The least deserving civilization?

Which is the least deserving civilization?


  • Total voters
    285
Status
Not open for further replies.

NintendoTogepi

Noble Pacifist
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
915
Location
Erie County, New York
I think it's probably Mali. What did they ever do? Second least would be maybe the Khmer?

I left off the following for obvious reasons:

Rome
Greece
Egypt
England
France
Russia
America
India
Mongolia
China

So what do you think is the least deserving Civilization to be in Civ 4 (including Warlords and BTS Civs)? You can pick multiple if you like.
 
I voted 'I think every Civilization deserves to be in the game'.

Not only that, but even more civs would be fine by me.
 
I left off the following for obvious reasons:

Rome
Greece
Egypt
England
France
Russia
America
India
Mongolia
China

I would have voted for America, putting America not on the list is stupid, also putting Germany on the list is also stupid.


the least deserving i think are trade civs like portugal and netherlands, their peoples did nothing but were living at the junction of trade routes, thus became rich.

They survived between Major Powers, and became a great power itself.
 
the least deserving i think are trade civs like portugal and netherlands, their peoples did nothing but were living at the junction of trade routes, thus became rich.

Then again, Portugese explorers were the first to get to india, and colonized brazil.

The Netherlands didn't do THAT much, but were an awesome people who had a bit of an overseas empire for a while. New York used to be called New Amsterdam.

I'm not too familiar with the Mali, but there needed to be some more Africa representation.

You could get rid of either Sumeria or Babylon and I don't think anyone would notice though.
 
I would have voted for America, putting America not on the list is stupid, also putting Germany on the list is also stupid.

America = most powerful and most influential country in the world for about 80 years now, plus a lot of other things. It is very deserving.

And I didn't want to put Germany on, but I had to.
 
Then again, Portugese explorers were the first to get to india, and colonized brazil.

The Netherlands didn't do THAT much, but were an awesome people who had a bit of an overseas empire for a while. New York used to be called New Amsterdam.

You could get rid of either Sumeria or Babylon and I don't think anyone would notice though.

sumeria is the first known empire ever, it is not as popular as say egypt but i think it deserves to be in the game much more than any onter civ. babylonians - ok they were not so great as rome or greece, but they were not worse than potrtuguese or netherlands. personally i'd like to see assyria instead of babylon.
 
Hrm.. Just curious, how did you choose which civilizations to leave off of this list? You included some of the quite major ones like Spain and Persia, but left off ones like The United States and France? And about America... 80 years is a flash in the pan in historical (see: Civ) terms, and there is evidence suggesting that it's already on the way out after less than a century of being on top. I think there is a strong argument that a country like Spain has much more right to be in Civ than the US - barring the "it's made in the US" factor.

I agree, the reasons you left what you did off the list are obvious... But for similarly obvious reasons, some of the ones you put on there are a bit backwards.

On that note, Zululand and Holy Rome get my votes... Both Civs I love to play.
 
To be honest, I left off the 10 I thought the least people would vote for/the ones that obviously deserve being in.

The poll only allows 25 options, if it allowed 35 I would have put every Civ on it. :)

The reason I put Spain/Arabia/Persia/etc in is because I wanted to people to have as many options as possible.
 
America: not around for long enough, neither an empire nor a Civilisation
Babylon: Just another incarnation of Sumeria. Sumeria should be renamed 'Mesopotamia'.
Kymer: Small, unimportant. I would have an Eastern European country over them anyday.
Netherlands: A colonial power, yes, but not to the same extent as France, Britain, Spain or Portugal.
Holy Rome: Same reason as Babylon, its just another part of the German civilisation.

I don't think much of the Ottomans being included either. Sure, they were big, very cultured and very powerful. But I would rather have a Turk civilisation to cover all of the history of the Turks, including their origins in Mongolia/Central Asia.
 
I said Vikings, with Germany a close second. The Vikings should just be Scandanavia or Sweden led by Gustavus Adolphus. Germany should be Prussia, both leaders are Prussian. Edit: HRE should be Austria/Hungary which is more deserving than Germany.
 
You're right.

I'm shocked personally :crazyeye:

I'm not really. I think it's *far* from the least deserving Civ, but is is also a good ways from the top and gets way more real world "press" than any other Civ in the game. As a result, people tend to overexaggerate its position, either good or bad. I can guarantee you there some people in here put it in the top 2 or 3 deserving Civs in the game - counterparts to those who put it at the very bottom of the totem pole.
 
I said Vikings, with Germany a close second. The Vikings should just be Scandanavia or Sweden led by Gustavus Adolphus. Germany should be Prussia, both leaders are Prussian. Edit: HRE should be Austria/Hungary which is more deserving than Germany.

Make Germany Prussia? Oye, that would piss the Bavarians off something fierce. Also, though the Prussians were responsible for the unification of Germany, they are FAR from the sole driving cultural force in Germany, and only a part of what makes what is Germany great. Heck, it's arguable that they aren't even the primary cultural force in Germany - there's a reason why they were described as ""Prussia was not a country with an army, but an army with a country." Calling Germany Prussia would be like calling the US Texas - or at least, similar, if not to the same degree.
 
Make Germany Prussia? Oye, that would piss the Bavarians off something fierce. Also, though the Prussians were responsible for the unification of Germany, they are FAR from the sole driving cultural force in Germany, and only a part of what makes what is Germany great. Heck, it's arguable that they aren't even the primary cultural force in Germany. Calling Germany Prussia would be like calling the US Texas - or at least, similar, if not to the same degree.

Throughout the ages, germany was terribly fragmented. Only unified in the 19 century and then split up again shortly thereafter. It probably has less time in being than the USA. Some German states were important, others not so much. Of them all, Prussia under Frederick is more deserving to be included. He was more important and influencial on the european political scene.
 
My vote would have been for the Mongols, not because I have anything against them (they did conquer the largest land empire ever) but they simply weren't civilized (aka a city based society)

The Americans are certainly a new player on the world scene. To say they have been the most influential country in the world for the last 80 years is quite an overstatement. It ignores the power of the Soviet Union through the middle of the last century (or Germany for that matter, what's more influential than starting a world war?) It also ignores the place of the China and India with relation to the human population. Both countries currently contain approximately 1/5th of all humanity. What they may lack in external influence they make up with internal.
 
Throughout the ages, germany was terribly fragmented. Only unified in the 19 century and then split up again shortly thereafter. It probably has less time in being than the USA. Some German states were important, others not so much. Of them all, Prussia under Frederick is more deserving to be included. He was more important and influencial on the european political scene.

Oh, that I know. But, there is a bit of a distinction between the USA and Germany in this context. Germanic peoples have existed for well over a thousand years, and were a recognized type for a very, very long time. They were only unified into a nation quite recently, but they existed as different countries of a common ethnic background for a long time.

The US, by contrast, started as a British colony and became a country. Prior to that colony, and then that country existing, there was no American people in the sense that we think of Yanks today.

Germany represents all of those German peoples. Prussia just represents the Prussians, and in doing so, leaves out a big, and very influential, portion of Europe. I look at the inclusion of Germany as opposed to Prussia or Bavaria as a nod to the "civilization" of the German ethnic group, and not to a single political unity - and Germany is the obvious catchall to include those peoples.

Also, this isn't without precedent in Civ. Greece wasn't even close to unified at the times of its leaders, nor was India, among many others. They were put in as contemporary political units with the idea in mind, I think, to give a nod to the Greeks or Indians as an ethnic group, not as a unified political whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom