Two biggest problems with Civ right now

[Urederra]

The point is that there are should be at least one or more african civs to be representive and recognize good civlizations. If I put in Australia or Canada and left out America, Americans should be pissed off. thats my point. You put in places like Spain or Portugal that was colonized for 800 years by Africans (Moors) but don't include the coloneizer it looks as if what is going on

THe arabs (Moors) will be in the game.

 

[Ghafhi]

Cause in real life there is alot of corruption in a democracy. I really think putting the Zuluz in the game was just dumb The Dutch are a civilization the live in a country called the Netherlands. Yes, they should have puit Ethiopia in the game or Libya. Why the Zulus? You know you can replace the civs you don't want in the game with ones that people have made.

Lets face it the Dutch have no culture no history no nothing. The only thing the Dutch have historically is prostitues and legal mary j. Zulus only were big but never had much of a great civlization themselves at leats they had military stregth though. As a civlization the Dutch bring nothing. No military no culture. Now Austria makes sense or even Belgium but the Dutch really have not a thing when comes to civs.

 

[troytheface]

Yes the great africa civs were much more important than the Dutch . There is the Nigerean west indies- and the great Libyan spice trade- and too there are well over 3 civ players in Africa- they really ought to include more african civs like the Congo and they can have a cannible as a leader and UU or maybe a slaver.

 

[eaglefox]

Oh, please, let's be realistic here. For one thing, there is a lack of African civs because they have not been worldmakers. Look beyond your pretentiousness and take a look at the civs included. Why are they there? Because they've had the biggest impact on world history.

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.

Face it: Europe has made a large impact on the world, so a lot of the civs in the game are from there. America is also in the game because the producers from the game are American, which speaks for itself: America has been a world superpower for a while now. It would also alienate the largest pool of fans for the game if they weren't included. As for the Middle East and Asia, the civs in the game from those regions are in there because *drum roll* they've had a large impact on world history. I doubt I need to explain further.

The Zulu and Mali are good enough. I mean, come on now. Africa is a continent of mystique in that so little is known about it in comparison to other places in the world. Most people know little to nothing about tribes that populated the area throughout history. Do you really expect the game to have a considerable amount of civs from there? I think not.

i agree with your point here about the lack of meaningful african civs in the real world. plus i think we also have egypt which is african, so we do have three civs right? how many more do people want?

 

[apatheist]

I dunno. I think about 35 more would be reasonable ;-).

 

[cfacosta]

I understand where some people are comming from...but asking for more and more civs to be included isn't worth your time. Why? Because they are not going to include them in Civ IV. Civ does not have to be politically correct...it includes cultures/civs/states that had impact on the world OR would be easily recognized by its core customers. That the Dutch had little impact on the world (a statement I disagree with) is irrelevant if the creators think the Dutch would be a popular choice for players. Besides, that is the whole point of making a game extensible...the users can add content at will. Discussing the merits of the different groups brought up is really just an academic pursuit...which is fine...but it won't change Civ IV.

 

[Ghafhi]

THe arabs (Moors) will be in the game.

Any one in North Africa knows that Arabs are not moors. Equivalating Arabs with moors is like calling Native Indians Europeans except in a place where Europeans have never been.

 

[Ghafhi]

Now I'm not here to insult Dutch people but tell me one significant thing they have ever done. I could name 10 other European countries not in the game that have done way more. Lets face it Dutch has no world or region presence and never did. No time in European history have any European nation said lets call in the Dutch. They have no culture no military, and crummy history why are they in the game.

 

[Superkrest]

i agree with you to a massive amount...but...i think it would be a stretch to remove any of the civs on the current 18 list...to add another african civ.

 

[doronron]

Now I'm not here to insult Dutch people but tell me one significant thing they have ever done. I could name 10 other European countries not in the game that have done way more. Lets face it Dutch has no world or region presence and never did. No time in European history have any European nation said lets call in the Dutch. They have no culture no military, and crummy history why are they in the game.

Let's see. They created the East India Company and was one of the first major powers to open asia up to european trade. The founded a string of strategic trading posts throughout India, South Africa, and Southeast Asia, many of those colonies were still under their control well into the 20th century. Their naval knowledge was extensive, eclipsing that of the portugese, and were among the first european nations to successfully navigate the pacific, opening Japan up for trade during the Sengoku period. Dutch rutters were highly prized, considered state secrets. Dutch navigators could command a king's ransom for any expedition. Militarily, they were able to revolt from the Spanish at the height of Spain's empire and form their own nation. Combined with their skillful use of trade and powerful navy, they catipulted themselves from euro-trash vassals to a world power within the span of a single ruler's lifetime. In art, many of the great "Old Masters" are Dutch, creating some of the finest paintings the world over. Ever hear of Rembrandt?

Ethiopia? According to what I've read, they did become a nation before the time of Christ, and are known for having been one of the few subsaharan nations to convert to christianity prior to the crusades, but outside of that, Ethiopia's history reads like a series of rebellions and invasions, each harder to defeat than the last. Ethiopia barely kept itself together, and on several occasions imploded only to be rebuilt, slightly weaker than before. Despite its central location and access to lucrative trade routes between the middle east and africa, Ethopia never managed to do more than be a footnote in some other nation's history.

 

[Superkrest]

lets not all start doing the "whos better then who" stuff...the dutch were huge. and africa is a lil under repersented. But fighting over whos better then who just shows a lil bit of misunderstanding..then prove your point superior

 

[doronron]

lets not all start doing the "whos better then who" stuff...the dutch were huge. and africa is a lil under repersented. But fighting over whos better then who just shows a lil bit of misunderstanding..then prove your point superior

I'm just tired of watching this guy slamming a legitimate nation without bringing anything else to the table. His posts read like he knows nothing of history and just wants to play the racism card.

 

[Superkrest]

understood..for sure. lets just keep it light..these threads on this stuff start getting mean quick.(im guilty of it as well) the points for more african civs are very valid, but in all honesty, who from the 18 do you remove? i really dont think you can with out cuasing an even BIGGER up roar. its got nothing to do with race or ignorance...remember..Market market market, they are counting on most new players to be ignorant, and when the read the box and go.. "ohhhh look ghengis khan". i hate to say it.. but theres not alot of african civs that will sell the game. is it fair? no. but its business. it sucks yes. but what can we do about it. not a whole lot. these devolopers would have been better off making around 35 civs. but i think they knew that we would buy it anyway, and even after the extra effort for 17 more civs people would still be on here going "well _____ did this in _____ b.c better then_____"

 

[doronron]

I agree, Superkrest. In all honesty, I would have no problem seeing Ethiopia in the game. From gameplay purposes a more dynamic Africa would be much appreciated. However, I felt Ghafhi's reasons for wanting Ethiopia are all wrong. Denmark, Austria, Portugal all have much better reasons for being in the game. History nuts will prefer them because these nations did make a mark on history and could have gone farther if not for the obstacles they stumbled over -- and gamers will be able to "beat history". Casual gamers should recognize them from their high school classes. Mayans, Incas and Aztecs as well, I think. Partly due to the recognition of the role these nations played in history. They make for a fun "what if" scenario, again for the possibility of "beating history" and surviving the crippling spanish conquista.

Still. Firaxis realizes they can't please all of the needs players have. Not only are they too numerous, many come at cross purposes. So, they're releasing an SDK. Ethiopia may or may not find itself in a future expansion pack, but that doesn't mean Ghaghi won't be able to create his own Ethiopian empire through the tools provided. This solves his problem nicely.

But he still has to come on this board specifically to complain about it. And not just complain, but to discriminate against cultures he apparently knows nothing about (which is partly what he accuses Firaxis of). Why?

 

[Superkrest]

yes..i hate putting the more important title on any civ..but if i was trying to sell a game to a world market, the civs would be popular and repersent huge target markets(western europe, asia , north america) as a civ fan ...id love to think that fraxis wasnt a business about money..but then again. they would be around if they weren't. middle america will buy more of this game then any market combined..and you see that repersented in the civ choices. theres threads about turks, slavs, celts, south pacific natives, amer-indians, and even quebec.(lol) id love to see as many as possible implemented. and maybe like in civ3 we will see them in coming expansions but i just dont know were you stop when adding civs, they already removed the babylonians which were hugely important to the ancient world and have been in the series since the begining. if thats caliber to which they eliminate the civs..wow. im suprised that there are not only 9 lol

 

[doronron]

It just drives me nuts to see attention-starved people go online to complain about a game (with an editor no less!) and go through the process of showing how ignorant they are while claiming moral superiority.

 

[Carver]

Ethiopia? According to what I've read, they did become a nation before the time of Christ, and are known for having been one of the few subsaharan nations to convert to christianity prior to the crusades, but outside of that, Ethiopia's history reads like a series of rebellions and invasions, each harder to defeat than the last. Ethiopia barely kept itself together, and on several occasions imploded only to be rebuilt, slightly weaker than before. Despite its central location and access to lucrative trade routes between the middle east and africa, Ethopia never managed to do more than be a footnote in some other nation's history.

I certainly don't like insulting people but for someone who just complained about the ignorance of others you are rather ignorant yourself.

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

 

[Sark6354201]

I certainly don't like insulting people but for someone who just complained about the ignorance of others you are rather ignorant yourself.

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

I don't mean to come off as mean, but whether or not the state of Ehiopia being currently weakened or not is an opinion. What you have stated here is a continual shift of capitals, which could be interpreted as instability.

I am not saying that you are incorrect, however without a very indepth knowledge of the situation or some proven facts, I, as well as others would most likely induce that the state has undergone significant and weakening changes because of revolts, wars, and capital shifting.

You also did not include any other accomplishments of Ethiopia, I plead ignorance here, as I am not versed well in African history, but you should bring up those points if you wish to claim he is ignorant.

Besides, I would like to learn

And thank you Doronron, for citing Dutch accomplishments. They were one of the most influential seafaring nations in history, as well as traders, and it was annoying not to see that simple fact referrred to in any posts by others.

 

[Legionary37]

Africa has had a minor impact on the history of the world, compared to Europe and Asia. The civs that did make a major difference in history that are from Africa are in Civ 4. I don't see the problem here.

 

[doronron]

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

Well, using your own post as an example here, it demonstrates that the Ethiopian government has had an awful hard time staying in one place for very long, wonder why that is?

Forcibly incorporating other peoples into ones' nation is a common enough occurance as well. Wonder why Southern and Western Ethiopia refused to recognize their rightful rulers in Addis Ababa, though?

All kidding aside, you state no significant accomplishments of the Ethiopian people that have done anything to shape the world as we know it. Are they responsible for some great scientific advance? Did they develop a lasting religion or way of philisophic thought? Did their method of society, government, or architecture ever influence other great nations? Was their military or tactics ever world renowned as the Roman Legions or the Greek Hoplites were? Outside of their part of the Horn of Africa, did they ever exert a great amount of influence or possess some political weight?

History says no. At best, their princesses were sought after as brides or concubines by their northern neighbors during ancient times for their exotic beauty, and Ethiopia was considered an out of the way haven for Christian religious crusades on the holy land. Not much there to recommend them to replace Portugal, the Dutch, or Austria, quite honestly.

Yes, let Ethiopia in as a potential expansion race for gameplay and greater diversity, but it is certainly not the equal of any of the civilizations Ghafhi wants replaced.

And Sark, you're welcome.