The 19 civs that should be in Civ 4

[gealai]

German Soldier, I think your choices of civilizations are too Eurocentric.

At any cost, I think the Civilizations should be generic ones for example: Celts, Germans, Greeks, Chinese, Arabs, Turks. The Germans would become English later on via the Anglo-Saxons. I have always hated the Americans in Civ not because I am anti-American but because the Americans have (so far) lasted only just over two centuries. The Celts lasted as an independent people for 2000 years. I am being deliberately provocative here, but if I had my way I would make civilization operate somewhat differently- Instead of having one tribe of Germans, I would have numerous tribes (i.e the Angles, Goths etc.) in the game all near each other, your first goal would be to get them (the other tribes) to join you either by diplomacy of force. Depending on which tribe you play, you later become the English or Germans or whatever. It would make for intersting play I think.

 

[Chinese American]

a tribe does not a civilization make. hence the goody huts and barbarians.

for that matter, i don't think native american tribes like Iroquios should be considered, either. Mayan and Incans are ok since they built civilizations with temples and stuff.

civilization is "a society in an advanced state of social development". one could argue that america is among the most advanced civ yet. yes they haven't been around that long, but it's arguable that they have made more contributions to civilization than some of those 2000 year tribes.

 

[gealai]

Chinese American, Don't forget that when you start civ you are little better than a tribe- with but one settler unit (and a worker in civ 3). The goal is to become a civilization; that's the end result. To begin with though any culture with knowledge of agriculture could be included as a (proto) civilization.

 

[narmox]

It doesn't really matter, does it, unless you're playing a "historically correct Earth" scenario I suppose...

 

[dh_epic]

It's true that the north american natives are the fuzziest question when it comes to civilization. Really, civilization is defined by anybody with a settlement. But I tend to err on the side of flexibility -- gealai raises a good point.

 

[dc82]

some of the native american tribes were fairly complex and advanced compared to their neighbors. what would be nice would be to install the minor tribe idea so many people have suggested already - i never liked the idea of putting "barbarians" or "huts" to symbolize a people. perhaps by combing the two, u can have these "cities" or small settlements (perhaps even w/ a small culture border), but capped in terms of pop./culture growth - maybe at most a size 1 culture, pop. of 3 or 4, producing small units every so often. when u enter these cities, perhaps dependent on some factors, or maybe randomized, the settlement can either join ur culture, disband as settlers, become violent, etc. and like the goody huts in civ3, perhaps they can be region-specific - so that a when an asian civ hits it, it'll come up w/ an asian minor tribe and so forth.

 

[dh_epic]

I definitely agree that minor civs would be a great way to keep the world map populated with people who never necessarily became a superpower, let alone a regional power. This would be especially valuable for scenarios.

 

[bkwrm79]

Some Civ II scenarios included a lot of Barbarian cities, to enable historically accurate expansion through conquest. This should definitely be an option in Civ IV - and better yet, 'neutral cities' could be separate from 'Barbarians.' Especially if Barbs are or include animals.

 

[dc82]

that's my point though... like in colonization scenarios, the native americans were often reduced to "barbarians" merely to be an obstacle to growth, when in reality they varied in roles, from offering trade (another option of a minor tribe settlement maybe is to turn into a colony), sometimes fighting w/ the european colonizers, sometimes joining them (being a scout), other times allying w/ other nations in hopes of defending their land. the truth is, most "barbarians" esp. the famous ones were in fact, other civ's that were just seeing as outsiders, whether they be the huns, mongols, turks, etc. very rarely were they just random roving bands of people - and when they were, they hardly would go for a city, they mite be more interesting in ambushing caravans or cargo ships or pillaging smaller settlements.

 

[oldStatesman]

that's my point though... like in colonization scenarios, the native americans were often reduced to "barbarians" merely to be an obstacle to growth, when in reality they varied in roles, from offering trade (another option of a minor tribe settlement maybe is to turn into a colony), sometimes fighting w/ the european colonizers, sometimes joining them (being a scout), other times allying w/ other nations in hopes of defending their land. the truth is, most "barbarians" esp. the famous ones were in fact, other civ's that were just seeing as outsiders, whether they be the huns, mongols, turks, etc. very rarely were they just random roving bands of people - and when they were, they hardly would go for a city, they mite be more interesting in ambushing caravans or cargo ships or pillaging smaller settlements.

The Chinese culture saw Westerners as barbarians...

 

[dh_epic]

Imagine a scenario that takes place from 500 to 1000 AD where Europe is totally unpopulated because they're "just a bunch of barbarians". If you did that with South America and Africa, people wouldn't think too much about it. But doing it with Europe, people would be up in arms. Such is human nature.

 

[Komoda]

1. Olmec (meso-america)
2. Xi (china)
3. Myceneans (turkey)
4. Hittites (assyria)
5. Ethiopians (eastern africa)
6. Ashante (western africa)
7. Nubians (central africa)
8. Gauls (central europe)
9. Saxons (british isles)
10. Fauklun (eastern europe)
11. Rroma (western russia)
12. Kampucheans (cambodia)
13. Egyptians (egypt)
14. Enochians
15. Magewissa (central n.america)
16. Inus (arctic)
17. Anasazi (sw.n.america)
18. Mohawk (ne.n.america)
19. Aborigines (australia)

Personally, the 19 civs should be the more ancient of the ancient tribes. Like in RoN:Gold, perhaps alternative civs should be given, depending on where in the timeline a player wishes to begin the game.
Many of the ancient tribes are either extinct, became part of another tribe, or managed to survive the passage of time and become distinct civs. Many of the civs in the current civIII, are modern nationalities and really have no place at the beginning of the game. Why I think, the player should be given the option to name their own civ, much like you could in civII.

 

[deo]

Reading, reading, reading... i think we must change the name of this game...

Here are my Civs through (if this game is still called Civilization IV) :

1. England
2. Germany
3. France
4. Spain
5. Russia
6. Grecce
7. Rome
(Man you can't deny it, Europe is Europe)

8. Egypt
9. Carthagre
(Ethiopia?!?!?!? what the...)

10. China
11. Nippon
12. Ottomans ( Not ottoman Empire, if so than why not German Empire)
13. India
14. Persia
15. Arabia
(Perhaps Babylon but nah i don't think so!)

16. Aztecks
17. Mayans
18. Incas
(Iroquis!? lol)

19. Celts - Vikings - Assyria - America - Mongolia - ...

Just Some coments:

Aboriginies!? do we need to have a reprezentative for every continent? Inus? Ansazi? Mohawk? Enochians? Magewissa? Why do we need civs 90% of the world don't know they existed?

About Civs like Netherlands and Portugal: They have a rich history but still they just too small or simply a part of another bigger civ. There are plenty of civs that deserve more to be in in civIV than Portugal or Netherlands.

 

[dc82]

calm down... i think when people say ethiopa, they're refering to the famed ancient kingdom known as ethiopia (altho many believe that it was much closer to egypt than present-day ethiopia) - references of ethiopia were made from the ancient greeks to egyptians, and can even be found in the Bible - from the Queen of Sheba to the eunuchs.

nippon is essentially japan - nihon, nippon, japan - all the same - depends on the translation. but the babylonians were def. a very big and influential civ in the middle east - not only did it affected the judaism (and thus christianity and islam), but they're also recognized for establishing a code of laws. many beliefs and mythologies from the babylonians also spreaded and impacted the people around.

the iroquois were large group, spread throughout new york and parts of canada (ontario, quebec, etc.). they're most noted for their confederacy, a network between different tribes and regions that helped established control over the area. in fact, they're credited to have influenced the american constitution w/ their democratic ideas aond concepts.

 

[dh_epic]

I still don't know why people think "Civilization" automatically means "Ancient Civilization".

And I still don't know why people who know nothing about Africa use ignorance as their reason for mocking it. "I've never heard of these African peoples! I haven't heard of one of their accomplishments! Who cares about those savages running around eating each other?!"

 

[mastertyguy]

I still don't know why people think "Civilization" automatically means "Ancient Civilization".

I agree, every body seems to see all ancient civ sure and newer ones excluded. America is in too, because they produce this freeking game, and Israel won't be in. They were not in civ3 and civ2, and probably not in civ1, but I don't know about it. Why would they all of a sudden appear in civ4? Makes no sense.

 

[Reei]

Ormuz, Madrid in 1750's, Brazil (to natives and then to Netherlands, in it's GA), defended from Napoleon grasp, contributed to WWI La Lys battle...

Excuse me, PORTUGUESE, with all my respect, Im spanish and I really love the history (thats why I love Civilization ^^), so Im very.... surprised with that that you say 0_0

In 1750 was goberning in Spain Ferdinand VI and by the treaty of Permuta, Spain surrender seven villages at the east of the river Uruguay to Portugal in exchange for the colony of Sacramento. Maybe you get confused with the village of MADRID, at COLOMBIA. But you say that portuguese people conquered Madrid, the capital of spain in 1750??¡ That absolut crazy ¡

 

[Chazbagel]

Never did anything outside their own country.

Japan is probably the biggest influence USA's economy today, other than oil maybe..

WW2... Japan was outside of the island... took over alot of little islands, alot of china, alot of asia.

But no they never did ANYTHING outside their own country..

 

[Chazbagel]

Note these are civilizations not countries. If you want countries I'll give you another list.

I thought i would bring up the definition for Civilization... for everyone...


An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

USA.... hmm they have all that.... As does Germany, France, Japan, Inca, Maya, Zulu, Ethiopia, Rome, Greece, Dutch, Portugese, Russians, Austrians, Scandinavians, Mongols, Chinese, Isrealites, Carthage, Spain, and any other NATION in the world. they are ALL civilizations, so anyone's opinion, is just that... an opinion, there is no right or wrong answer.. You cant say that USA isnt a civilization, because it is.

Definition people have made:

Ancient people who were more advanced than other ancient people.

......

 

[Funky2882]

Japan is probably the biggest influence USA's economy today, other than oil maybe..

WW2... Japan was outside of the island... took over alot of little islands, alot of china, alot of asia.

But no they never did ANYTHING outside their own country..

Yes they are a major exporter. But my statement was based on japans history. Because they spent most of it fighting themselves. And i beleive i aknowledged world war 2. But they really haven't done much out side of their islands until the 1800's and even then they were far behind the united states technilogicly. We were selling them stuff. So aside from ww2 they've defended themselves against the mongols and that's pretty much it. Again that is aside from the relatively recent history of them coming out of their shell and trading with other countries.