What 5 Civilizations Should Always Be In Civ?

[Camikaze]

Sorry that's some really hard reaching right there

Well it isn't reaching that far to think that importance to the game should be judged by what proportion of the game something has existed/been important for. Now, I didn't put it in my top five, and I would still think some correction has to be made for older civilizations, but I would certainly put America in my Top 10, and that's after making allowances for older civilizations that don't take up as much of the game's time period.

 

[kochman]

In chronological order
1) Ancient/Greece - ancient Greece that is, conquered "the known world", resulting in the Hellenic Age, and made huge advances in philosophy, etc... who passed the torch to...
2) Classical/Rome - Pax Romana, who passed the torch to... after a LONG delay...
3) Medieval/France - Lingua Franca became the most important language in the world for a reason...
4) Industrial/England - the sun never set on the English Empire in it's heyday, including setting the stage for...
5) Modern/America - the leader of the FREE world, countless innovations/inventions, the American dream, and English being the lingua franca
Of those, France is my most likely to be replaced...
6) Future/???
If I were to replace one, it would be France, with either Arabs or Byzantines, these two forces were making advances while W. Europe was having a rather rough time with things.
I accept that my list is completely eurocentric, but let's be honest, the civilizations with the biggest impact on history generally are...

I didn't pick China because outside of their area, they haven't really been a big deal... China has always been inward looking.
Egypt should definitely not be on the list, WAY overrated... their culture was never really adopted anywhere for a reason. No real influence. They left some startling monuments, and some pretty stuff... but...

 

[Smellincoffee]

Greece, China, Rome, Egypt, and Babylon.

 

[eoc]

In chronological order
1) Ancient/Greece - ancient Greece that is, conquered "the known world", resulting in the Hellenic Age, and made huge advances in philosophy, etc... who passed the torch to...
2) Classical/Rome - Pax Romana, who passed the torch to... after a LONG delay...
3) Medieval/France - Lingua Franca became the most important language in the world for a reason...
4) Industrial/England - the sun never set on the English Empire in it's heyday, including setting the stage for...
5) Modern/America - the leader of the FREE world, countless innovations/inventions, the American dream, and English being the lingua franca
Of those, France is my most likely to be replaced...
6) Future/???
If I were to replace one, it would be France, with either Arabs or Byzantines, these two forces were making advances while W. Europe was having a rather rough time with things.
I accept that my list is completely eurocentric, but let's be honest, the civilizations with the biggest impact on history generally are...

I didn't pick China because outside of their area, they haven't really been a big deal... China has always been inward looking.
Egypt should definitely not be on the list, WAY overrated... their culture was never really adopted anywhere for a reason. No real influence. They left some startling monuments, and some pretty stuff... but...

Everyone has its own view, but I don't think that you need picking out China and Egypty to prove your opinion.

 

[kochman]

I mentioned why I didn't include them because they have received the 2nd and 3rd most votes overall, not to prove my opinion.

 

[Schmieds]

1. China
2. Rome
3. Egypt
4. England
5. India

Though, if US isn't there I'm sure some stubborn Americans will be dissuaded from buying the game

 

[ak4na2]

I accept that my list is completely eurocentric, but let's be honest, the civilizations with the biggest impact on history generally are...

gunpowder, canons, movable printing press and the compass.. all from asia..

from the bc era..
new kingdom of egypt, roman republic, classical greece, persian empire and shang dynasty

 

[kochman]

gunpowder, canons, movable printing press and the compass.. all from asia..

Perfecting the application of... Europe.
I think that is what mattered. This is why Europe ended up dominating the world, and basically still does to this day if you count its offshoots as well (USA, Canada, Aussieland, NZ, etc.)

 

[Sun Wukong]

I'd argue that both China and India dominate the world a lot more than any single country in Europe does, let alone Australia and New Zealand. Money is power as they say.

@ak4na2
Why the Shang?

 

[ak4na2]

the first dynasty that actually had china proper in a relative peaceful state.. the preceding xia dynasty was more than likely nothing more than the strongest of the warring states and the following zhou dynasty was just back to the constant fighting amongst states..

 

[kochman]

I'd argue that both China and India dominate the world a lot more than any single country in Europe does, let alone Australia and New Zealand. Money is power as they say.

@ak4na2
Why the Shang?

Uh... yeah... ok.
There is the EU... even some of its members are quite powerful:
UK (especially if you consider its offshoots - Canada, NZ, Australia)
Germany
France

But let's be real, the Euros tend to generally work together, so viewing them independently is not really accurate. It's not like China or India can claim to have neighbors who are also really powerful AND similarly aligned.

 

[Willem]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.... The origins of the English are with settlers and warriors of scandinavian origin who having lived in what is now Germany and Holland for hundreds of years migrated to Britain in the period 450-750AD.
The Norman French didn't show up for several hundred years, and even they were the descendants of yet more scandinavians who had settled in normandy (normandy means land of the norsemen in old french).
Basically, your historical case doesn't hold water.

Why are you responding to a post that was made at least 4 years ago? Don't you have anything better to do than look through old threads that have been dead and buried for years? How far back did you have to go to dig up this dinosaur?

 

[kochman]

Willem, the basis of your response is... you are talking about something old.
Who cares if it is old... the man put forth reasonable questions to your assertions. Surely you can come up with a better reply than that.

 

[Willem]

Willem, the basis of your response is... you are talking about something old.
Who cares if it is old... the man put forth reasonable questions to your assertions. Surely you can come up with a better reply than that.

Who wants to go through 20 pages of posts that are 4-5 years old? It's a huge waste of time to do so. If you want to revive a discussion along the same lines, start a new thread. And the poster who dragged this thread up was responding to a post made at least 4 years ago. Did he really think that he could revive an argument from that far back? Completely pointless!

 

[kochman]

OK, well, I guess you can't do better than that.