me because America has a mere fraction of the history of the other civs.

And Germany, France, and England has only a fraction of the history of Rome, China, Persia, Sumeria, and India. Pehraps those should be removed as well.



What impact it had on the world is what generally determines what civ makes the cut. I don't think anyone can deny that America has dominated the middle and late 20th century, and it looks like America will remain at least one of, if not THE world's superpower for the 21st century.

Also, in regards to the "Rome was despised back then" arguement, in the beggining Rome wa snot loved, but by the Republican and Imperial times, Rome was very well respected. Merely the name of Roman Citizen could save you from punishments in other countries. People really respected it. Roman citizenship was something highly prized.

Not only that, comparing America's power to Rome's is like comparing Mike Tyson to William Shatner. Rome ruled the largest empire to ever exist at the time (With the possible exception of the Persians). Rome was by far the world's most powerful state for longer than America was even an idea, longer than the word "America" even existed. It held the first city in the world to reach over a million people, and held a massive portion of the world's population. For hundreads of years after the Roman Empire fell, it's name still held incredible eminence and several rulers tried to imitate the Roman rulers. We get the German and Russian "Kaiser" and "Czar" from the original Roman "Caesar". The "Holy Roman Empire", the names such as "Imperator" were still favored by some rulers. Throughout all of history the Roman empire has been held as some kind of paragon of the height of power acheived by a state.

When Germany and France ask the president of the United States approve their election, and when the English monarchs request to be coronated by the Americans, then i'll say that America is as held in high esteem and has as much power as Rome did in it's height. As far as I'm concerned, America is one of the lower "first class civs" in terms of it's power and eminence throughout history.
 
@holy king: Food and style of clothing are major parts of culture, and fast food is a major part of our food in america (not just mcdonalds) . As for the argument in general over america not being a civilization: we have already seen the post with the definition and America fits in very well so get over it.

@Legionary: The arguments for Rome having done so much is based on the fact that they had a 1000 years to do so. America has made just as much (most likey more) of an impact on the entire world as any other civilization in history regardless of time.

Personally, I think the ideas of civilizations splitting from others is ridiculous. I mean come on...think about it.
 
Legionary37 said:
Also, in regards to the "Rome was despised back then" arguement, in the beggining Rome was not loved, but by the Republican and Imperial times, Rome was very well respected. Merely the name of Roman Citizen could save you from punishments in other countries. People really respected it. Roman citizenship was something highly prized.

Tell that to the Jews at Masada or Boudecia or any of the hundreds of 'barbarian' tribes that rejected Roman rule. Why did the Romans need Caesar to conquer the Gauls, for example, if Roman citizenship was so prized?

To be sure, once it was obvious that the reality was accept Roman rule or die, then it was better to be a citizen than a slave. This is different from implying that the world was clamoring to be a part of Rome.

Legionary37 said:
When Germany and France ask the president of the United States approve their election, and when the English monarchs request to be coronated by the Americans, then i'll say that America is as held in high esteem and has as much power as Rome did in it's height.

Please provide examples of Rome's emperors having performed similar feats and be specific. I'm not saying it wasn't done, but I'm no expert here. Suffice it to say, I'm going to check your facts.

Legionary37 said:
As far as I'm concerned, America is one of the lower "first class civs" in terms of it's power and eminence throughout history.

This is a bit of a ludicrous idea. People here obviously like to compare ancient Rome and modern America, but I don't know how valid these comparisons are. Standards of human behavior have changed. The US simply can't exert its 'power' in the same way Rome did. If so, the armies would constantly be expanding the borders, and there wouldn't be a Mexico or Canada right now... just for starters. As for suppressing revolts, that's got to be different too. Again, see the fate of the Jews and Boudicea and her daughters.
 
Civ is a game that allows you be leaders/civs that have historically at some point in time risen and played some sort of major influence, whether it be militarily, culturally, etc., each at different points in history - the babylonians might have started from the "beginning" but as a civ-nation but they're not longer for the ride - the mayans and aztecs were powerful, but only for a few centuries (1100s-1400s give or take a century).

the fun in the game is that you can try to play it according to history (start an earth map with china, egypt, babylon, etc.) or you can play your own fictional what-if world. i'm glad the americans r in - the game for me isn't just about ancient civs, it's not just about modern civs - it's about civs throughout history - some met face to face, some never crossed paths - but it gives you a cross section of the last 6000 years of human history for u to play through.

at the end,... you always have the option to select/de-select a civ in ur game setup
 
Hmmm... Now about Americans not having a unifying culture let me write a qoute by PHD Eric Foner at Columbia University "Observers from Europe, Where class divisions were starkly visible in work, politics and social relations marveled at the uniformity of American life. Factories poured out stadardiezed consumer goods their sales promoted by national advertizeing campaigns. Comnservatism dominated a political system from which radical alternatives seemed to have been purged. Radio and the movies spread mass culture throughout the nation. Americans seemed to dress alike, think alike, go to the same movies and admire the same larger then life national celeberties" -talking about post WW1 United States "The Roaring Twenties.

Andre Siegfried (A Frenchman who had visited the US four times in between 1880 and 1920) commented in 1928 that a "new society" had come into being, in which Americans considered their "standard of living" a "sacred Aquisition, which they will defend at any price". In this new "mass civilization" widespread acceptance of going into debt to purchase consumer goods had replaced the values of thrift and self denial, central to 19th century notions of upstanding character.
In otherwords ours is the culture of the masses and, liveing here trust me, we like to tout are differances but we are as homogenized as milk. There is very little alternative to the "american way of life" if you live here. I otherwords we exalt greed and excess over sennsability and perhaps your right that makes for tacky culture but it is our culture none the less.
 
holy king said:
i think i made that clear by saying there's no overall us-american culture...
a unified culture may not be the only criterium for a civilization, but i'd say it certainly is one
i dont consider mcdonalds or levis as culture (which is what some posters stated), since those are merely just products sold all over the world. i wouldnt say a chinese or indian restaurant is part of their culture, and i'm chinesified or indianified because i go there either.

Just because the culture is not exactly the same for every person/region doesn't mean its not unified (otherwise there is no Chinese, Indian, English, German, Russian, Greek, etc. culture.. You MIGHT be able to say there is a Roman culture that was unified throughout the city of Rome and that that city then controlled the roman empire, but that would be unusual)

If you are looking for commonalities in culture the vast majority of Americans are English speaking, and slightly less so Christians. The phrase "its a free country" is something American parents/teachers will often hear when a kid doesn't like a rule, but not something parents from other countries hear often, even in ancestral Britain. An illustration of the uniquely high 'liberty' ethic in American Culture. American Culture is also more highly religious than Most other western areas, even in the 'blue state' areas, and probably throughout most of our history.

There are variations, but there are commonalities... just because the accent is different between London and Lake district doesn't mean there isn't an English language. And just because some Germans descended from Africa or some Chinese are Muslims doesn't mean there's no German or Chinese culture.

As for the US's power, the US currently controls more land and population than the Romans ever did. It approved the governments of Germany and Japan (in effect coronating their ruling constitutions) and has military bases on every inhabited continent. It is the site of the world capital, and among 5 countries that must approve every major UN action, and its military is the most powerful on earth. Its 'approval' was also required for most governments in the Third World that weren't 'approved' by the Soviets. Its approval was also required for the legitimate government of the largest nation on earth when it officially recognized the government in Bejing. And every time the Chinese government visits it want to make sure it still has US recognition as the government of all of China. The spread of Law based Democracy throughout the world started in America (yes the Greeks had it first but they didn't keep it going, and the British had plenty of the principles but had much more of a wierd democracy-monarchy mix when the US got going)

Rome at best was more powerful than all its neighbors, and may at times have been the most powerful on Earth at various points. However, I don't think they ever went more than 140 years without a serious rebel activity.
(America's current record)


Sorry if this is a bit jingoistic, but in a 'should X civ be included' thread that is a bit inevitable
 
Top Bottom