The least deserving civilization?

[Crowqueen]

I don't really have any problem with sumeria or babylon but aren't they redundant? I mean its the same people in the same place, just evolved. Sure They are two different periods of consolidation a thousand years apart but its really the rise and fall of the same people.

Speaking of nations that didn't make the cut for some odd reason what about Some sort of post-Roman italian representation or what about Austria for God's sake. The Holy Roman Empire is in there cause you can't possibly ignore its importance in European history and sure Austria, Germany and HRE histories are completely intertwined but Austria was a major power from the early middle ages until the end of world war I and it played a big role in WWII as well.

Anyway I voted for the Native Americans since technically they are the only non-civilization on this list. Sure its not pc but it is what it is.

Babylonia could be seen as a successor state to the Sumer. The Epic of Gilgamesh is extant in both Sumer and Babylonian languages, and most of the towns in the list of city names are interchangeable - since playing Civ I tend to giggle when I listen to the Old Testament reading in Church and it is full of references to Babylonian towns mentioned in the Sumer XML list. And the Easter Egg is, if Gilgamesh makes colonies, he puts Hammurabi in control of them. But I think both were separate enough to be distinct epochs, and actually the Sumer language was as different from Babylonian as Chinese is from English, so I think they are both good to go.

Wiki entries for the two states:
Sumer
Babylonia

It would, I think, be like having both Persia and Iran in the game, or, indeed, having Native Americans and Americans proper in the game. I think it is perfectly plausible to have Native America in the game but like with the Mesoamerican tribes featured there should have been several different "Amerind" tribes there, not just one generic one. Previous games in the series have chiefly featured the Iroquois and the Sioux, so that should be a starting point. But nevertheless as it stands I'm fine with it.

As for my answer to the poll, it is a non-answer. I enjoy playing every different Civ and would like more (I am trying to find a decent mod that has plenty more civs to play, and am at the point of downloading a few to try and see whether my program will accept them like it has accepted the map-scripts I've taken off the forums).

 

[sidmeierfan121]

native america. they didn't realy make a civilization

 

[CoZe]

will anyone mention korea ?

 

[jameson]

I would have voted for Rome. After all, what have the Romans ever done for us ?

 

[Jabarto]

I'm all for more Native civs myself. A pro/org Pontiac would make my freaking day

A pro/org *anyone* would make your feaking day.

It'd make mine too, though.

the Celtics seem to be a bunch of barbarians, their UU says it all. Mongols deserve to be in civ. They ruled one dynasty of China and invented tons of stuff during that period

I don't know why you're citing inventions as a reason to exclude the Celts. They independently developed soap, barrels, and were probably the best iron workers in the western Mediterranean during their height.

 

[Balderstrom]

I'd like to see the Gauls, AND the Celts

 

[DroopyTofu]

NATIVE AMERICAN I think that instead of "Native American" they should have Iriqouis, Soiux, and, I forget the name, the ones that lived in present Arizona, I think the Peblos or something.

MONGOLS haven't they been their since Civ I?

In general, I think the more civs the better, deserving or not!!

 

[NintendoTogepi]

will anyone mention korea ?

I like Korea. In real life and in Civ.

 

[Duuk]

The Native Americans had all sorts of techs going for them. Clothing, Pottery, Weaponry, Religion, Their own Language, Horseback Riding, Shrooms, Peace Pipe, etc.. to name a few. If you are going to take out the Native Americans then you are going to have to eliminate the corn resource from the game as well. The Natives need more leaders, rather than just the Sioux tribe being represented.

In Civ4 terms, they had hunting, archery, mysticism. Some of the tribes had pottery. That's about it.

 

[CoZe]

well, I like koreans too but the only reason they're in the game is the gaming market in korea.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I want to make it clear that I wouldn't mind, for example, the Iroquois or the Pueblos. But to simply include "Native Americans" seems silly to me.

 

[Da_V_Man]

In Civ4 terms, they had hunting, archery, mysticism. Some of the tribes had pottery. That's about it.

No. In Civ4 terms they were just technologically behind the Europeans. But they were healthier.

 

[AfterShafter]

A pro/org *anyone* would make your feaking day.

It'd make mine too, though.

You're on to me. They could make Thomas Forsaith of New Zealand Pro/Org and I'd harp his greatness until Civ V came out

 

[King Kalmah]

Byzantines

well I just don't like them cause

1. they are Technically Eastern Roman Empire?(Romans represent them)

2.They founded their country on the same land as Turkey/Ottomons so if you have a game with Ottomons and Byzantines it can be kinda weird,,,,,

It'd be just like if you were playing with both Sumeria and Babylon....

but I have some respect Byzantines cause they did defend their capitol for what,....200 years...it took that long to take them out I belive....

the Byzantines are more deserving then the HRE,but I think the majority of the natives Aztecs Native Americas,Inca have more going for them....

Aztecs had a Religous system that many other tribes belived in....IE sun god

Incans had built many marvels that still stand today,but its mostly arcitextural and not anything like "Wonders".,but Machu Pichu is awesome sight to see...

 

[CoZe]

2.They founded their country on the same land as Turkey/Ottomons so if you have a game with Ottomons and Byzantines it can be kinda weird,,,,,

same can be said for nat. americans/americans, france/germany/HRE ... etc.

 

[onedreamer]

What I find interesting, is that the History of the Holy Roman Empire is way longer and more important than the German one. A lot of people voted America, even outside the poll... well, Germany isn't much different. Yet, 40 votes for HRE and 0 for Germany. Makes a lot of sense, heh...

 

[onedreamer]

Byzantines

well I just don't like them cause

1. they are Technically Eastern Roman Empire?(Romans represent them)

no, Romans don't represent them and the Roman Empire and the Byzantine one existed in two different ERAS.

2.They founded their country on the same land as Turkey/Ottomons so if you have a game with Ottomons and Byzantines it can be kinda weird,,,,,

ROFLMAO... check it out, it's the other way around. Actually no, not even, this is just plainly incorrect.

the Byzantines are more deserving then the HRE,but I think the majority of the natives Aztecs Native Americas,Inca have more going for them....

Aztecs had a Religous system that many other tribes belived in....IE sun god

O_O
great achievement

Incans had built many marvels that still stand today,but its mostly arcitextural and not anything like "Wonders".,but Machu Pichu is awesome sight to see...

Yeah, and Constantinople is a border village, right ?

 

[Napalm102]

Native Americans - mainly because no such SINGLE civilization ever existed.

My second choice would have been America, but the OP is an enemy of free speach and freedom of expression and didn't include it in the poll j/k US is a special case, practically no history by world standards (WARNING that was personal opinion), but obviously it is having a great impact on the world today.

 

[frekk]

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.

No, only about 50 years - not until after WW2, London was still the finance capital of the world. Truthfully, the US wasn't really the most influential country in the world until the Suez Crisis. And in the grand scale of history, 50 years, or even 80, that's just a blip.

Still the US is deserving of a spot because it was a continental power for a few centuries before it was a world power. It was easily the dominant power in North America from its inception as an independant nation, so its had over 200 years as a regionally dominant culture.

My general criteria for what civs are deserving is whether or not they represented an important regional power or dominant power in a milieu for at least a century or two. In this context, Mali, Khmer, the USA, the Aztecs, and most of the other civs in the game are fully deserving. I'd single out Portugal and the Netherlands as the most undeserving since they were overshadowed by contemporaries in their region ... eg Spain, France, England.

In Civ4 terms, they had hunting, archery, mysticism. Some of the tribes had pottery. That's about it.

They were agricultural (who do you think taught settlers to plant corn and squash and pumpkin?), had cities like Cahokia - some even stonebuilt (eg Pueblo Bonito, etc), and even a fairly sophisticated, semi-democratic type of representative government in some cases (eg the Iroqouis Confederacy). Basically they were technologically comparable to very early Egypt or Sumeria, at least in some regions.

 

[Stoney the I]

Originally Posted by AfterShafter
Seems like America would have had a good number of votes if you'd put it in there, so I'd say your judgement was a bit off

originally posted by NintendoTogepi

You're right.

I'm shocked personally

could have something to do with the fact yr an american
offcourc yr a bit biassed (if thats how you spell it)
I would be to towards netherlands. I thinks thats healthy, not a bad thing.

Next time just include all options, it doesnt make much sence to me to make a poll and just include the options you think are right.