The worlds two largest EVER empires not in game??

[Nutteria]

I don`t know why is this dispute even going still when many many people due to their ignorance (Sid and his crew as well !!!) can not see that some empires that exist untill todays present were never included in any of the games EVER.

I allways wander if the lore developer just googled "top 10 recognised civs" and said Yep that is the list we`re using.

To not be blatant in my post I`d add a few present day countries that a must have yet never were implemented not even by a mod - Bulgaria and Austria.

 

[carm3]

I understand the point that you and previous posters are making that in many respects Britain can be viewed as a continuation of England. (As I said earlier, Civ4 was much worse because of having Victoria and Churchill as leaders; I can't have been the only one to cringe at seeing Queen Victoria of the English Empire.) Personally, I don't really mind whether they choose England or Britain, it would just be nice if there was a bit more consistency. For example, if Britain was the civilization, with Victoria as leader, Sun Never Sets as unique trait, and Ship of the Line and Redcoats as the unique units, it would be unambiguously Britain. As it stands (like in Civ4) it seems to be an amalgamation of England and Britain. Now I appreciate that to you and many others that isn't a problem (if you view Britain as being a continuation of England) but other people would like consistency. In particular, I'm sure that some Scottish and Welsh people would want to know why England gets the credit for British achievements.

(I really can't believe this thread is still going. It has just been the same arguments, going round in circles, with a good amount of trolling thrown in.)

There's no doubt that it's an amalgamation, which is the only reasonable way to represent this nation without excising one or another (pre-British or post-British) giant chunk of history. I don't think that it's unproblematic, but just that this solution is significantly less problematic than the alternatives (cutting out out medieval and renaissance England; cutting out modern England; attempting the futile task of trying to untangle English and British achievements from the past three centuries; etc.)

And just for the record, I'm not in any way trying to belittle the Scottish - I'm a Canadian of proudly Scottish descent living in England. I just think that the way that this has been handled in the game is as good a compromise - because it obviously is a compromise - as there can be between history and gameplay.

 

[Lawrie]

I think personally its a poor compromise really if Scottish cities are under the English civ. England is England - Scotland is Scotlland.

It wouldn't be an issue if Scottish city names weren't in the English civ - its that simple. But there is a Scottish city state, and i think that works just fine imo.

 

[MAHRana]

Mongolia and Spain are most probably going to arrive as a DLC. I would also like the return of the Byzantines, the Incans and the Mayans, as well as some others.

By the way, isn't it funny the way Ramkhamhaeng speaks?

 

[carm3]

I think personally its a poor compromise really if Scottish cities are under the English civ. England is England - Scotland is Scotlland.

It wouldn't be an issue if Scottish city names weren't in the English civ - its that simple. But there is a Scottish city state, and i think that works just fine imo.

Fair enough, I completely agree on that point. Just out of curiosity, which Scottish cities are represented by England? I haven't noticed any.

[n.b.: No sarcasm is intended in that question, I am genuinely curious]

 

[civcymru]

We can solve the English/British empire thing so easily by adding all the countries the British Empire ruled at one point so we need to add the following :-

Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; USA; Vanuatu; Zambia. oh and not forgetting Ireland, Scotland and Wales....

See problem solved ... how easy was that

 

[Maniacal]

Mongolia and Spain are most probably going to arrive as a DLC. I would also like the return of the Byzantines, the Incans and the Mayans, as well as some others.

I'd like the Eastern Roman Empire, not the Byzantines. The ERE wasn't called the Byzantines until around 100 years after its collapse.

 

[Depravo]

The respective intelligence levels of the Scots and English are clear for all to see in this thread.

It's really no wonder they failed to conquer us even with 10x greater numbers.

I expect you also believe the Picts defeated the Romans simply because Scotland failed their cost-benefit analysis. In an age when England and France were locked in mortal struggle - France being overwhelmingly the richest and most powerful state in western Europe - Scotland just wasn't a priority. Christ, they threw everything they had against a rearguard and got wiped out at Flodden.

In any case, you conquered yourselves. The kings of Scotland tied themselves in knots to emulate Anglo-Normandy and expunged Celtic influence outside the Highlands without English encouragement or interference.

 

[craig123]

There's no doubt that it's an amalgamation, which is the only reasonable way to represent this nation without excising one or another (pre-British or post-British) giant chunk of history. I don't think that it's unproblematic, but just that this solution is significantly less problematic than the alternatives (cutting out out medieval and renaissance England; cutting out modern England; attempting the futile task of trying to untangle English and British achievements from the past three centuries; etc.)

And just for the record, I'm not in any way trying to belittle the Scottish - I'm a Canadian of proudly Scottish descent living in England. I just think that the way that this has been handled in the game is as good a compromise - because it obviously is a compromise - as there can be between history and gameplay.

I understand your point - maybe Firaxis just thought it was the best compromise. Perhaps they could have done it better.

Fair enough, I completely agree on that point. Just out of curiosity, which Scottish cities are represented by England? I haven't noticed any.

[n.b.: No sarcasm is intended in that question, I am genuinely curious]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain that all English cities (in the game) are actually in England - and this has been true for all 5 games in the series.

For starters, and maybe learn something useful. It's just a fact that Scotland basically put the Great in Britain, any historian with his salt will tell you the same thing. The English were basically about a step up from full-blown barbarism before the union. We taught them everything they know, and chances are there is a lot more Scotland in you than you recognise.

Jimbo, I think you're exaggerating slightly here. You're right to state that Scotland made a very significant contribution to Britain and the world, but there's no need to be so anti-English (which is a theme running through a lot of your posts in this thread).

 

[The Leviathan]

I'd like the Eastern Roman Empire, not the Byzantines. The ERE wasn't called the Byzantines until around 100 years after its collapse.

Oh come on, the byzantine empire is just a name for the Eastern Roman empire. Stop being so picky.

 

[Jimbo30]

Jimbo, I think you're exaggerating slightly here. You're right to state that Scotland made a very significant contribution to Britain and the world, but there's no need to be so anti-English (which is a theme running through a lot of your posts in this thread).

Of course I'm exaggerating, but it really gets on the nerves of all the little englanders, and there are many of them in this thread.

I'm not anti-English, I'm anti-idiot. I'm not even having a go at England as much as I am Firaxis and their questionable history.

Sure people will say "oh it's just a game blah blah", but games like this are actually taking over in the minds of the younger generation. Do you think they are more likely to play Civ or read a book on British history? Firaxis is rewriting history and that is a BAD thing.

Moderator Action: Please do not make posts specifically to get on the nerves of other people, that is trolling and prohibited.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Depravo]

So you're trolling. Got it.

Moderator Action: Please use the report post button if you think someone is posting something against the rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[crag]

Of course I'm exaggerating, but it really gets on the nerves of all the little englanders, and there are many of them in this thread.

I'm not anti-English, I'm anti-idiot. I'm not even having a go at England as much as I am Firaxis and their questionable history.

Sure people will say "oh it's just a game blah blah", but games like this are actually taking over in the minds of the younger generation. Do you think they are more likely to play Civ or read a book on British history? Firaxis is rewriting history and that is a BAD thing.

"little englanders".. sure makes me think you aren't "anti-England".

Give it a rest already. I doubt this game will ever include the Scots. So make a mod.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Just to put things in perspective, I was 13 when Civilization first came out, and I wasn't so stupid to believe that there was any factual accuracy to the game beyond "these cultures existed in some form".

If games like this were "taking over in the minds of the younger generation" (and I'd like to know on what you base this claim), then I think it's safe to level the blame at education rather than this game.

 

[craig123]

Of course I'm exaggerating, but it really gets on the nerves of all the little englanders, and there are many of them in this thread.

I'm not anti-English, I'm anti-idiot. I'm not even having a go at England as much as I am Firaxis and their questionable history.

Sure people will say "oh it's just a game blah blah", but games like this are actually taking over in the minds of the younger generation. Do you think they are more likely to play Civ or read a book on British history? Firaxis is rewriting history and that is a BAD thing.

Moderator Action: <snip> Please don't respond to people who are trolling, just report them using the report post button.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

(I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say little Englander since it has a few different meanings - such as people who think England should become independent, people who oppose English/British imperialism, and people who are opposed to the EU. It's probably a phrase to avoid though - afterall, would you accuse anyone of being a little Scotlander? And it doesn't help your argument of not being anti-English.)

Regarding you last paragraph, I agree that Firaxis should have been more careful, particularly in the manual, although the same could be said for many games, films, TV programmes, etc.

 

[Society]

The mongols were a raging horde of bandits and marauders. They definitely had a huge impact on world history, but their cultural and scientific impact was almost zero.

You are an absolute moron. The Mongols had the worlds largest and best run bureaucracy up to that date and built trade networks and infrastructure that completely changed the way the world worked forever after. They're among the most important forces both culturally and militarily the world has ever known.

Moderator Action: Please don't call other people names, keep the discussion civil please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Jimbo30]

"little englanders".. sure makes me think you aren't "anti-England".

That's because you don't know what the phrase means.

If games like this were "taking over in the minds of the younger generation" (and I'd like to know on what you base this claim), then I think it's safe to level the blame at education rather than this game.

Either Firaxis is deliberately choosing to offend a large number of non-English "brits" or they don't know squat about history.

Considering how many topics there has been on this subject, and considering that Firaxis continues to rewrite history in favour of the English, I'd have to say it was the former.

I haven't read single good reason why "England" should not be Britain in this game. I even told you that "Britain" appears 11 times vs 4 times for "England" in the rulebook. IN THE ENGLAND SECTION. Doesn't that tell you something isn't quite right?

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/nationality.htm

Nice and simple, read.

Moderator Action: Please don't make consecutive posts, if you find that you have a new point to add, go back and edit your prior post. Thanks.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: This thread is bordering on getting closed. Please keep to discussing the topic at hand and not at insulting one another. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MAHRana]

You shouldn't base your knowledge on the info from Civ - although civ is way more accurate than other games.
I look up anything I find interesting in Civ to get more realistic info.
I'm not saying Civ is very inaccurate - although the Egyptians in Civ5 speak Arabic, Darius speaks Aramaic which was the actual language his empire spoke at the time so Civ gets it pretty close.

 

[Kushluk]

Mongolia and Spain are most probably going to arrive as a DLC. I would also like the return of the Byzantines, the Incans and the Mayans, as well as some others.

By the way, isn't it funny the way Ramkhamhaeng speaks?

Agree. Both of these will probably eventually be added, I just thought it was dumb to not have them from the outset. I mean, dayum, Iriqouis? That's important to people who know the minutiae of US history, and of course reflects the typical US attitude of "if it's important to us, of course it was one of the most important things ever". That's like if I added the Mapuche as a civilization, sure that makes sense for Chile, but as far as their impact on world history... well that's effectively a zero.

Re: Byzantines - I could not agree more. They were around for sooo long and effected everything, they certainly need to be put in, but please, some more creative leaders for them. Justinian is nice, but lets see Constantine or Alexius II Komenos or someone interesting and unexplored.