The worlds two largest EVER empires not in game??

[Mikka]

Yes, the game needs Mongolia and Spain. (And the Vikings, the Dutch, the Portuguese. It really doesn't need Canada, but if you really want to argue it, you can go ahead- oh, wait, that actually didn't pop up in this thread. Huh.)

Yes, the inability of the game and the world at large to figure out the difference between England, the United Kingdom, and Britain is really irritating.

Yes, it is an insult to those who fought against rule of the British Empire to be folded in to England. Or it's an insult to those who were part of the British Empire to be folded in to England. Or it's an insult for there to be England instead of the British Empire. Also, Scotland. And Ireland. Dublin!

...Seriously, hasn't this conversation been had an a million times? Like, every other thread?


(As for the American Empire: if it's not an Empire, it's only because we've come up for a new word to represent a nation that has that much power in this age (see: superpower). The amount of influence one country that started so humbly has had in such a short amount of time is amazing, love it or hate it, and that's why it's in the game.)

 

[tonberry]

I think the reason England is in and not British is that it make life easier for the modder. If someone want to make, say, a scenario centered around the britith isles. He can use the already existing english civ and then add, Scots, Irish and Welsh. If the British were in, he would have to mod it into the English.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Rofl yes, it only took three attempts for Englands begging for Scotlands alliance to work, and the 3rd time they even let us have kingship.

What a seriously whacked version of events you've been taught btw.



Define dominant? To me that would mean actual dominion? You know, over the Island? It's not like it's even all that big, and I can't think of any other real nation that didn't manage dominion over it's whole island.

Only poor England didn't manage it, against the weak Scots, less than 10x population. We won the war btw, did I mention that?

They probably could've rolled over the entire island if they desperately wanted that. But if that tiny 1/3 of the island can be effectively vassalized, then why not?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Guys chill out most of those civilizations will most likley be added on in an expansion or something like that.

and seriously you take mongols before the vikings? Comon the vikings were awsome compared to them (Born in sweden here) I would rather have the vikings in the game

or the Sweden cause dont forget sweden was once upon a time a great and huge nation in europe!

That civilization is obsoleted by the Finnish War event.

 

[Crezth]

America is in the game because America is the closest humanity has ever come to a perfect society.

Boom. Roasted, Europe. Roasted.

 

[Tarkhan]

I'm guessing Tarkhan that the first expansion will be like Civ 5's version of Warlords, adding Mongols, Zulu, Vikings and other aggressive nations. Aside from Monty there is a distinct lack of "oh " neighbours with Vanilla Civ 5 I guess. Time will tell.

I go and say that and then check back, and hey - theres already a Celt mod out!

 

[Watiggi]

God peoples opinions are amusing to read.

In the end, this is how I see it (ie, my opinion):

Jon Shaffer, I believe, designed the Mongol campaign in the Warlords expansion. Now the Mongols aren't in the vanillia game of Civ 5 which he is in charge of producing. So I can see the Mongols coming in an expanion pack down the line.

As for the English thing. The designers are American and can pretty much decide (right or wrong) how things are to go. Sadly, it's everyone but the Americans who see their mistakes.

 

[Gustave5436]

Yes, the game needs Mongolia and Spain. (And the Vikings, the Dutch, the Portuguese. It really doesn't need Canada, but if you really want to argue it, you can go ahead- oh, wait, that actually didn't pop up in this thread. Huh.)

"Pirates" are not a civilization. If an imaginary pan-Scandinavia civilization must be included, it should be called "Scandinavia," not "Vikings." However, I would just stick with actual nations and pick Sweden for the Nordic civilization.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

"Pirates" are not a civilization. If an imaginary pan-Scandinavia civilization must be included, it should be called "Scandinavia," not "Vikings." However, I would just stick with actual nations and pick Sweden for the Nordic civilization.

I believe Denmark once unified practically the entire Scandinavia back in the 1400 or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

 

[Chieron]

Rofl yes, it only took three attempts for Englands begging for Scotlands alliance to work, and the 3rd time they even let us have kingship.

What a seriously whacked version of events you've been taught btw.

see it this way: no blood was shed and your king had to come to London to rule from there, practically ending scottish independence as he was surrounded by english noblemen..and later decapitated even

Define dominant? To me that would mean actual dominion? You know, over the Island? It's not like it's even all that big, and I can't think of any other real nation that didn't manage dominion over it's whole island.

Only poor England didn't manage it, against the weak Scots, less than 10x population. We won the war btw, did I mention that?

you were invited to come and try to rule, just to be assimilated in the end - similar to the mongols in china (which actually conquered, but still were assimilated/driven off again). It's not, as if from then on, only scots hold public offices and the rule was from edinburgh.. it was an english kingdom with a scottish king.. but as said before, the nationality of royality does not really matter, over time the kings in london would've become english anyway, same as the later dynasties)
btw, while I have no accurate population numbers for the period, I doubt that today's 10:1 ratio would hold, probably was closer to 3:1, could have been a hell of a war.

not all conquests need to be done by the sword. invasions of scotland failed, so it was brought under english influence by heritage.
as for "dominant": the new "british" identity is decidedly influenced by the english, and somehow i suspect that history wouldnt have been all that much different, if the countries stayed separated (provided they would not have waged war against each other). ships, etc. could've been built in england, too.
Except for the Japanese, is there any other notable island nation? (ireland is small, was ruled from london for a long time, none of the larger mediterrenean islands has been an independent state for too long so far, sri lanka, taiwan ..please, the rest are more or less former colonies.)

 

[Rule Brittania]

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 could say that their form of warfare had a impact in a scientific way if you see Warfare as a science or Culturally if you see Warfare as an art.

Jus sayin...

 

[Mutineer]

Outside world does not distinguished between English and British... it is all same to me..

 

[GMillie]

It's amazing how poorly educated English and Scottish people are about their own history.

I'm English, by the way. And a History PhD student.

Chieron sums it up very well. That's the take I would have on it. But of course, being not only English but white, male and middle class my opinion is inherently wrong.

 

[Aegis]

We aren't ruled by England and never have been. As mentioned previously, Scotland won the war of independence against England - a long long time before the US was even conceived.

There are so many things that you clearly don't understand about this situation, feel free to shut up about all of it until you do.

Scotland was absorbed into England with the treaty of union, not the other way around. The parliament of GB was founded in London, not Edinburgh. Your head of state right now is the Queen of England. You pay taxes to the UK, which is dominated by England. The pinnacle of your court system is the Supreme Court of the UK, which is dominated by England. The Scottish National Party has been lobbying for independence since WWII.

Yes, we understand that you are highly nationalistic, but stop deluding yourself. Scotland is no more of a sovereign nation than the state of Texas is.

 

[zomg]

Yes, the game needs Mongolia and Spain. (And the Vikings, the Dutch, the Portuguese. It really doesn't need Canada, but if you really want to argue it, you can go ahead- oh, wait, that actually didn't pop up in this thread. Huh.)

Yes, the inability of the game and the world at large to figure out the difference between England, the United Kingdom, and Britain is really irritating.

Yes, it is an insult to those who fought against rule of the British Empire to be folded in to England. Or it's an insult to those who were part of the British Empire to be folded in to England. Or it's an insult for there to be England instead of the British Empire. Also, Scotland. And Ireland. Dublin!

...Seriously, hasn't this conversation been had an a million times? Like, every other thread?


(As for the American Empire: if it's not an Empire, it's only because we've come up for a new word to represent a nation that has that much power in this age (see: superpower). The amount of influence one country that started so humbly has had in such a short amount of time is amazing, love it or hate it, and that's why it's in the game.)

Canada!! yes yes yes! Thanks for bring that up!

LOL, joking. I am canadian and lots of civ players are; but no, we are not a major civilization. I do enjoy mods tho that let me play as my country however. I agree America is even questionable since it is a relatively new development in world history but whatever, its made a big impact on the present world so why not.

As far as the UK, England, Britain things go its a mostly just politics to the rest of us. Since they describe the same geographic area I'd say thats why people use them interchangeably. I do find the debate interesting however.

 

[Flav787]

As far as the UK, England, Britain things go its a mostly just politics to the rest of us. Since they describe the same geographic area I'd say thats why people use them interchangeably. I do find the debate interesting however.

They don't describe the same geographic area*. That's the whole point!

Personally I don't really care, while I think a British civ makes more sense than an English civ, there are more important things for me to worry about. I'm from Northern Ireland before anyone asks.

*Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales
UK = GB + Northern Ireland
British = Citizen of the UK (+other bits and pieces)

 

[imperialman]

Scotland was absorbed into England with the treaty of union, not the other way around. The parliament of GB was founded in London, not Edinburgh. Your head of state right now is the Queen of England. You pay taxes to the UK, which is dominated by England. The pinnacle of your court system is the Supreme Court of the UK, which is dominated by England. The Scottish National Party has been lobbying for independence since WWII.

Yes, we understand that you are highly nationalistic, but stop deluding yourself. Scotland is no more of a sovereign nation than the state of Texas is.

Firstly it wasn't absorbed into England, that notion is ridiculous. Secondly... if you're calling her the Queen of England (hint: look into her title and family history, it's not hard to see why QoE is an inappropriate title) then your points are pretty much invalid but I'll continue. Thirdly, because the UK is dominated by England (it ought to be given the demographics) doesn't really imply England rules Scotland. Fourthly, the UK Supreme Court was established in October 2009 and it's rather hard to see how a legal court is dominated by anything that would influence rulings (before 2009 the Scottish courts were the highest authority on Scots law). Scotland and England are the de jure equivalent of states in the UK, neither is sovereign. Only the UK is sovereign.

 

[kettyo]

Sorry to tell you but Mongols always had a good place in the civilizations roster. They were in the original release of Civ4 and the second expansion of the Civ3. They were always one my favorite civ. I don't mind too much their exclusion tough. I know they'll be added eventually and understand that there are many civ in the world deserving a spot.

I know.

It still does not mean they are civilized. They are a nomadic culture like the turks, the huns, and numerous other cultures. They are not really famous for extensive city building. That's just not their lifestyle.

Being a citizen myself i still don't consider them inferior to civilized lifestyle as i told earlier though. Just different.

 

[Ashbery76]

 

[Peteusmax]

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.

Cultural and scientific? Psh. Supposedly Genghis Khan was such a prolific fornicator that something like 5% of the population of Asia are his direct descendants. Now that's a legacy!