What are the three modern nations would you include in all editions of the game?

[Krajzen]

Brazil is of course mandatory. Kind of weird for me to see people see Brazil as not a priority.

Well, to be honest Brazil has never been very influential in global politics, economy, science and so on. I mean, until 30s it had smaller population than Poland and like 4-5 times smaller than US (and around 15 times smaller economy). Until 2001 it also produced less scientific publications than Poland, for example. It is not poor but also not rich country by any measure.
I am generally fan of Brazil due to it being by far the coolest and strongest representative of Latin America, but it doesn't surprise me there are many people who don't see it as necessary.

African civilization is hard to talk about. Colonialism was, to say the least, really harsh and the continent still suffer consequences from this.

To be honest, Subsaharan Africa was stuck at semi-medieval level even before colonialism, so it's not like colonialism ruined some golden age. It was also insanely divided between literally thousands of ethnic groups so actually it would be impossible to make "nice looking ethnic states" here anyway. Ethiopia was never colonized and it is still incredibly poor. But yeah, colonialism didn't help, and none of modern African countries really qualifies.

I am all for Argentina, Kazakhstan and Algeria, but the last two are mostly desert area.

Argentina is culturally interesting but otherwise it always seemed to me as a strangely boring country for Civ. It is basically an amalgam of few European nations who emigrated to the end of the world and just kind of lived here in moderate prosperity. Not exactly a gripping, heroic tale. At least Australia and Canada bled in both world wars and are very highly developed and powerful.
Algeria is "mostly desert" but its North is very densely inhabited, urbanized and home to 40 milion people, the bigger problem is it always had secondary, peripheral role even im Maghreb not to mention rest of the world. Islamic Maghreb was always poltiically dominated by Morocco and intelectually by Andaluzja, Algeria really doesn't have that major rolę here and I'd see one of former as repesting in every game, but not Algeria.

Kazachstan, I honestly don't know why would you ever like to include it. It is incredibly sparsely populated wasteland, a modern construct, with really not very big impact on the world, with very small population for such large area, and completely dominated by Russian imperial history. Even its main cities were built by Russian Empire and are not ancient. Kazachstan was basically never heart od steppe empires because it's almost the least fertile part of already empty Central Asia.

 

[Aurelesk]

The thing is, there is no modern nation that stand out, outside of USA and Brazil (and Australia). Chile, Argentina, Algeria are those country that are on their way to be developped by having large territory, large population, a rising economy. When you have a strong economy, you can start to be influential. It is not yet.

Being landlocked, Kazakhstan is kind of screw and, even with the new silk road, they don't are that populated. So I honestly don't know why I thought it was a good idea to even mention.

Algeria is kind of special. They first rejeted french colonialism for arab culture, then even kind of feel arab culture isn't entirely adequate for themselves and try to develop a "maghreb" culture somehow (don't know if it's just a trend due to the politic crisis due to oil crisis, politics). Algeria have tools to become a strong nation, and, in a case that have 0% to occur, if they team up with Morroco (in sort of fair Commonwealth), they can both be a dominant force (Algeria / Morroco have a love/hate relation).
I wait to see how Algeria and, overall, how Maghreb will rise in the next decade. But I agree that right know, they are not yet relevant as modern powerful nation.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The development of Canada, Australia or Chile is irrelevant if the game dont have a "Quality of Life" victory that considers the healt, economy, freedom, education, security and environment of the population.

 

[Nagato]

So the three most popular so far are: America, Brazil and Australia, as I don't think this scenario will change, so this seems to be the result. The next two most voted are: Mexico and Nigeria.
America and Brazil as the first two, was expected. Australia is attractive because of its location. Mexico comes next because it's the largest of the Spanish nations. Finally, Nigeria, I think people voted for this because it's the most populous nation in Africa today.

Note: I would never expect Canada to be so unpopular, so far below Australia. Is there any other reason people prefer Australia (instead Canada) besides the geographical location? Is there a type of common opinion that Canada is unnecessary to the game?

I'm assuming by modern you mean post-colonial nations because places like England and France are not on the poll.

Oh yes, you're right, I used modern nations because people always refer to the postcolonial nations this way.

 

[steveg700]

Australia have some point that make most people chose it:
1- They are already on game. Once you try something, you want it more.
2- They cover most of Oceania. The only other civ from there is Maori/Polynesians (maybe Indonesians if you want to see them like that).
3- Australia is a better know country on the imaginary of the world population. Meanwhile Colombia is just another generic Latin American country for most people, these people probably think that Brazil is enough for that.

4- People who live there are part of the Civ customer base.

That's what really drives the inclusion of a lot of these also-rans and never-wases, like all those east European marginal nations.

I would be fine with taking the post-colonial "civilizations" out altogether--even America, so I admit I am not super-receptive to the topic. But if you're going to have them, then it boils down to America and maybe Brazil. How many post-colonial nations can actually be said to be in the realm of the first-world rather than "developing"?

 

[Nagato]

Resurrecting this thread because I just realized that Gran Colombia was added to the game. This surprised me. Primarily because I didn't expect any more modern nations in the game. Second because if we had one more, I would imagine it would Mexico. But Gran Colombia is indeed an excellent choice - Simon Bolivar was a great leader.

 

[dark-mysterio]

1.France
2.Any Modern North African country (preferably Egypt or Algeria or both but i would understand if they put Morocco like in civ 6)
3.any Latin American Spanish-speaking country (because beside the recent introduction of "Gran Colombia" there wasn't any)

 

[Sirsquier]

USA was my first pick as they are one of the most powerful throughout history.
I followed this with Brazil bc of its cultural bonuses.
and finished with Australia which is needed mostly for TSL reasons.
Most European civs I'd prefer to be pre industrial as that is when most of them went through their glorious times.

 

[nzcamel]

Just the U.S.

I know some would like to not even have them in game; but with the way Civ is structured around a timeline that has a similar number of techs/civics in each era; the more modern era's are just as significant despite their shorter time frames than the earlier era's. VI started with 8 era's, and the US has been a super power for 2 of those 8. There is no way with that in mind that they should not be in game.

I was always happy with them standing in game for the other colonial nations, none of whom have done enough of significance to warrant inclusion imo.

 

[Nizou]

I agree to include the U.S.A., they had definitively a big impact on modern times. If I had to include other modern nations, I'd hate to get again Canada AND Australia, I'd accept Brazil for Colonial Portugal and Colombia OR Mexico for Colonial Spain. Three nations coming from Colonial Britain is just inacceptable when so much other cultures around the world are just ignored.

 

[nzcamel]

Three nations coming from Colonial Britanny is just inacceptable when so much other cultures around the world are just ignored.

Just for the record, Brittany is part of France; though it is where the term Britain comes from

 

[Ezumiyr]

You know you're surrounded by americans when you see mostly american nations on a thread about modern civs.
I voted America and Brazil due to their relevance in the world - though Brazil is mostly there as an industrial era nation (as England, France or Germany can be) imo.

There are many modern nations that could be featured in the game I think, but not as default nations that are in all editions of the game. Most former colonies like Argentina are better as industrial civs imo.

Some modern nations that could be added to the game (focusing in what their existence since the beginning of the 20th century): Cuba (due to its unique history and historical/cultural importance), Belgium (the last born of western european nations), Nigeria (a real powerhouse of modern Africa that is sadly largely unknown to westerners and unjustly discarded), Afghanistan (unique cultures, famous for resisting invaders), Saudi Arabia (due to its economical importance and because it's a bit racist to have an arabian empire and claim that it represents all arabian states up to nowadays when you regularly feature a bunch of english-speaking countries in your game), Armenia (unique culture and long history), Bhutan (really unique take on many things, including modernity, I really hope to see that one at some point)...

 

[The Civs 6]

You know you're surrounded by americans when you see mostly american nations on a thread about modern civs.
I voted America and Brazil due to their relevance in the world - though Brazil is mostly there as an industrial era nation (as England, France or Germany can be) imo.

There are many modern nations that could be featured in the game I think, but not as default nations that are in all editions of the game. Most former colonies like Argentina are better as industrial civs imo.

Some modern nations that could be added to the game (focusing in what their existence since the beginning of the 20th century): Cuba (due to its unique history and historical/cultural importance), Belgium (the last born of western european nations), Nigeria (a real powerhouse of modern Africa that is sadly largely unknown to westerners and unjustly discarded), Afghanistan (unique cultures, famous for resisting invaders), Saudi Arabia (due to its economical importance and because it's a bit racist to have an arabian empire and claim that it represents all arabian states up to nowadays when you regularly feature a bunch of english-speaking countries in your game), Armenia (unique culture and long history), Bhutan (really unique take on many things, including modernity, I really hope to see that one at some point)...

Okay let's break this down. Cuba, Armenia, Afghanistan and Bhutan (population of less than a million!) have accomplished nothing of note and would be out of place even as city states in the game. Nigeria, a country with lower than 3k GDP per capita, would be a decent inclusion if internet scams were a game mechanic. perhaps that is coming with frontier pass.

Saudi Arabia is an intriguing option, they would make a solid city state addition (which seems to reflect their place in the real world pretty well). As for depictions of Arabia, well, it's probably an attempt to depict the original Caliphate. I'm not sure the Fatimids and Islamic Persia really deserve inclusion when there is already Egypt and Persia.

And nice despising of Americans, who you know, make this freaking game, make and run Steam, and are probably the largest market for Civ. If the non-Western world made 4x games, I'm sure they would reflect their own priorities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You know you're surrounded by americans when you see mostly american nations on a thread about modern civs.
I voted America and Brazil due to their relevance in the world - though Brazil is mostly there as an industrial era nation (as England, France or Germany can be) imo.

I'm pretty sure when this thread was made the OP meant modern nations as in post-colonial nations in reference to already having America, Brazil, Australia.

Some modern nations that could be added to the game (focusing in what their existence since the beginning of the 20th century): Cuba (due to its unique history and historical/cultural importance), Belgium (the last born of western european nations), Nigeria (a real powerhouse of modern Africa that is sadly largely unknown to westerners and unjustly discarded), Afghanistan (unique cultures, famous for resisting invaders), Saudi Arabia (due to its economical importance and because it's a bit racist to have an arabian empire and claim that it represents all arabian states up to nowadays when you regularly feature a bunch of english-speaking countries in your game), Armenia (unique culture and long history), Bhutan (really unique take on many things, including modernity, I really hope to see that one at some point).

Most of these that you mention I would rather not be influenced by it's modern representation such as Nigeria, which has better pre-colonial choices in Benin or Oyo, Armenia would be better as Classical, and Saudi Arabia to me is fine represented by the Medieval Arabian Caliphates.

 

[Xandinho]

Nigeria, a country with lower than 3k GDP per capita, would be a decent inclusion if internet scams were a game mechanic. perhaps that is coming with frontier pass.

Well, I'd rather have Benin in the game than Nigeria. But I don't think having a low GDP per capita means anything (it shouldn't) - since the game is not about social welfare. I agree that Nigeria is a country with notables problems of poverty, but on the other hand, it'a the most populous country on the continent and with the largest economy as well, so it's not as if the country was irrelevant because of its lower per capita GDP. That said, I don’t think Nigeria should be in the game before other more interesting African civilizations, but I’m just stating the point that GDP per capita shouldn’t be a deciding factor, unless you’re talking from a marketing standpoint, then I agree.

 

[The Civs 6]

Well, I'd rather have Benin in the game than Nigeria. But I don't think having a low GDP per capita means anything (it shouldn't) - since the game is not about social welfare. I agree that Nigeria is a country with notables problems of poverty, but on the other hand, it'a the most populous country on the continent and with the largest economy as well, so it's not as if the country was irrelevant because of its lower per capita GDP. That said, I don’t think Nigeria should be in the game before other more interesting African civilizations, but I’m just stating the point that GDP per capita shouldn’t be a deciding factor, unless you’re talking from a marketing standpoint, then I agree.

Well beyond my taste in what Civs they include, how do you even have strengths for Nigeria? It's the same with a lot of these modern countries - sure a lot of people live in them, but at least by reputation their defining characteristic is being poorly run. At least with historical civs there is a certain gloss added by history where we forget the grim reality of some of them (I'm looking at 600-900's Byzantine Empire with this comment).

With countries like Nigeria, Cuba etc., there is a very good chance they won't exist in about 100 years. So at least give them a little bit of time to establish some sort of nationhood.

 

[Zaarin]

Just for the record, Brittany is part of France; though it is where the term Britain comes from

Actually, it's the other way around. Brittany is called that--"Little Britain"--because they were originally colonists from Cornwall.

I'm not sure the Fatimids and Islamic Persia really deserve inclusion when there is already Egypt and Persia.

While they'd be a lower priority to me than the Sassanids, the Safavids are absolutely unquestionably worthy of inclusion. Now, if we're talking the Pahlavi dynasty or the Islamic Republic of Iran, that's more dubious IMO.

 

[The Civs 6]

Actually, it's the other way around. Brittany is called that--"Little Britain"--because they were originally colonists from Cornwall.


While they'd be a lower priority to me than the Sassanids, the Safavids are absolutely unquestionably worthy of inclusion. Now, if we're talking the Pahlavi dynasty or the Islamic Republic of Iran, that's more dubious IMO.

It's not something I know much about, but I wonder to what extent Civ wants to avoid getting into things that touch the Shia/Sunni controversy.

 

[Zaarin]

It's not something I know much about, but I wonder to what extent Civ wants to avoid getting into things that touch the Shia/Sunni controversy.

I'm really not sure it's that big of a deal. Shia and Sunni are far closer to each other than the various branches of Christianity are, and we've had leaders from all three major branches (including very militant ones like Philip II and Gustav Adolphus). I'm not really sure that avoidance of Shi'ism is as much a motive for Firaxis as refusing to acknowledge any period of Iranian history after the Achaemenids.

 

[The Civs 6]

I'm really not sure it's that big of a deal. Shia and Sunni are far closer to each other than the various branches of Christianity are, and we've had leaders from all three major branches (including very militant ones like Philip II and Gustav Adolphus). I'm not really sure that avoidance of Shi'ism is as much a motive for Firaxis as refusing to acknowledge any period of Iranian history after the Achaemenids.

Well we saw what happened to Charlie Hebdo, not sure that happens when getting involved with any of the three major branches of Christianity