What new Civs ? (no nationalism ?)

[DBear]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the classic AH board game History of the World as arbiter of which empires should get in. 7 epochs with 7 empires in each, plus various minor empires and city-states should give us a fair choice, don't you think? Let's take a look:

http://users.adelphia.net/~chassler/history_of_the_world_player_aid.html

Epoch 1:
Sumerians, Egyptians, Minoans, Indus Valley, Shang Dynasty, Babylon, Aryans
minor: Hittites

everyone there is already represented except the Aryans. Indus Valley is forerunner of India (various empires will duplicate them), and the Shang Dynasty is the first of many Chinese dynasties. The Aryans are probably the ancestors of the Persians (the modern name, Iran, is in fact derived from Aryan). Thus, the Aryans should not appear.

Epoch 2:
Assyria, Chou Dynasty, Vedic City-States, Greek City-States, Scythia, Carthage, Persia
minor: Phoenicia

Here we find some new faces. The Assyrians occupy much of the same territory as the Babylonians, but then so do the Sumerians. The Chou, Vedic, and Greek are already accounted for. Scythia appears in the ROR scenario and is sufficiently different to be included. Phoenicia appears in the Mesopotamia scenario, and while ancestors of the Carthagians, seem sufficiently different to warrant inclusion.
So far we have Assyria, Scythia, and Phoenicia as newcomers.

Epoch 3:
Celts, Macedonia, Maurya, Han Dynasty, Hsiung-Nu, Romans, Sassanids
minor: Mayans

Nothing new here. The Hsiung-Nu are the Huns (almost identical name) and the Sassanids are a revived Persia.

Epoch 4:
Guptas, Goths, Huns, Byzantines, Tang Dynasty, Arabs, Khmers
minor: Anglo-Saxons

The Goths appear in ROR and FOR. While a Germanic tribe, the Teutonic Warrior is much different than the modern Germanic panzer. They make the cut. The Huns should definitely be included, as should the Khmers. Angkor Wat would make an excellent great wonder.
Recap: Assyria, Scythia, Phoenicia, Goths, Huns, Khmer

continued in next post

 

[DBear]

Epoch 5:
Franks, Vikings, Holy Roman Empire, Cholas, Sung Dynasty, Seljuk Turks, Mongols
minor: Fujiwara

nothing here. Franks are of course the ancestors of France, and HRE that of the Germans (Hitler considered it the First Reich). The Seljuks and the Ottomans are both Turks, so the Seljuks should not be included, and Fujiwara is medieval Japan.

Epoch 6:
Ming Dynasty, Timurids, Incas & Aztecs, Ottoman Turks, Portugal, Spain, Mughuls.
minor: Safavids

Nothing here either. The Timurids are an offshoot of the Mongols, as are the Mughuls, who would be considered with India also. The Safavids are yet another revival of Persia

Epoch 7:
Russia, Manchu Dynasty, Netherlands, France, Britain, United States, Germany
minor: Japan

the 'modern' empires are all here and accounted for.

But wait, there's more:

 

[DBear]

City-state cards:

Highlands--Scotland
Malay Peninsula--Siam
Upper Nile--Ethiopia
Gold Coast--Mali
Southern Iberia--Granada
N. American migrants--Iroquois
Sub-Sahara migrants--Zulus

The Iroquois and Zulus are already in, so lets add the other 5. This now gives us Assyria, Scythia, Phoenicia, Goths, Huns, Khmers, Scotland, Siam, Ethiopia, Mali, and Granada. This beefs up the African contingent.

Events--Jewish revolt:
Israel/Hebrew backers, your cries are heard. Add Israel, and we now have 12 new nations. Unfortunately, a total of 44 is not a good number to work with, 48 is much better. So, let's try to scrounge up 4 more:

None of the new nations are from the Americans, so let's add one. Brazil seems to be the best candidate. Similarly, Oceania needs a representative, so let's include Australia. Actually, the second edition (Avalon Hill/Hasbro) includes Australian migrants as an event card. Austria-Hungary is already present as an alternate civ, so let's add them. And the final entrant--I can't decide between Polynesia or Poland. Both make convincing cases. I'll leave it to you.

And with that, I'm done

 

[DBear]

Meatwad earlier suggested going to 3 attributes per civ. If additional civs are to be added, this is a must. With only 2 attributes, there are 8!/2!6! combinations, or 28 possible. With 3 attributes, there are 8!/3!5!, or 56 possible. 48 civs (including the barbarian) seems to be the optimal number, I really can't see who else to include.

 

[Paradigne]

EDIT: Corrected Indians to indians. Goddamn! Why must we suffer because Columbus was so stupid that he thought he was already in India!

You think thats bad, the gremans are Deutch in their language because someone thought they were the Dutch

 

[Stid]

wow Dbear althought i couldnt give a hoot whos in the new game thanks for all the info.it made an interesting read even tho i wont be able to remember half the new names

 

[Zenon_pt]

Portugal, as powerful and important as it was, could be re-assimilated into Spain;

Most importantly perhaps, neither of them are culturally very similar to other nations, such as Spain/Portugal, Austria/Germany, etc.
Apologies for ressurecting the thread.

Here we go again...
Spain and Portugal??????????

why not England and America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The some argument as you use to the Austria-Hungary also apply's to the Austria/Germany, SPAIN (?!?) / PORTUGAL (U R Joking right???)...

 

[Zenon_pt]

I haven't read the whole thread (shame on me), but has anyone suggested that Civs get 3 traits instead of 2? It would allow more diversity and depth, IMHO.

I do not know!!!
In some civ's, it's very dificult to managment a 3th trait.
could you give me an example or two???

 

[civilleader]

My dream list of additional Civs:

Africa:
Kongo
Mali/Shonghai/Ghana
Zanj
Ethiopia/Absynnia
Numbia

Europe:
Poland
Austria-Hungary or split into Austria and Hungary
Finland
(Celts removed)

Middle East:
Hebrews
Assyria (They have Sumer and Babylon so why not them)
(Wouldn't mind removing the Hittites)

Asia:
Tibet
Khmer Empire/ Cambodia
Thailand
Indonesia/Malay/Mataram/Mahjaphit
Vietnam/Da Viet/Champa

Australasia:
Polynesia (The tribes of upper Pacific)
Maori (Yeah the're Polynesian, but on a world map NZ will never be occupied)
Australian Aboriginese/Australia (Australia only if Canada added, rather Aborignese though)

The Americas:
Cherokee
Canada (only with Australia, the Iriquois basically replace them now)
Brazil/Tupi (Brazil only if Canada, Australia, Argentina in)
Argentina/Nazca? (if Nazcas not from that area then an Argentine Native tribe)
Carib/Arawak

New Culture Groups:
Neo- European for USA, Canada...(split from Indigenous American)
African- for all civs there except Carthage, Egypt
Eastern European for Poland, Russia, Hungary
Indian/Hindu for India, Khmer, Indonesia (especially for Mahjaphit, Mataram) maybe also for Thailand, Champa or Tibet? (since you can't classify Indian architecture in ancient times as Oriental Asian or Islamic, and these civs do deserve their own "Hindu" group

 

[korossyl]

why not England and America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The some argument as you use to the Austria-Hungary also apply's to the Austria/Germany, SPAIN (?!?) / PORTUGAL (U R Joking right???)...

Because I am talking about cultural similarity. England and America have completely, totally differant and seperate cultures. Don't get me wrong; I am definately aware that the Portugese and Spanish are two differant nations, and I respect them for that. I am a great proponent of national individualism! However, Spain and Portugal, just as Austria and Germany, have very similar cultures.

I believe, based on the entire Civilization series, that what civs are included should be based on (a) cultural uniqueness, and (b) relevance.

Now, slightly off-topic...
In response to the many suggestions of expanding African civilizations, or "why add more European civs":
For the latter reason is why I don't think more African civs are needed. African nations such as the Zulu, the Nubians, and the Northern African Moors were really the only civilizations from that region that played a major role in world or regional affairs. In addition, they were all culturally quite unique. Regardless of questions of European imperialism and racism and whatnot, it is a fact that African civilizations had less of an impact on the world than European or Asian civilizations. This is only exacerbated by the fact that up until recently (and even recently), Africa was less nation-based that tribe-based.

 

[AtomRipper]

i agree africa is tribe based, they should add the nubians, the moors, and a couple of tribes (not sure if theyre ethnicities or tribes but the Hutu and the Tutsi)

 

[slothman]

Why not Buddists and Sikhs? What about ancient Roman religions with Zeus? They are religions just like Hebrews. Is Israel next? The Hebrews are a religion not a civ. Besides we don't need any more ME ones. No I'm not anti-semitic I just don't think they are worthy or civness. All I know is that I will mod them out since it looks like majority, like that works, and peer pressure will get them in anyways.

 

[Zild]

Because I am talking about cultural similarity. England and America have completely, totally differant and seperate cultures.

How so? I wish that were the case, I truly do, but the cultures of the UK (England in particular) and the USA are far too similar for my liking.


As for what civs I would like to add (not expecting any support on these at all!):

(Modern) Australia and Aboriginees, as I have a fondness for both. If forced to choose between them, I would rather have the Aboriginees as they at least aren't a clear offshoot, unlike modern Australia.

South Africa, for those people who want to bulk out Africa. As far as I'm aware, there are very few African civilisations who are on a par with the rest of the world in teh 21st century, and this strikes me as the most obvious and most influential, not to mention the most colourful in their own history.

Nubians, for those who want to bulk out Africa with an older civ, but more importantly because I like the name!

Inuits/Eskimos, although I have no idea what I'm talking about here...

 

[korossyl]

America and England are completely and totally differant. They share the same language... and that's about it. Traditions, institutions, religiosity, customs, history, etc. are all totally differant.

As for South Africa, the Zulus pretty much cover that. South Africa, apart from the Boers and the Afrikaaners was Zululand. I really don't see any need to bring in artificially consrtucted post-colonial states.

The Nubians would be cool, but I'm not sure how much they're not covered already by the Egyptians.

 

[rhialto]

If we are going to do African civs, we could easily justify Ethiopia and Mali. For Mali, the leader would be Mansa Musa.

 

[Zild]

The United Kingdom and the United States of America share the same language (pretty much...)

They have pretty much the same level and types of technology, from agriculture to space and weapons technology - Both have sent landers to Mars (okay, so the UK's both crashed, but the first one was as much the fault of the US as the UK!) Both have nuclear weapons.

They have similar histories - They both played key roles in World War Two (although the UK entered before they were attacked). They both fought in the American Civil War, albeit on different sides. They have both taken part in "policing actions". They have both placed permanent military installations in the countries they have defeated. Both have enslaved blacks. Both are (supposedly) democratic countries that have fought communism through policing conflicts and espionage. Yes, there are differences, most notably in that the US's history goes back less than 600 years, so they've had to cram all their attrocities into a shorter period of time.

In terms of institutions, most of the institutions you find in the US have mirrors in the UK, be they government-created or civilian.

Traditions - share Christmas and New Year celebrations, and celabrate them in very similar ways (especially when compared to other nations). I doubt you'd find any other nation that celebrates Christmas in a closer way to the US than the UK - the only possible candidate that springs to mind is Canada. Even Australia is considerably different (most probably because it's summer at the time...) (Educational) graduation ceremonies proceed in similar ways, in similar dress.

Religion - the largest group of both countries follows no religion actively. The rest follow a wide range of religions, from Buddhism to Islam, Shinto to Judaism, and they do so openly.

Customs - people introduce each other, shake hands, kiss each other goodbye at the airport... Business meetings are conducted in similar fashions in both countries. Commercial exchanges take place in the same way, with often the exact same phrases.

Business - Subways and Starbucks are springing up everywhere, apart from where the space is already taken by MacDonalds.

But let's address your original point directly...

Because I am talking about cultural similarity. England and America have completely, totally differant and seperate cultures.

Culture... Modern architecture in both countries is pretty much identical. Older architecture in the UK varies according to the age in which the building was created, but since the USA has such a shorter history this isn't an option. There are, of course, examples of buildings made in popular European styles, including British styles.

Behaviour and attitude of people... Mass public expression of divided opinions over the war in Iraq. Constantly rising crime levels, including increased violent crime and increased gun crime. Increasing frequency of high-school shootings. US musicians breaking into the UK, UK musicians breaking into the US (facilitated not only by the similar language, but by the similar styles). The same follows for TV, film and I assume art.

Not to mention that both are hated by a large number of Muslim extremist terrrorist groups, and that the typical Brit and the typical Yank both assume that everybody speaks English.

I think my arguments here are relatively weak, and I know that others could do better, but it's hard to make a clear point when there are so many different similarities to consider. If you really want to argue this out, I suggest you make a more defined point (or series of points), and I will attempt to prove you wrong on each one with clear examples...

 

[korossyl]

First off, I find your tone as well as your word usage slightly offensive. Yes, there have been atrocities committed in Britain and in America, but your post makes it appear as if these countries are somehow actively in the business of pursuing and committing atrocities. If you do believe this is true, then please do not share potentially inflammatory political positions in this topic... I'll gladly debate in another forum.

Now...
Just because they happen to have the same levels of technology and fought in the same World Wars (emphasis on World) does not make them similar. Growing crime rates, transnational celebrities, public demonstrations against public leaders' policies... these are traits shared by most advanced, 1st-world countries. The exact same statements could be made about France, Germany, Russia, Japan, or South Africa.

Religion plays very differant roles in the two countries. In the UK, and Western Europe generally, religion has an increasingly smaller place in peoples' lives. The majority of the English feel that religion should have little place in public life and even less in government. America, whether its citizens are actually sincere or not, still is made up almost entirely of people who claim to be religious and who claim to attend church; these people feel that religion can and should be used in public life and the government. President George Bush often speaks of God or uses other religious phrases, while Tony Blair and other world leaders tend to shun such public displays.

Again, the "customs" described above are generally the same in most of Europe, at least. Same methods of interaction with others, and even the same phrases used in business. This relates to the point about assuming "everyone speaks English." This is becoming more true everyday; English is the official language of the UN, is the language used in all airports, and is fast becoming the language of international business. Chinese cab drivers today are required to take English courses.

Really, most of the points can be applied to many countries today. Globalism is the new trend, and countries are becoming more and more similar. I'm looking at more abstract notions than levels of technology or methods of conducting business. For instance, a large part of American life revolves around the fact that America is a democracy (republic, actually). Americans are very proud of that, and tend to take a democratic approach to everyday life. The principles of Democracy tie modern America back to the reasons for the Revolutionary War, the "Founding Fathers", the ideals presented in the Consitution, etc. Britain functions as a democarcy as well, but the institutions of the Royal Family, of Buckingham, of the powerd of the monarch are inseperable from British government. When people see the Queen, they are reminded of a monarchial tradition dating back hundreds upon hundreds of years, and all that that entails. The "feeling" of being American is very, very differant than the "feeling" of being British. Even from an external perspective: today, yes, the countries are becoming more and more similar, but a visitor from another place would have noticed massive differance between a typical American city and a British city. In fact, the British city would have been probably more similar to another European city, were it French or even Russian, than the American locale.

 

[majk-iii]

New York is a great city - but the nation and the people as a whole in the USA are american's . . . I hope I have got my point across.
Some one answer me please . . .

Actually the people(s) of all of the americas are americans.

 

[Zild]

Again, the "customs" described above are generally the same in most of Europe, at least. Same methods of interaction with others, and even the same phrases used in business. This relates to the point about assuming "everyone speaks English." This is becoming more true everyday; English is the official language of the UN, is the language used in all airports, and is fast becoming the language of international business. Chinese cab drivers today are required to take English courses.

There you go, somebody's done it again!

There are those who consider English only to be the international language in aviation temporarily - the French, for example, swear blind that it is only in the interim period until an official language is chosen!

Yes, many countries are becoming more like America in modern times - the difference is that the UK was probably the most similar before.

As to how you can make your point about religion followed by your point about the monarchy... The monarchy is only really related to the government through minor, outdated rules that the monarchy ignores. Yes, the Queen has to rubber-stamp new laws, but that's all it is - a rubber stamp. The Queen plays no major part in the majority of people's lives, with the exception of the occasional appearance of her image, her crest, or monarchical words that happen to exist in countless situations but nobody cars about. If you truly feel it fair to argue that the presence of a monarchy makes the UK that much different than the US, then you must remember the very important point of the monarchy (monarchies in general, I think) that the monarch is the ruler chosen by God. Therefore, if the monarchy permeates every part of British life, then so does religion. You cannot make one argument without refuting the other...


Back on topic, I forgot to add that I think the people of the Carribean should be represented in some way (I don't think they are at present, are they?) I'm not entirely sure how you would go about this, or which of the Carribean's inhabitants should be given preference if they can't all go in together. But it would be nice.

 

[korossyl]

Yes, English may well be only a temporary lingua franca; however, regardless of what the French "swear blind", it is currently the international language for just about everything.

Not all monarchies are based on religion. Those that are affiliated with religious principles do not so much say that they are the "ruler chosen by God" but that they have a divine right to rule. It is a great differance saying that an office is divinely mandated and saying that a certain person is divinely chosen. Now, when dealing with the monarchy's relation to English society as a whole, it is true that today, the monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead, and it may be true that in a hundred years' time, it will have been abolished or receded from the public foreground entirely. However, today, it is still an omnipresent and oft-publicized symbol of old English traditions. Yes, this does include a component of religion, but no more affects how religious the society is than France's having the grand cathedral Notre Dame makes them catholic or that the Kremlin's being built around St. Basil's Cathedral made it a religious institution: in other words, the religious aspect is purely a historical aspect. It would not go over well if the Queen, attempting to bring her divine mandate up to historical times, would execute a number of MPs whom she dislikes. Indeed, religion being actively involved in governing is taboo in most of Western Europe, in France especially, but also in Britain. America is quite distinct in that the people expect religion to be brought into politics fairly often. It is unheard of that grand State of the Union addresses or inauguration ceremonies would not end with the traditional phrase, "God bless America". In the last American presidential debate, both candidates frequently mentioned or even quoted the Bible.

Reiterating an earlier statement I don't think was very clear, I think up to about 70 years ago, Britain much more resembled France or Germany than it did America. America truly did not resemble any country very much -- no doubt a major factor in the massive amounts of immigrants seeking the "streets paved with gold".

I may be very wrong about this, but didn't one of the great mesoamerican empires dominate the Caribbean? The Aztecs, perhaps? I remember reading about how the Caribbean natives welcomed Columbus at first because they thought he had come to vanquish the "dog-men" or somesuch that raided and pillaged them mercilessly. Or something. I think.