seasnake
Conquistador
Just have to say it one more time: Civ is about historical fantasy, not realism. We are basically saying "What if the Americans, Incas, Mongolians and Romans all had their heyday at the same time?" It's okay to reinvent history.
Civ is a game where Shaka founds Daoism, Napoleon and Churchill enter mutual protection pacts and Ghengis Khan swears vengeance on Abraham Lincoln (oh, and Montezuma hates you. and it's personal).
Soo....
I don't think we have to determine the "greatest" empires or powers in the world to determine who should be in. I think the Firaxis people look at different cultures in world history, look at some of things they did and didn't do, and call it a day. They aren't debating whether Brazil built/conquered better than Poland. They just look at everything and make a decision.
Personally, I want Ethiopia, Siam and Polynesia in to round things out. But if the Hittites, Brazillians, Polish, Israelis, or Scottish showed up (UB: Freemason lodges. Replaces courthouse, +3 Great Merchant) It will be awesome to say Robert the Bruce has declared war on Mansa Musa! Even if it could never happen. Even if the Scottish legacy is Braveheart and Haggis (yes it's more than that, but even if they had no real "civ-worthy" attributes).
It's fun to guess and reason out what civ will make the final cut. But please, let's not let national pride lead us to bagging on another candidate. I did this once with Poland and I was a) innaccurate (I don't know much about Poland but thought I did, and was wrong) and b) pretty much a jerk (as several Poland supporters were kind enough to point out).
Civ is a game where Shaka founds Daoism, Napoleon and Churchill enter mutual protection pacts and Ghengis Khan swears vengeance on Abraham Lincoln (oh, and Montezuma hates you. and it's personal).
Soo....
I don't think we have to determine the "greatest" empires or powers in the world to determine who should be in. I think the Firaxis people look at different cultures in world history, look at some of things they did and didn't do, and call it a day. They aren't debating whether Brazil built/conquered better than Poland. They just look at everything and make a decision.
Personally, I want Ethiopia, Siam and Polynesia in to round things out. But if the Hittites, Brazillians, Polish, Israelis, or Scottish showed up (UB: Freemason lodges. Replaces courthouse, +3 Great Merchant) It will be awesome to say Robert the Bruce has declared war on Mansa Musa! Even if it could never happen. Even if the Scottish legacy is Braveheart and Haggis (yes it's more than that, but even if they had no real "civ-worthy" attributes).
It's fun to guess and reason out what civ will make the final cut. But please, let's not let national pride lead us to bagging on another candidate. I did this once with Poland and I was a) innaccurate (I don't know much about Poland but thought I did, and was wrong) and b) pretty much a jerk (as several Poland supporters were kind enough to point out).