What civ will NEVER NEVER NEVER be in civ?

[Shylock]

The Computer Nerds.


They were a custom name I usually used back in the Civ 2 days.

 

[CurtSibling]

Slovenia, an Eastern European nation in Curt's eyes.

A whole country is 'in my eyes?'

I never noticed!

Better get it surgically removed, eh?

 

[Trade-peror]

The Falkland Islands, Sao Tome and Principe, the Azores Islands, Lesotho, Azerbaijan, and the Maldives.

I wonder how many more countries people now know from reading this thread...

 

[jupiterkris]

The Troglodytes
----------------
Chimps Rule

 

[Virote_Considon]

Assyria. JUST because I like them.

They'll probably try to get rid of the Hittites, as well!

 

[Jiker]

How bout Lichtenstein?

 

[deo]

Some old civs like Illyria, Dacia, Iberia ( Spain + Portugal), Macedon etc...

 

[Rambuchan]

The Ethiopians/Eritreans with the Queen of Sheeba. They were contemporaries of King David and built some pretty cool phallic wonders (until they built one too tall and it fell over and they all scarpered thinking it was a bad omen).

The Khmer of Cambodia. Built some of the most fantastic palaces and temples in the world (they are breathtaking) and ruled a hugely wealthy and powerful kingdom in Cambodia and much else of South East Asia (not sure of the boundaries).

As always with these threads, I have to make a comment like, well if the Vikings and Zulus can make it in why can't these two?

I appreciate these are borderline Civs which stand some chance of getting in but I say these will NEVER NEVER make it in because I don't believe Firaxis will go there.

As for Civs which will clearly NEVER NEVER make it (I think it's a stupid question) - The Aborigines, The Bushmen (of Namibia), The Rajputs, The Manchurians, The Welsh, The Wombles of Wimbledon, The A Team (all for different reasons).

 

[Nobody]

New Zealand, ....., Maori

same place, but i think maori would be a better civilization than new zealand, well thats until the Great New Zealanders furfill there destiny and conquer the pacific rim

 

[mastertyguy]

Rome, greece, egypt

 

[Pentium]

I know there's a nation (more a tribe, but with their own language) in South America with 23 members. They should be in.

 

[h4ppy]

Swaziland.

 

[Greek Stud]

Armenia
European Union
Conferate States of America
Cuba
Ceylon
Nubia
Ashanti
Bantu
Malta

 

[Pariah]

- Monaco
- Nauru
- Equatorial Guinea
- St. Vincent & Grenadines (name too long)
- St. Helena
[any nation named for a saint, in fact - religious inclinations must be flexible for all civs]
- the Vatican!

 

[Idylwyld]

Can we get a judges ruling here? Are Civ's a cultural/ethnic grouping or a political unit? If we call it by political units (i.e. nation-states) then the list of tinies (San Marino, Andorra, et al) will probably never show up out of the box. If going by cult/eth I doubt we'll ever see the Basque or the Lapps, or the Inuit, the Quebecois, or the Maori. I think it would be preferable to get away from the nation-states and go toward cult/eth groups to define the Civs. Go Slavs! Defeat the Teutons!

 

[dh_epic]

I always thought Civs could be both. It's just a question of who comes first, and who is redundant. For example, I'd argue that Rome and Italy are redundant. But if there were 70 Civs in Civilization, I'd argue that Italy is a solid #68

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually Basque and Iberian civilzation and culture are not the same thing or even that similar. Different language, political backgrounds(except when forced), mythology, customs, etc.

 

[Own]

luxembourg, monaco, lichtenstien

i'm welsh, so i really hope wales will be a civ.

 

[Idylwyld]

@Schwick - that's why I mention them. Under the current system they'd probably be lumped with the Spanish or the French but they definitely should be. I think making the distinction between nation-state and cultural unit would add a great dimension to the game.

 

[dexters]

Really, I'd just like to see some flexibility in playing through history. Why shouldn't players be able to follow the path through the dark ages, to the rennaisance and beyond -- whether they're China or France? But likewise, to balance this decision, both China and France should be able to play through a Near-Eastern-like tech tree, where they discover many of the scientific advances that occured from 700-1000 AD.

That's beauty of Civilization. You replay your version of history given the game rules, you don't replay history as it played out for us.

In fact, you can have your very own dark age and renaissance as in some games, your empire could fall into some kind of perpetual downward spiral which might be a consiable challenge for you to pull out. And the renaissance also has an equivalent in your golden age.

Honestly, I really don't think there's a need to model dark ages and renaissance explicitly. What you need is a rich game that allows your empire to experience waxing and waning without it being random or difficult to control. Perhaps one valid criticism that can be leveled against the Civilization franchise is its view of ever upward movement of progress in a linear path. The introducton movie of vanilla Civ3 captures it quite clearly. But realistic history (even if it is merely a virtual simulation) rarely should move in a straight line.