What constitutes a civilization?

[aluelkdf]

The key word there is "potential." I'll explain why this is problematic below.

The difference between Spain and Brazil is that Spain was a superpower. Ancient Rome isn't a superpower any more but we're not relying on modern history. With Brazil, you have to rely on modern history, so you want to make sure it's actually come true (the United States is a superpower, not "has potential to be" a superpower).

I agree that what you say is true. But at the same time the Zulu was included in previous civ versions and the Zulu have never been a superpower. In the 1800's, the rest of the world had guns, were bulding railroad transportation systems and many other things. The Zulu were running around with spears. And any guns they did have were given to them by Europeans, or they may have managed to capture/steal some guns from the occupying British. The only reason why the Zulu were included is because Africans like to pretend that they contributed just as much to civilization as Europe and Asia, when the reality is Africa has contributed nothing. In north Africa they have contributed (Egypt for example), but north Africa is more similar to the Arabs, just located on the African continent.

At best, Zulu was a regional superpower when compared to the rest of Africa. And Brazil is already a regional superpower.

 

[Guandao]

I agree that what you say is true. But at the same time the Zulu was included in previous civ versions and the Zulu have never been a superpower. In the 1800's, the rest of the world had guns, were bulding railroad transportation systems and many other things. The Zulu were running around with spears. And any guns they did have were given to them by Europeans, or they may have managed to capture/steal some guns from the occupying British. The only reason why the Zulu were included is because Africans like to pretend that they contributed just as much to civilization as Europe and Asia, when the reality is Africa has contributed nothing. In north Africa they have contributed (Egypt for example), but north Africa is more similar to the Arabs, just located on the African continent.

At best, Zulu was a regional superpower when compared to the rest of Africa. And Brazil is already a regional superpower.

"Africa has contributed nothing"-wow, just wow...
It may seem like Africans didn't contribute much. But that doesn't mean they didn't contribute anything. The Bantu tribes knew how to farm, work with iron, and so on. You're also ignoring the people in West Africa and East Africa.

The Zulu seem like a poor choice for an African civ. Perhaps Zimbabwe and Kongo would be better.

 

[Sotof]

They've been in Civilization series since the first Civilization game,so it would be very stupid if the developers tried to not release them in vanilla editions . By the way,why Post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game?

None of them except for USA has done anything noteworthy in history. I still do not think USA should be in the game as a full blown CIV. I find it would be much better to make a colonial uprising mechanic out of it. But it will not happen due to how simple CIV as a game is.

 

[GenjiKhan]

They've been in Civilization series since the first Civilization game,so it would be very stupid if the developers tried to not release them in vanilla editions . By the way,why Post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game?

None of them except for USA has done anything noteworthy in history. I still do not think USA should be in the game as a full blown CIV. I find it would be much better to make a colonial uprising mechanic out of it. But it will not happen due to how simple CIV as a game is.

This isn't a reason to exclude "Modern civs" from the poll of choices . There are plenty of cases of Civilizations which power didn't go beyond their region that are in the game .

 

[Louis XXIV]

Although, in those cases, the known world was pretty much limited to their region. That didn't compete directly with the major powers from other regions.

 

[Sotof]

This isn't a reason to exclude "Modern civs" from the poll of choices . There are plenty of cases of Civilizations which power didn't go beyond their region that are in the game .

It's a perfectly good reason. Let us list the original Civs:

Arabia - Essentially created a new age in the Middle-East and North Africa.
Aztecs - Did the noteworthy things of being conquered by the Spanish... I would not want them in the game personally.
China - Explains itself.
Egypt - Couple of World Wonders.
England - One of the greatest empires in the world. World Wars.
France - Colonial nation, almost conquered Europe with Napoleon. Always been a significant power in Europe. World Wars.
Germany - Central European power, halted Rome's advance, world wars.
Greece - World Wonders, Hellenic influence.
India - Explains itself.
Iroquois - Would not put them in as a CIV.
Japan - World War.
Ottoman - Great empire and dominated the Middle East for a good period of time.
Persia - Explains itself.
Rome - Explains itself.
Russia - Explains itself.
Siam - Not sure it should be a CIV.
Songhai - Not sure it should be a CIV.

There you have it. The majority of the CIVs live up to that criteria. And even then many of the nations I am not sure about have some historical significance and most of the colonial nations just do not have that. We're playing a game that spans -thousands- of years not just the last 150. If we are to include nations as Brazil we may as well include Burgundy.

 

[Guandao]

It's a perfectly good reason. Let us list the original Civs:

Arabia - Essentially created a new age in the Middle-East and North Africa.
Aztecs - Did the noteworthy things of being conquered by the Spanish... I would not want them in the game personally.
China - Explains itself.
Egypt - Couple of World Wonders.
England - One of the greatest empires in the world. World Wars.
France - Colonial nation, almost conquered Europe with Napoleon. Always been a significant power in Europe. World Wars.
Germany - Central European power, halted Rome's advance, world wars.
Greece - World Wonders, Hellenic influence.
India - Explains itself.
Iroquois - Would not put them in as a CIV.
Japan - World War.
Ottoman - Great empire and dominated the Middle East for a good period of time.
Persia - Explains itself.
Rome - Explains itself.
Russia - Explains itself.
Siam - Not sure it should be a CIV.
Songhai - Not sure it should be a CIV.

There you have it. The majority of the CIVs live up to that criteria. And even then many of the nations I am not sure about have some historical significance and most of the colonial nations just do not have that. We're playing a game that spans -thousands- of years not just the last 150. If we are to include nations as Brazil we may as well include Burgundy.

Siam dominated Mainland Southeast Asia. At least one civ from Southeast Asia should be in the game. It is neglected, but has a great history.

Songhai was one of the three great Saharan empires. Such empires helped bring Islam to West Africa and were influential in trade.

Iroquois may not seem much. Perhaps the Mississippians or Anasazi should be in the game instead. Iroquois was chosen out of the North American tribes cause it was close to Montreal where they did most of the recording for the leader dialogue.

 

[GenjiKhan]

We're playing a game that spans -thousands- of years not just the last 150. If we are to include nations as Brazil we may as well include Burgundy.

If the last 150 years didn't have any difference,then USA,Germany and Russia shouldn't be in the game(you could also include India,that only existed in the last 60 years,although their cities have more than 5000 years) . Also,all the major civs are already included and if you see the list of the most influent countries today,Brazil is the most influent country not directly represented in any form .

 

[ehecatzin]

Aztecs - Did the noteworthy things of being conquered by the Spanish... I would not want them in the game personally.

The thing about Civ is that sometimes you come across a certain leader of a civ you've never heard about or have little knowledge of, I didnt know a thing about Songhai, after civ I started reading about Timbuktu, and its fascinating.

In that same sense, saying the Mexica Empire is in Civ, just because the Spanish conquered them, completely disregards millenia of cultural development in the area, from which the Aztecs were one of the last exponents of.

By that same standard the Mayans shouldnt be in either? because in the end the Spaniards conquered them.


Anyway, about post colonial civs, I've come to accept that we'll only see them in CS form, and, thats fine (or if by some miracle we get an exp that incorporates revolutions) . Its much easier to add CS than full fledged civs anyway, and at least for me, finding Rio on the map doesnt break the inmersion.

 

[Gucumatz]

It's a perfectly good reason. Let us list the original Civs:

Arabia - Essentially created a new age in the Middle-East and North Africa.
Aztecs - Did the noteworthy things of being conquered by the Spanish... I would not want them in the game personally.
China - Explains itself.
Egypt - Couple of World Wonders.
England - One of the greatest empires in the world. World Wars.
France - Colonial nation, almost conquered Europe with Napoleon. Always been a significant power in Europe. World Wars.
Germany - Central European power, halted Rome's advance, world wars.
Greece - World Wonders, Hellenic influence.
India - Explains itself.
Iroquois - Would not put them in as a CIV.
Japan - World War.
Ottoman - Great empire and dominated the Middle East for a good period of time.
Persia - Explains itself.
Rome - Explains itself.
Russia - Explains itself.
Siam - Not sure it should be a CIV.
Songhai - Not sure it should be a CIV.

There you have it. The majority of the CIVs live up to that criteria. And even then many of the nations I am not sure about have some historical significance and most of the colonial nations just do not have that. We're playing a game that spans -thousands- of years not just the last 150. If we are to include nations as Brazil we may as well include Burgundy.

Sounds like you really don't know about a lot of these civilizations. To put down a country like Japan and just say "World War" and powers like Egypt and explain it down as a couple of wonders? Or to say the Aztecs were noteworthy of being conquered only? Or to think SE Asia should be neglected or Western Africa entirely?

Perhaps you want to read a history book or something, but to be frankly all of the vanilla civilizations really belong in there (except maybe the Iroquois but if you wanted me to I could make a great argument for them, but more as an Expansion or DLC Civ)

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think his argument is "Eurasian good," everything else "not sure if it should be a civ."

For example, halted Rome's advance is a poor argument. Rome's advance was mostly halted because the Germanic tribes were not economically significant enough to be worth conquering. The Sassanians actually legitimately halted Rome's advance, not just a setback or two that caused them to give up, but consistently beat them back.

 

[Ribannah]

As always, the abundance of ignorance about the Iroquois is staggering.

 

[Gucumatz]

As always, the abundance of ignorance about the Iroquois is staggering.

I have written several papers on them using Jesuit documents, British army documents, etc. for high school (documents provided by sneaking into the local university ). They are of course actually a regionally important civ. The trading, the protection of other tribes and lands, etc.

But I still don't think they are the best choice for the main game.

 

[Ribannah]

Jesuit documents aren't bad but using Iroquois documentation is better.

What is unique about the Iroquois is that their rise to power on the continent was partly due to the arrival of the Europeans. They did more than just adapt, thanks to excellent diplomatic skills.

 

[SalmonSoil]

People seem to be forgetting that flavour is an incredibly important factor in civ. You could argue that the Aztecs, Iroquois, Siam or Songhai aren't important enough to be in the game, but having a Mesoamerican civ, a North American native civ, a Subsaharan African civ and a South East Asian civ makes the game more diverse than the Eurasian hodgepodge some people would like it to be.

Also some people seem to think that recent history doesn't warrant the inclusion of a civ (often in arguments against America being a civ). This is often because they look at civ as being about 'thousands of years of history'. However with civ its better not to look at time in terms of years and instead in terms of the games eras. Looking at it this way you can see that most civs only existed for two eras or were often only important for one. Rome, for example, only existed in the classical era and arguably the medieval era. America has existed since the renaissance era, was important in the industrial era, incredibly important in the modern era and will be important in the future era. Brazil could be argued as existing since the industrial era, and being important in the modern eras and future eras.

 

[Liex]

People seem to be forgetting that flavour is an incredibly important factor in civ. You could argue that the Aztecs, Iroquois, Siam or Songhai aren't important enough to be in the game, but having a Mesoamerican civ, a North American native civ, a Subsaharan African civ and a South East Asian civ makes the game more diverse than the Eurasian hodgepodge some people would like it to be.

That is so true!

Also some people seem to think that recent history doesn't warrant the inclusion of a civ (often in arguments against America being a civ). This is often because they look at civ as being about 'thousands of years of history'. However with civ its better not to look at time in terms of years and instead in terms of the games eras. Looking at it this way you can see that most civs only existed for two eras or were often only important for one. Rome, for example, only existed in the classical era and arguably the medieval era. America has existed since the renaissance era, was important in the industrial era, incredibly important in the modern era and will be important in the future era. Brazil could be argued as existing since the industrial era, and being important in the modern eras and future eras.

I'd add a few things:

Rome only existed in Classical Era, but its relevance to the (Western) World is yet to be surpassed. The same is true to other ancient and classical civs., but not every of them (Carthage, for instance; I'd say it's in due to the flavor it adds).

And I'd argue that Brazil has existed since the Renaissance Era as well (Our Independence was proclaimed almost half century after the American - and you know how the Portuguese are possessive of their colonies -, but by the end of the 17th century with the Gold Rush Brazil quickly began to be "Brazilian"; in the early 19th century the Portuguese Empire was governed from Rio, not from Lisbon), and was more important in the Industrial than in the Modern Era .

 

[Louis XXIV]

Jesuit documents aren't bad but using Iroquois documentation is better.

What is unique about the Iroquois is that their rise to power on the continent was partly due to the arrival of the Europeans. They did more than just adapt, thanks to excellent diplomatic skills.

Yeah, they did more than adapt; they thrived. The Great Covenant Chain is something almost unique to history. It was expanded upon by both the British and Iroquois to suit their needs, which were not always equal. They stopped French expansion when they needed to, they gained power and influence over other tribes, they gained considerable wealth in the fur trade, they had a complex government and essentially small cities with complex fortifications (and this is post small pox, when 90% of the North American population was wiped out).

In the classical Civilization model, the Mound Builders are better. They had massive cities with monuments in them. But the Iroquois were truly unique.

 

[Gucumatz]

Jesuit documents aren't bad but using Iroquois documentation is better.

What is unique about the Iroquois is that their rise to power on the continent was partly due to the arrival of the Europeans. They did more than just adapt, thanks to excellent diplomatic skills.

Well sadly NC State's library isn't that great, I was happy at finding a Jesuit document regarding land at all. (My particular paper with the series of documents was on the patterns of land leasing and trading the Iroquois used to balance powers and regain territory and make a profit off of the powers. The only Iroquois documents I think I used were treaties between the US and the Iroquois. The rest I had to rely on the internet for speeches, etc.).

Of course they did adapt. And again, Aztecs and Maya should be always in the main game. Songhai/Mali/Ghana should always be in the main game.

Siam/Khmer should always be in the main game.

But the Iroquois I think there are other civs in the continental USA that I think would be better suited in several aspects. Sioux/Comanche and Pueblo/Anasazi particularly. The Iroquois are better in mind for expansion material/DLC Material.

 

[Louis XXIV]

For a good secondary source (I'm probably saying this too late) is "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire" by Francis Jennings. He does a good job at Iroquois land policy. More interestingly is the idea of "possession by conquest" and how the English could use the Iroquois as a proxy (even more interestingly, rival colonies could use rival tribes by proxies, so a land dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania would be resolved by having rival tribes race to obliterate a third tribe first so the state could then "get" the land from the winner by purchasing it from them some years down the line).

 

[Sotof]

Siam dominated Mainland Southeast Asia. At least one civ from Southeast Asia should be in the game. It is neglected, but has a great history.

Songhai was one of the three great Saharan empires. Such empires helped bring Islam to West Africa and were influential in trade.

Iroquois may not seem much. Perhaps the Mississippians or Anasazi should be in the game instead. Iroquois was chosen out of the North American tribes cause it was close to Montreal where they did most of the recording for the leader dialogue.

I was not sure about them so I would not make up my mind completely. Thanks for the info.

Sounds like you really don't know about a lot of these civilizations. To put down a country like Japan and just say "World War" and powers like Egypt and explain it down as a couple of wonders? Or to say the Aztecs were noteworthy of being conquered only? Or to think SE Asia should be neglected or Western Africa entirely?

Perhaps you want to read a history book or something, but to be frankly all of the vanilla civilizations really belong in there (except maybe the Iroquois but if you wanted me to I could make a great argument for them, but more as an Expansion or DLC Civ)

It was a quick summary of great events where they influenced world history directly. Spearheading a personal attack on me does not make you seem any more intelligent than a fifth grader.

I also think you misunderstood when I wrote "unsure", that means I do not know them as well as I would like to, thus I cannot be certain where to place them.

If the last 150 years didn't have any difference,then USA,Germany and Russia shouldn't be in the game(you could also include India,that only existed in the last 60 years,although their cities have more than 5000 years) . Also,all the major civs are already included and if you see the list of the most influent countries today,Brazil is the most influent country not directly represented in any form .

Yes, I do not think USA should be in the game. I do think Russia and Germany should. They have histories as old as England. Thing is that the names of the CIVs are really just a way of saying 'this area and its people' to me, so while India had not been united until very recently then they still have a long and rich history.


That said, I honestly do not think colonial nations should be in the game as fullblown CIVs - give it maybe 200 more years and I would fine with it, but as it stands they are just too new and have not really distinguished themselves all that much. I would much rather have them spawn in player and AI colonies instead - as a gameplay feature.

And while I agree flavour is important then I think it should be there for the right reasons - I mean sure, Monty can be entertaining but putting him in the game instead of the Mongols? What? I would rather make Monty a DLC together with Spain and the Incas.