What constitutes a civilization?

[SalmonSoil]

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.

Most colonial nations, or at least the American ones that are the most mentioned, have existed as independent political entities for around 200 years. This translates to roughly two in game eras, or a third of the game. This is longer than some of the classical civs. And saying that modern colonial nations haven't distinguished themselves is a bit of a stretch, especially in the case of America.

I would choose Monty over the Mongols any day. Variation between civs is more important than their historical importance (cultural variation, not gameplay variation). The Mongols are culturally similar to the Chinese and Japanese (not to say there aren't important differences), but who else in the base game will provide me with a Mesoamerican civ? Flavour is especially important in the base game. DLC can fill in all those important civs for those who need them, but I don't expect to pay extra money to play in a culturally varied world.

 

[Gucumatz]

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.

To not include the Aztecs or the Inca is actually kind of ridiculous. The Aztec's were a cumulation of the advances, civilization, and empire growth in Mesoamerica. The technology mastered, extent of trade, and influence is amazing. The same with the Inca. For centuries Andean empires like the Wari, Tiwanaku, Chachapoya, Moche, Nazca, etc. created massive cities, advances in technology, trade, religion, etc.

Their world obviously came shattering down, but it isn't even a flavor thing. Historically these two empires were the peak of centuries of archictecture, science, religion, and population. What? You are saying you wouldn't include them?

Ignore the fact that Mesoamerica was possibly the most populated area of the world for centuries (possibly over even China)? No the Aztecs 100% deserve to be a vanilla civ along with the Inca. At times where Paris was 30k people and the top of European population several Mesoamerican cities were 10x that.

Don't get me wrong, but the Aztecs and Inca deserve to be in here. I find it silly that you think they shouldn't

Its just from your original post its evident you have a very Euro-Centric view of the world and don't seem to know about a lot of civilizations outside of the view, which is kind of the point I am trying to make.

 

[Sotof]

Most colonial nations, or at least the American ones that are the most mentioned, have existed as independent political entities for around 200 years. This translates to roughly two in game eras, or a third of the game. This is longer than some of the classical civs. And saying that modern colonial nations haven't distinguished themselves is a bit of a stretch, especially in the case of America.

Many of the classical CIVs have had huge impact on history - Rome and Greece for example. You can say the same about USA, sure, but thing is they have only existed for a third of the total game - it truly annoy me to see colonial nations in the early game. At least with Germany I can justify them as being raging bands of barbarians attacking Rome - Can't do that with Canada.

I would choose Monty over the Mongols any day. Variation between civs is more important than their historical importance (cultural variation, not gameplay variation). The Mongols are culturally similar to the Chinese and Japanese (not to say there aren't important differences), but who else in the base game will provide me with a Mesoamerican civ? Flavour is especially important in the base game. DLC can fill in all those important civs for those who need them, but I don't expect to pay extra money to play in a culturally varied world.

That's where we differ.

To not include the Aztecs or the Inca is actually kind of ridiculous. The Aztec's were a cumulation of the advances, civilization, and empire growth in Mesoamerica. The technology mastered, extent of trade, and influence is amazing. The same with the Inca. For centuries Andean empires like the Wari, Tiwanaku, Chachapoya, Moche, Nazca, etc. created massive cities, advances in technology, trade, religion, etc.

Their world obviously came shattering down, but it isn't even a flavor thing. Historically these two empires were the peak of centuries of archictecture, science, religion, and population. What? You are saying you wouldn't include them?

Ignore the fact that Mesoamerica was possibly the most populated area of the world for centuries (possibly over even China)? No the Aztecs 100% deserve to be a vanilla civ along with the Inca. At times where Paris was 30k people and the top of European population several Mesoamerican cities were 10x that.

Don't get me wrong, but the Aztecs and Inca deserve to be in here. I find it silly that you think they shouldn't

Its just from your original post its evident you have a very Euro-Centric view of the world and don't seem to know about a lot of civilizations outside of the view, which is kind of the point I am trying to make.

I'm not Euro-Centric. It just so happens that a good deal of the CIVs in Europe have actually influenced world history in a pretty major way - that's just how it is. Thing is that the Inca and Aztec cultures did not survive and influence the world in any major way - no matter how great they might have been in their little pocket of the world. Compared to Rome, Spain, England or Mongolia they are flavour CIVs. They are not in because they did something to last - they are in because of flavour. That is what I am against.

Now do not get me wrong, flavour is fine. I like flavour. But if I had to pick between flavour and a cool game-mechanic I might pick the mechanic. I do not especially mind the Incas or Aztec being in the game, I just think historically significant CIVs should take precedence when picking which should be in the game. Flavour can always be added in DLC.

 

[Civciv5]

Thing is that the Inca and Aztec cultures did not survive and influence the world in any major way - no matter how great they might have been in their little pocket of the world.

It's not their fault that they were destroyed by the vile Spanish who took their land!
They had great monuments,cities and empires!
They were destroyed by a civilization who was more advanced and they brought plagues.
You surely have to refine your history knowledge.

 

[Gucumatz]

do not especially mind the Incas or Aztec being in the game, I just think historically significant CIVs should take precedence when picking which should be in the game. Flavour can always be added in DLC.

Well I guess this is where we differ. One can't understand Mexico or South America without understanding the Maya, Aztecs, Inca, etc. Culture, religion, trade, language all survive from the period. Millions of people still follow rituals and celebrations that come directly out of these civilizations. There are cults and religions that still survive and influence the many indigenous to this day. There are Aztec revivalist political parties and there was a large Maya resistance for hundreds of years and the creation of a brand new religion in the Cruzobs.

Empires which existed for hundreds of years built off of thousands of years of culture that have wide influences even to this day don't deserve to be included? The millions of people that were there don't deserve to be included. And I am not even touching on some of the secret societies which survive to this day that were saved by nobles, priests, and scientists of these civilizations. There are more codices out there, let me just say thats a guarentee for example. The culture and influence is tremendous and still thrives to this day.

You can't neglect that kind of history to backburner. I would rather have the Aztecs than the Mongols for example for historical purposes (I love learning about the Mongol Empire too but their demographics and lack of infrastructure often mask weaknesses covered up by trade and conquests).

 

[GenjiKhan]

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.

I don't think you know why I also mentioned Germany and Russia,do you? Both Civs are in the game,not only because of their achievements in the 18th or 19th century,but also because of their achievements in the 20th century,which were far more important(the WW1 and WW2 for Germany and the rising and fall of URSS for Russia) . I suggested you to read more about all these civs . Also,Saying that USA/Brazil hadn't distinguished themselves from their founders(England/Portugal) shows an staggering ammount of ignorance about all of them(USA,Brazil,England and Portugal) .

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.

You cannot be serious . It was way much better the way they did,because the Mongolia DLC was/is Free and it had a scenario,which is something that Vanilla civs don't have(although this scenario is too broken now) .

Many of the classical CIVs have had huge impact on history - Rome and Greece for example. You can say the same about USA, sure, but thing is they have only existed for a third of the total game - it truly annoy me to see colonial nations in the early game. At least with Germany I can justify them as being raging bands of barbarians attacking Rome - Can't do that with Canada.

Germany tribes didn't contribute so much with the fall of Rome Empire(the Huns had made much more for that,but their existance in Civ series is starting in G&K,while Germany was one of the first Civilizations in the Original Civ) . They are in the game not because of this part of their history,but because of their influence during the 19th century and the 20th century,which is also the same period that justifies the presence of USA and Russia . Soon enough,I hope they also include the influence of the civilization in the 21th century and with that,includes Brazil .

 

[Louis XXIV]

You cannot be serious . It was way much better the way they did,because the Mongolia DLC was/is Free and it had a scenario,which is something that Vanilla civs don't have(although this scenario is too broken now) .

Broken is such a badly overused term that it's lost all meaning. Is it buggy, unbalanced, both? Is this something modders can fix or only Firaxis? The concept of getting boosts from conquering City-States was a novel idea that makes the scenario worth salvaging otherwise.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Broken is such a badly overused term that it's lost all meaning. Is it buggy, unbalanced, both? Is this something modders can fix or only Firaxis? The concept of getting boosts from conquering City-States was a novel idea that makes the scenario worth salvaging otherwise.

Since the last patch that add +3 per city ,it became way too complicated to conquest all of them in 8 turns and it was quite problematic as well to get the bonus of city-states . But with the changes in G&K,it may become not so complicated to fulfil the objective of the scenario .

 

[Louis XXIV]

+3 what?

 

[ehecatzin]

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.

Yet while the Aztecs in Civ are a representation of mesoamerica and its people you disregard them, despite the long rich history of the place.

Thing is that the Inca and Aztec cultures did not survive and influence the world in any major way - no matter how great they might have been in their little pocket of the world.

Mesoamerica, the caribean and the Andes are a little pocket of the world? The cultural shock was tremendous, but the culture survived and adapted (they didnt "dissapear" like some people like to believe). You may want to take a walk in Peru and Yucatan and come back and say again native culture didnt survive.

I agree with you on one thing, the conquering of these people was incredibly important, it changed the rules of the game for everybody on the world, suddenly the silk road was unimportant, kingdoms had to explore or fall behind, I mean the plunder of the native empires (and later viceroyal administration) practicly financed the Spanish imperial war machine.

But guess what, before that deciding event in history there was millenia of culture, history and cientific advance, if the Spanish were stupid and zealous enough to burn Maya manuscripts or supress the Mexica educational and agricultural systems thats another story.

But luckily the devs know this, and despite being very eurocentric in their civ choices, they try to give reprentation to interesting areas of the world that are not so omnipresent on pop culture, in the main game, and DLC.

 

[Zipa_DH]

I'm not Euro-Centric. It just so happens that a good deal of the CIVs in Europe have actually influenced world history in a pretty major way - that's just how it is. Thing is that the Inca and Aztec cultures did not survive and influence the world in any major way - no matter how great they might have been in their little pocket of the world. Compared to Rome, Spain, England or Mongolia they are flavour CIVs. .

em... South American territory is bigger than European territory... and exaclty how Sweden or Babylon have influeced american or asian history? ... and not for that, Sweden and Babylon aren't considered civilizations, they have a history, a definied culture and traditions, but not much influence in world's history, but still are civilizations like Rome or Russia... it's clearly that you have no idea of non-european civilizations... or just you are trolling...

 

[Sotof]

Gee, really had not expected to spawn such a discussion with my comment.

I don't think you know why I also mentioned Germany and Russia,do you?

I'm well aware, however the point you are trying to make is still moot if you bothered to research their history.

Also,Saying that USA/Brazil hadn't distinguished themselves from their founders

Not what I am saying. Also if you bothered to read: Yes I think USA has distinguished themselves. It's obvious. Stop bringing that up - it has no relevance. Brazil on the other hand has not done anything noteworthy.

Germany tribes didn't contribute so much with the fall of Rome Empire

Germanic. Also shows a great deal of ignorance here. The fall of Rome had many variables, the Germanic tribes were certainly among them. 'Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!'

You cannot be serious . It was way much better the way they did,because the Mongolia DLC was/is Free and it had a scenario,which is something that Vanilla civs don't have(although this scenario is too broken now) .

I am very serious. Do you remember that one map in CIV 4 or 3 where you could play different American tribes and expand them to an Aztec or Inca empire? It was fun and... Replayable.

Yet while the Aztecs in Civ are a representation of mesoamerica and its people you disregard them, despite the long rich history of the place.

I do not disregard them, I simply do not find them important in the grand scheme of things (because they are not). I am fine with them being flavour I just find some CIVs are more important (like India, China, so on).

(I love learning about the Mongol Empire too but their demographics and lack of infrastructure often mask weaknesses covered up by trade and conquests)

You cannot deny how much greater an impact the Mongols had though. But again, I don't mind the Aztecs, I don't deny how they doubtlessly have some of their culture pass into modern Mexico. Compared to Rome however - who laid the groundwork for the entirety of western civilization - they are not all that important. I would just still prefer to have those CIVs of great significance first.


Anyway. Going to leave this discussion, I have a feeling it will go in circles.

 

[Zipa_DH]

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.

it's a shame that your prejudices and eurocentrism don't let you see the importance of cultures like Siam or the Songhai empire

 

[Sotof]

em... South American territory is bigger than European territory... and exaclty how Sweden or Babylon have influeced american or asian history? ... and not for that, Sweden and Babylon aren't considered civilizations, they have a history, a definied culture and traditions, but not much influence in world's history, but still are civilizations like Rome or Russia... it's clearly that you have no idea of non-european civilizations... or just you are trolling...

it's a shame that your prejudices and eurocentrism don't let you see the importance of cultures like Siam or the Songhai empire

Try to think twice next time you make a comment. Seriously. From what you have read do you think I want Sweden, Babylon or Denmark (my own nation) in the game yet?

Some people.

 

[Gucumatz]

it's a shame that your prejudices and eurocentrism don't let you see the importance of cultures like Siam or the Songhai empire

Honestly, I don't think he is being serious at this moment. He had no idea bout either of them so how is supposed to have any credibility in regards to history. Over 2 thousands years of empires and civilization are irrelevant? Its just silly. Cities like El Mirador from 1,000 B.C. to 200 A.D. were odds are either the most populated cities in the world or in the top 5. To dismiss centuries of science, religion, etc. like that is ridiculous.

And to ignore every point about culture and their effects on the Americas? I doubt he has ever been south of the USA

 

[Zipa_DH]

Try to think twice next time you make a comment. Seriously. From what you have read do you think I want Sweden, Babylon or Denmark (my own nation) in the game yet?

Some people.

haha, ok 1 repply
well, for your prejudices I thought not , hahaha but you must be trolling if you say that babylon isn't a civilization, really?

 

[Sotof]

Honestly, I don't think he is being serious at this moment. He had no idea bout either of them so how is supposed to have any credibility in regards to history.

It's easy to find somewhere someone lacks knowledge of world history because it's such an immense subject. The fact you have interest in some nations that no longer has much (if any) impact on the world does equal that others are somehow stupid or uneducated if they do not find the same in them. You somehow seem to take my disinterest in dead civilizations personal, which I please urge you not to. And by the love of the gods stop making baseless assumptions off something I wrote in barely 10 minutes in a hurry. Good lord

And to calm your interest, since I live in Europe I have not been south of the USA. Frankly it would be way to expensive for me - I don't have that kind of luxury.

haha, ok 1 repply
well, for your prejudices I thought not , hahaha but you must be trolling if you say that babylon isn't a civilization, really?

You sure you are not trolling? Because I never said that.

 

[Gucumatz]

It's easy to find somewhere someone lacks knowledge of world history because it's such an immense subject. The fact you have interest in some nations that no longer has much (if any) impact on the world does equal that others are somehow stupid or uneducated if they do not find the same in them. You somehow seem to take my disinterest in dead civilizations personal, which I please urge you not to. And by the love of the gods stop making baseless assumptions off something I wrote in barely 10 minutes in a hurry. Good lord

And to calm your interest, since I live in Europe I have not been south of the USA. Frankly it would be way to expensive for me - I don't have that kind of luxury.

Dead civilizations?

Perhaps its because I am half Kaqchikel. Perhaps there are actually still functional tribes in Mesoamerica who keep the old ways? Ever heard of the Lacadon? Doubt it. The culture and religion is existent throughout Central America.

Many things have double meanings often related to the past civilizations of the Maya and Aztecs. We still celebrate rituals in church that many people recognize are meant to worship some of the old gods. The most famous of these I am sure even you have heard of are the shrines to Saint Judas. Maximon. Many people can point to a picture of a saint and know which god (if not by the Maya name, but they still recognize the god) that saint is supposed to represent.

How do these civilizations not still have influence. The culture of many of these civilizations survives well into today. You sound utterly inane to think there is nothing.

And civilizations like Sweden and Babylon are great DLC civs. I just don't understand how you think only focusing on a Euro-Centric view validates anything (it doesn't it makes you sound silly and like you are trying to sound like a fool) that you are saying at the moment.

 

[Sotof]

Look, Gucu. I am not going to discuss with someone who tries to belittle others into thinking their point of view is the one and only way to go. It is a waste of time. If you want to discuss, try to do it like a decent human being, alright?

 

[Gucumatz]

Or even look at some of the more famous Cartels nowadays. The Zeta which function primarily in Guatemala recruit a ton of former Guatemalan soldiers and there are divisions of the Zeta actually dedicated to the protection of some of the Maya beliefs. People in Mesoamerica remember their past even though things get distorted over the years. There is plenty of culture that survives, you just don't want to look.

===

I am not belittering you, you aren't responding to a single point and resolving back to a sense of Euro-Centrism and ignorance. It just doesn't work that way.