What civ would you want in as the dark horse

[Dragonflow]

Thats not true..
in the time Prussia ruled the german states where part of the Holyromanempire.
Later on Prussia and Germany became one state. And after WW 2 Prussias parts where given to Poland and Russia.

Its like saying you cant have the irokes because they belong to America now.

Prussians were/are Germans, not some completely different racial or cultural group like the Iroquois.
Only because they had a state doesn't make them a civilization, otherwise we might as well start talking about including Burgundy, Leon, Bavaria, Yorkshire, Saudi-Arabia and the CSA as civs.

 

[steveg700]

Thats not true..
in the time Prussia ruled the german states where part of the Holyromanempire.
Later on Prussia and Germany became one state. And after WW 2 Prussias parts where given to Poland and Russia.

Its like saying you cant have the irokes because they belong to America now.

In game terms, Washington conquered all of Hiawatha's cities.

Germany, OTOH, started in the ancient era as a bunch of guys wearing animal pelts. They start researching techs and pursuing social policies. They figure out how to make a wheel, how to forge iron, and how to irrigate crops. They arrive in the middle ages where they became a feudal state. Eventually, the feudal system goes into decline as the power of the bourgeoisie is on the rise. Society has move some of the focus on social classes aside to make room for financial status. A charter of some kind is signed that formally acknowledges this shift away from arbitrary power. Upon arriving at the industrial they choose an ideology and head towards the endgame.

In short, establishing a confederation is not the inception of a civilization. It's a culmination. I can't understand why this discussion is so perennial. It seems difficult to digest that civilizations are not branded with a permanent label on the day they plant their first settlement.

 

[turingmachine]

In game terms, Washington conquered all of Hiawatha's cities.

Germany, OTOH, started in the ancient era as a bunch of guys wearing animal pelts. They start researching techs and pursuing social policies. They figure out how to make a wheel, how to forge iron, and how to irrigate crops. They arrive in the middle ages where they became a feudal state. Eventually, the feudal system goes into decline as the power of the bourgeoisie is on the rise. Society has move some of the focus on social classes aside to make room for financial status. A charter of some kind is signed that formally acknowledges this shift away from arbitrary power. Upon arriving at the industrial they choose an ideology and head towards the endgame.

In short, establishing a confederation is not the inception of a civilization. It's a culmination. I can't understand why this discussion is so perennial. It seems difficult to digest that civilizations are not branded with a permanent label on the day they plant their first settlement.

But just defining a civilization (in game terms) based on a "people" is also inconsistent. The Austrians are a German people, yet they are a separate civ. Why? Because they maintained a separate state from Germany proper.

Or look at the confusion between Rome and Italy that's being discussed over and over on this forum.

 

[Colmar]

I always assumed that Germany in Civ V was a culmination of anything remotely close to Germany, whether by name or not. With Bismarck as the leader, it would be odd, as that reminds the player that Prussia (under Otto) becomes (to a degree) Germany.

 

[Dragonflow]

But just defining a civilization (in game terms) based on a "people" is also inconsistent. The Austrians are a German people, yet they are a separate civ. Why? Because they maintained a separate state from Germany proper.

Or look at the confusion between Rome and Italy that's being discussed over and over on this forum.

The game has a very loose definition of what a civilization is, your Austria example showcases this very well. By adding more such pseudo-civilizations into the game we mights as well stop calling the game "Civilization" and call it "Nations" or "Tribes".

 

[steveg700]

But just defining a civilization (in game terms) based on a "people" is also inconsistent. The Austrians are a German people, yet they are a separate civ. Why? Because they maintained a separate state from Germany proper.

Or look at the confusion between Rome and Italy that's being discussed over and over on this forum.

Yes, it is inconsistent. And many argued against Austria before it came to pass as well.

However, the thing to take away from is that Austria did not make it in because it maintained a separate state. It's in because they came up with a combination uf UA, UU, UB, and leader that they liked. Also, they seem to like throwing in curveball civ's that break with tradition once in a while.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Back to the topic please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889