The 19 civs that should be in Civ 4

[mastertyguy]

Put in algonquines as the NA native civ, it would be a good change, and they prserve the NA french colonies about 150 years, even if france didn't care about QC

 

[Corvex]

The Algonquians, unlike the Iroquois, never really developed widespread agriculture, so they probably don't qualify.

 

[Uiler]

What about the Ansazi for N. America? Unlike the other native American suggestions they actually had cities and built the largest buildings in N. America until the arrival of Europeans and they practised intensive agriculture. Later Indians living in the area called them the "Ancient Ones" because they were in awe at the ruins.

 

[Portuguese]

yeah i agree with you about the territory that was "portuguese" even tho. most of the polulation of brazil was african Slaves, but you can't compare something that happened in the 1500 to something that happenedd in 1940's, If it wasn't for the help germany gave to portugal and Spain they wouldn't have join the european Union, Portugal vever fought a great war, lost india to the english , lost parts of indonesia to the dutch, portugals was inaved by the spaniards.Portugal nver fought 3 poweful nations at the same time. But i still love Portugal we are Europeans Now.We have to unite against America

For the fun of it, I'll answer this one
1) How would less than a million people work all the Brazilian territory. As indians were weak, yes we bring slaves. So?
2) Yes, I know. Thanks Germany for your help since I was born . Just hope now you'll help us control cheap clothes import from China for some years, while we upgrade our firms to produce high quality products.
3)Portugal thought many great wars. India, 1510's. With Dutch for Brazil (during their GA, and we won ). with some Indian and African kings, that we won just like the "famous" victory of Spanish over Aztecs.
4) We lost all of our empire till now. Haven't you also. At least we keep all the European territory we have in 1900, thing that you can't be proud of.
5) We beat them all the times! Since 1139! Can you say that about France and England? Besides, we conquer Madrid in the XVIII century, if the question is that. Have you ever conquered London?
6)Yes, we have a better diplomacy than you have. We fought one at each time. That's why we expelled a much greater foe like Napoleon.
Tip: That's why we never have to work that hard in history. 1st we were poor. Then since we conquered Ceuta (in 1415), we allways depend on foreign funds: Arab trade, African trade profits in center Europe, Indian Spices trade (price in europe was 80x the price of the same spice in India), Brazilian gold, African raw materials, EU funds,...
What have you earn with that good diplo? Defeats and harder times. So?
7) I hope that you still love Portugal. We are a very nice country, full of interesting places to visit under a great summer sun and well served of infraestructures (have I thanked you already? Thx )
Hope you have liked my honesty
8) Yes, let's teach this Americans a lesson. Well, time to play Command and Conquer-Generals: Zero Hour and to do that while earing arabic music. Ah, life is good

 

[Portuguese]

China's leader should be Lee Sai Mun (Cantonese) or Li Shimin as he is known in Mandarin. He was the ruler of China during the height of its power and influence which was during the Tang dynasty. They just put Mao in Civ because he's practically the only Chinese leader well known in the West. If it must be a modern leader, it should be Sun Yat-Sen who is revered by both the KMT and the Communists as the Father of Modern China (he was given the name of "Guo Fu" or "Father of the Country"). Sun Yat-Sen would make both the Taiwanese and Communists happy.

Israel is somewhat of a touchy subject. It would be much much much better to make it ancient Israel, which was called Judea wasn't it? So it make it the *Hebrew* civilisation rather than the Israeli civilisation. Even Islamic fundamentalists won't have a problem with that as the Torah is considered one of their holy books and the ancient Jewish prophets are considered as prophets in Islam as well. BTW was ancient Israel ever really one of the most powerful nations in the ME? It tended to get thrashed a lot by its neighbours in the Bible. The only time it ever seemed to be strong was during the time of David and Solomon. The only reason why it's even remembered as "great" today was because Christianity orginated from Judaism. But I think in their time they were nowhere near the dominant powers in their region. OTOH the Jewish diaspora have played many pivotal roles in European and ME history...

My votes for that 2: Quin and David (for "Hebrews")

 

[eaglefox]

Well here goes mine 19 civilizations and why they should be in Civ4.Please send comments(I left portugal out for my regret as well the mayas and aztecs)

17) India: has the second biggest population in the world, considered the gem in the British crownat the time, stopped the advance of alexander the great, also had a big role in both world war 1 and 2.leader should be Ghandii.

I would like to add to this that India is the home of three major world religions Hinduism, Buddhism (spread all over Asia), and Sikhism (a well known religion), and is also the home of Hindu practice of yoga (fast becoming the most popular way of exercise all over the world).

 

[Portuguese]

and it exists since the real older days. After all, we all speak Indo-european languages. India is in

 

[raen]

China
Japan
India
America
Aztecs
Brazil
Mongols
Vikings
Ottoman
Egypt
Zulus
Rome
Greece
France

since there are only 19 Im for some Unified Empires:

Soviet Union
Austro-German
United Kingdom
Iberian Empire (well ... )
Muslims/arabs

 

[Portuguese]

China
Japan
India
America
Aztecs
Brazil
Mongols
Vikings
Ottoman
Egypt
Zulus
Rome
Greece
France

since there are only 19 Im for some Unified Empires:

Soviet Union
Austro-German
United Kingdom
Iberian Empire (well ... )
Muslims/arabs

If written by an American, I'd start protesting a lot (a lot more than you are thinking right now). Written by a compatriot that is much more than outrageous and deserves no real comment.
Why shouldn't Portugal be in? Why do you mistake us with that... thing we have as neighbours? ...
Better to stop writing...

 

[Idylwyld]

1. Eqyptians
2. Mesopotamians
3. Hindus
4. Chinese
5. Maya
6. Aztecs
7. Hebrews
8. Cherokee
9. Greeks
10. Slavs
11. Celts
12. Tuetons
13. Mongols
14. Zulu
15. Persians
16. Arabs
17. Basque
18. Maori
19. Norse

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

 

[Portuguese]

1. Eqyptians
3. Hindus (India?)
4. Chinese
7. Hebrews (Israel?)
9. Greeks
12. Teutons (~Germans?)
13. Mongols (Mongolia)
15. Persians (Iran)
17. Basque (not independent yet, but...)


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

If that makes so much difference, may I propose the Lusitanian?

 

[mastertyguy]

1 Quebec
2 Quebec
3 Quebec
4 Quebec
5 Quebec
6 Quebec
7 Quebec
8 Quebec
9 Quebec
10 Quebec
11 Quebec
12 Quebec
13 Quebec
14 Quebec
15 Quebec
16 Quebec
17 Quebec
18 Quebec
19 a spot for Egypt, Rome, Greece or anything

 

[Idylwyld]

@Portuguese: Some of the cultural units I have mentioned have been successful enough to maintain, and be identified with, particular countries. But by adding nation-states to the Civ list you lock in a certain amount of historical inertia and force a certain expectation of outcomes. Hell having America in the game isn't a good idea.

 

[Portuguese]

Agreed, but the game must have it for other reasons, and we all know America is in...
European Civilizations are today live or at least identified with some nation: that's not that bad, it is just a sign we endured for about a 1000 years...
Teutons are germans, Franks are French, Lusitanian are Portuguese,...

Some disappeared (Prussia or Sueves), some lost independence (Basques,...), but the majority lives till today.

In the middle east and Africa, we (europeans) changed the reality quite considerably, and todays nations are of course weak, but that is again just a good sign for the ones that survived.

Point is: Why should we prejudice China, England or Portugal just because we endured since the older days? Shouldn't a nation based in a civ with that age (Portugal is the younger in that group, with only 865 years) be in?
Should Basque be in because it failed to accomplish that objective?
Why add Mayans or Minoans or Phoenicians if we have civs who have survived the TEST OF TIME, to use a expression from original Civ? Haven't we succeed preciselly on that point?

PS: Besides, what civ is "Mesopotamians", "Slavs" or "Norse"?
PS2: Before you insult me, I know the words, but I just don't know to whom they are referring...

 

[CurtSibling]

1) Rome - Caesar
2) Greece - Alexander
3) China - King Wu
4) Russia - Stalin
5) Germany - Bismarck
6) England - Elizabeth
7) Egypt - Cleopatra
8) Spain - Phillip
9) Zulu - Shaka
10) America - Lincoln
11) Sioux - Sitting Bull
12) Aztec - Montezuma
13) France - Napoleon
14) Celts - Cunobelin
15) Vikings - Knut
16) India - Vikramaditya
17) Carthage - Hannibal
18) Japan - Ameratsu
19) Babylon - Hammurabi

I reckon the game needs more civ slots!

 

[Funky2882]

Agreed, but the game must have it for other reasons, and we all know America is in...
European Civilizations are today live or at least identified with some nation: that's not that bad, it is just a sign we endured for about a 1000 years...
Teutons are germans, Franks are French, Lusitanian are Portuguese,...

Some disappeared (Prussia or Sueves), some lost independence (Basques,...), but the majority lives till today.

In the middle east and Africa, we (europeans) changed the reality quite considerably, and todays nations are of course weak, but that is again just a good sign for the ones that survived.

Point is: Why should we prejudice China, England or Portugal just because we endured since the older days? Shouldn't a nation based in a civ with that age (Portugal is the younger in that group, with only 865 years) be in?
Should Basque be in because it failed to accomplish that objective?
Why add Mayans or Minoans or Phoenicians if we have civs who have survived the TEST OF TIME, to use a expression from original Civ? Haven't we succeed preciselly on that point?

PS: Besides, what civ is "Mesopotamians", "Slavs" or "Norse"?
PS2: Before you insult me, I know the words, but I just don't know to whom they are referring...

The reason that the civs are put into the game is not based on the time they've lasted at all. Look at the mongols. Their civilization lasted only around 180-200 years i believe. It's what a civilization accomplishes and contributes to the world that earn it into civ.

 

[raen]

If written by an American, I'd start protesting a lot (a lot more than you are thinking right now). Written by a compatriot that is much more than outrageous and deserves no real comment.
Why shouldn't Portugal be in? Why do you mistake us with that... thing we have as neighbours? ...
Better to stop writing...

Because there are only 19 civs, "if you cant win them join them" lol

but I dont confuse them

 

[Nate128]

Why does everyone have Alexander for Greece, when ALexander was a Macedonian? Maybe Agammemnon (sorry aboot the spelling) would be a better choice.

 

[SG-1]

I belive there should be many civs in CIV. That is bcouse i belive settlers should not be part of CIV.You should only be able to build colonies (whitch may evolve to city) or capture other civs. Therefore I belive that many civs should be in CIV. cya

 

[mastertyguy]

Why does everyone have Alexander for Greece, when ALexander was a Macedonian? Maybe Agammemnon (sorry aboot the spelling) would be a better choice.

Maybe, but it is like those who want different china civ for dinaties. Is it necessery?