Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

  • Americans

    Votes: 106 28.6%
  • Arabians

    Votes: 9 2.4%
  • Aztecs

    Votes: 16 4.3%
  • Chinese

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Egyptians

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • English

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • French

    Votes: 8 2.2%
  • Germans

    Votes: 7 1.9%
  • Greeks

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Incans

    Votes: 24 6.5%
  • Indians

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Japanese

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Malinese

    Votes: 122 33.0%
  • Mongolians

    Votes: 38 10.3%
  • Persians

    Votes: 7 1.9%
  • Romans

    Votes: 5 1.4%
  • Russians

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Spanish

    Votes: 14 3.8%

  • Total voters
    370
I said I won't contribute to this thread and won't vote and I haven't.

But I have to let you know:

IMO it's a shame that a thread like this is still so high up here and interesting questions concerning gameplay are on page three since there's so much going on in the forum right now (which is really good!)...

I would buy civ4 if Germany wouldn't be in (I'm German, BTW). Even if they would have only taken fantasy names, but it's more fun as it is!

America is second in this poll because people are suspicious they only made it because of commercialism (which is ridiculous!!) and Mali is first because people don't know enough about them... No movie or TV-mini-series about Mali yet, but Shaka had one (back in the 80ies, I think...).

It's a shame! :sad:

Sorry, but this thread is a waste of space... :shakehead
 
OK, I have read this thread through and here are my opinions.

None of the nations above should be out of the game. However, if one had to go I would still choose Mali. Because not many people no that much about them, therefore they don't want to play as them. You can argue all you want that Mali represents Africa, but it represents the Islamic community more. Also, don't forget about Egypt, Egypt is in Africa and you could just as effectively argue that Egypt represents Africa as well as Mali. The truth is, neither represent Africa as we all think Africa as. Mali should be out, and Zulu back in. This is of course just my opinion.

Now my second canidate would be Aztecs. We already have a North American nation represented (Aztecs were located in central mexico which is north america, not central america). Plus, the Aztecs didn't really influence past history. They were a primitive people who conquered nearby tribes and their only claim to fame was being conquered by the Spanish conquistadors.
You will notice I don't think Incas should be out, because they are the only nation that represents South Smerica. Also, they were more culturally advanced and technologically advanced that the Aztecs. They were especially advanced in the medical field. I feel they should stay.

My third canidate would be Spain. Spain, because I think the only real world power they possesed was during the Age of Discovery when they colonized the New World and the Phillipines. After the age of discovery and the Spanish American war in which America got Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines in there victory, it kind of feels like the spanish power just disintegrated. No offense to you Jonathon. (I noticed you were from Barcelona)

Now, I have to add my two cents dealing with Mongolia and America.

First Mongolia. Although Mongolia was a culturally lacking nation, for the 250 years it existed it conquered almost all of Europe and Asia. It had the largest nation ever in world history. Because of Mongolia, early russians were completely stunted in growth. The mongolians marched from city to city, civ to civ, conquering and killing. They affected world history immensely even though it was in a negative way. They left no one alive in cities they conquered except men who could be recruited in their army. Because of them, cities were annihilated. No one can say they didn't affect world history. They came the closest to conquering the world than any other civ (although they weren't really "civilized") ever in world history.

OK, here comes the long argument. America has had a huge impact on world history, regardless of what you think of it's current government policy. You can't uninclude them in the game because they are the youngest nation. First off, people who argue it ruins gameplay when American warriors are running around in 4000 B.C. I have this to say to you. This is just a game! I realize many people like to have realistic and historic aspects when they are playing (I do sometimes too) but is being one leader for 6000 years realistic. And if you argue that America is too young and didn't exist in the world in 4000 B.C. None of the other civs did either except the Sumerians (who aren't in the game) and Egypt. If you argue that America can't be in the game because they didn't exist in 4000 B.C. then you have to argue that the Aztecs or Incas can't be in the game past 1600's or else your argument doesn't make sense. Now, for anyone saying that America shouldn't be in the game because it is to simaliar to England I have this to say to you. Yes, the first of us came to America from England. But also from France and Spain. Once we gained our independence the US became the melting pot of the world. French, British, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Dutch, and Irish all immagrated to the U.S. and still are today. You can't say that our sole backround is from England. Nor can you say that America and England belong to the same civilization. If you say that then what you are arguing is that, America, Canada, England, France, Portugal, Spain, Holland, Germany, just to name a few, should all be combined into one nation called "Western Civilization." Then you would also have to combine China and Japan and other nations that are simaliarly civilized. This doesn't make any sense. America is the world's leading super power, the world's only current superpower. It has influenced and still influences the world economically, industrially, politically, technologically, and militaristically. I wish I could continue on with examples and excetras but I don't know how better to explain by point of view. Either way, my opinion is, that the idea of getting rid of America because of SOME (not all) of the reasons people have posted in this thread is absolutely absurd and in some cases ridiculous.

P.S. I just thought of something. We are all arguing about a game including America in it when the game was created in America.
 
America deserves to be in the game because of the last century. I would like to take out a European civ and replace it with a civ from some other continent to freshen the game up a bit, but of these civs specifically the least deserves to be in the game in my opinion the Aztecs, who should be replaced by the Maya, for reasons probably many times pointed out.

Edit: Oh, the most popular option is Mali. Don't you dare take out the only Sub-Saharan civ!
 
As I said in earlier posts, I voted for Mali, but that was an impulse vote based on the fact that I knew nothing about them. After having read many posts in this thread, I am elaborating and extending to say what civs I would have included.

First, the civs that are absolute musts to stay in. America for reasons listed in my other posts and their North American representation. Incans for SA representation. England, Spain, Rome and Greece for historical influence. Egypt for historical influence and northern Africa representation. Mali for west African representation. China for Asian represesentation and historical influence. Mongolia for a warlike and destructive representative and the fact that they conquered a large portion of the world. Russia for historical reasons and the fact that it was Americas opposition in the cold war. India for southern Asia representaion. Those are the only nations that I feel are absolute must keeps in the game.

As far as the rest of the civs:

Aztecs. Remove them and replace them with a Native American civ. Not a specific tribe but call it the Native Americans. The capital city would be a randomly selected village from any of the North American Indians, from the Aztecs up to the Eskimos. This would add a challenge because you never know where they will start for sure and covers a missing area IMO.

France and Germany. Remove one and keep the other, doesn't matter which, no offense, and replace them with the Scandinavians. They were always fun and represent Europe further north.

Arabia and Persia. Replace with the Zulu for south Africa representation and to give Africa a third civ and Babylon a better representative of the Middle Eastern area.

Japan. Remove and replace with Pacific Islander civ to cover a much ignored area of the world. There has never been a civ from the Oceana continental area. This could also have a rondomized capital just like the Native Americans.
 
Ranos said:
France and Germany. Remove one and keep the other, doesn't matter which, no offense, and replace them with the Scandinavians. They were always fun and represent Europe further north.

It'd be hard to do this since Germany is needed for WW2 scenario and France is needed for any 'Age of discovery' or 'Medival age' scenario. It'd be nice if that were possible, and it'd be nice if there were just a smidge of room left for scandinavia. But really there isn't a way to do what your doing.
 
I'm just posting my opinion. I'm sure civs will be modded in and others included in expansions. This is more of a "what could have been done/what can be done for Civ5" type of thing.
 
knupp715 said:
My third canidate would be Spain ... No offense to you Jonathon. (I noticed you were from Barcelona)

No offence taken. I'm British, I just live in Spain. And I wouldn't mind excluding the English or the Spanish if we could fill up the game with genuinely ancient civs instead. Actually I agree with much of what you say about various civs.

knupp715 said:
America has had a huge impact on world history

As I've already said repeatedly, I fully agree with this statement, I just don't see it as relevant.

knupp715 said:
You can't uninclude them in the game because they are the youngest nation.

Oh yes I can. :) As far as I know, every owner of the game will have that power.

knupp715 said:
I realize many people like to have realistic and historic aspects when they are playing (I do sometimes too) but is being one leader for 6000 years realistic. And if you argue that America is too young and didn't exist in the world in 4000 B.C. None of the other civs did either except the Sumerians (who aren't in the game) and Egypt. If you argue that America can't be in the game because they didn't exist in 4000 B.C. then you have to argue that the Aztecs or Incas can't be in the game past 1600's or else your argument doesn't make sense.

You're not actually making a case for keeping the USA in the game, you're just saying that various other aspects of the game are almost equally silly. I'd be happy to remove the other silly things too...

Reminder: my sinister plot is limited to removing the USA (and perhaps some other relatively juvenile civs) from my own solo games. Your solo games are entirely your own business. If I play multiplayer games, I'll be willing to keep the USA in the game if any other player wants it in.

As for the silly leader heads, if they annoy me enough I may look into replacing them with still images of flags, playing cards, animal heads, whatever.
 
If you want to nit pick, then the English should be left out and replaced by the Welsh and Scots.
They were the original inhabitants of "England" before they were driven out by the Angles..Saxons...Vikings...Franks...Romans et al.
 
Biggles said:
If you want to nit pick, then the English should be left out and replaced by the Welsh and Scots.
They were the original inhabitants of "England" before they were driven out by the Angles..Saxons...Vikings...Franks...Romans et al.

True. I'd prefer just to have Britons in the game -- the ancient ones, who built Stonehenge. But I don't know any of their place names. I don't think they were literate, and therefore all we know about them comes from the Romans, and from digging up their remains.
 
I voted America, but not for any of the reasons I read in the first third or so of this thread. (Got too flamy for me after that.) I think America is needed in Civ IV... but just as much as any of the others. I voted them because their flavour only really comes out in the modern game, and as much as I love modern scenarios, only about a third of the games I've played of Civ 2 and 3 have lasted that long, and if I *had* to cut one out, I'd choose the Americans because of this.
 
Fobok said:
I voted them because their flavour only really comes out in the modern game, and as much as I love modern scenarios, only about a third of the games I've played of Civ 2 and 3 have lasted that long, and if I *had* to cut one out, I'd choose the Americans because of this.

With Civ 2, after a while I got in the habit of stopping the game at 1800 AD regardless, because I disliked the later part of the game so much.
 
The Aztecs should stay or if they must be replaced, let it be with another Native culture in the same location, Maya's, Olmecs, Toltecs, or Teotihuacan's,these tribes did actually become "civilized" & built cities, roads, etc & the majority of North American Native people remained nomadic, moving from place to place, except the Iroquois who also developed a Civilized society.
 
Oh yes I can. As far as I know, every owner of the game will have that power.
I meant saying that they don't belong in the game. I don't care if people choose them to be in their games or not. That's not what we are arguing about at all.
You're not actually making a case for keeping the USA in the game, you're just saying that various other aspects of the game are almost equally silly. I'd be happy to remove the other silly things too...
Here is where you controdict yourself. You say that having America in the game in the Ancient Ages is "silly." And here you clearly state that having other nations in the game before they existed is "silly" too. So why am I only hearing you argue that America should be out, and not the others?
 
knupp715 said:
I meant saying that they don't belong in the game. I don't care if people choose them to be in their games or not. That's not what we are arguing about at all.

It's my personal opinion that Americans don't belong in this game, but I can satisfy myself by removing them from my own games. Of course it doesn't mean that I want to prevent anyone else from using them. Why would I want to do that?

I don't think Klingons or football teams belong in Civ either, but if you want to introduce them into your games, why should I care? Go right ahead...

knupp715 said:
Here is where you controdict yourself. You say that having America in the game in the Ancient Ages is "silly." And here you clearly state that having other nations in the game before they existed is "silly" too. So why am I only hearing you argue that America should be out, and not the others?

The question asked in this thread is "Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?" I was answering that question. There are various other civs in the game that don't really belong in ancient times either, but we were asked to select only one.

Furthermore, subjectively I can just about tolerate the others, even though I'll be glad to replace them with older civs in due course.
 
OK Jonathon, I call a truce, for now.

It doesn't look like either side is ever going to covince the other side that they are right, because in fact, we are both right (on our own little worlds). So this argument is futile and I will stop here and call a truce, unless another valid point is posted, or unless another comment is posted that I don't agree with. It was nice arguing with you, for now.

P.S. I never liked Star Trek, so clingons wouldn't be interesting to me. Football however is good, maybe a city could build it's own football team in order to raise happiness. Then again, this idea may be to simaliar to the stadium.
 
Inhalaattori said:
Arabs. They were just violent conquerors.
what about ummayids and abbasids .Were they cruel barbarians without culture and mind?Arabs should be included. I am not an Arab(Turk).Long ago they were the lighthouse of the world.
 
Inhalaattori said:
Arabs. They were just violent conquerors.


The Arabs are the main reason a lot of ancient Greek text are still in existence, the christains just burned and destroyed them. Except a few 'selective' text that were specifically kept mainly for christain links, which those were just locked up in monostaries for centuries. The Arabs treasured the Greek text and educated their people with them, which is partially the reason you see 'Cordoba' become a cultural mega center in Spain.

Also the Arab's development in musical arts form the basis of what we use today.
 
I think the civ missing is Togolese, West Africa is so misrepresented
 
Wow, how can anybody voted for China ? They are DEFINITION of a civilization, and unlike many other civilizations, they are still powerful with their traditional values even till today. However, I disapprove of their changes from traditional Chinese to simplified Chinese. That really took a lot out of the origin of the Chinese language.
 
Back
Top Bottom