Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Tigranes II]

Oh, I just found a place for those barbarian hordes! The Ottoman Turks were descended from a steppe people (in fact, only about 600 years before coming to power). They conquered a lot, but they actually contributed something to world civilization (unlike those nasty, brutish Mongols!). Plus, they were in power from the 14th to the 20th centuries, and for 230 years between the capture of Constantinople and the last siege of Vienna, they were definitely a major world power. Hey, and as the "sick man of europe", they can even be in the wonderful Crimean War scenario! On to Sebastopol!

(Oh, and I was just kidding about the Mongols. But seriously, living in a yurt makes anyone crazy)

 

[Pounder]

Maybe they should have just gotten rid of all the ancient civs and just have the modern day countries (that they are currently selling Civ into) to keep all the game buying public happy

People will complain either way.

I just want there to be more than 18 Civs and hopefully the map sizes will support 32 or more Civs.

Maybe it would be an idea to have about 30 or 40 leader heads and you choose a leader, name him, name your Civ, pick your traits and be off to the races. The AI can be set to randomly make it's choices. There could still be culture groups and such.

There could still be lists of names and Civs if you want the game to randomly choose for you.

 

[civaddict098]

I dont see how people can think that america should be out, i under stand that people dont like america for various reasons but just think of their military power and influance on other peoples, not to mention all our commercial ties and influance

 

[HourlyDaily]

Voted Incans, but I'd place America at #2. Mainly because of the recency thing. Add that to the fact I don't enjoy playing the modern age much - and playing as a ancient imperialistic power seems to be ok with me, whereas playing a modern one is a little 'off-putting.' @civaddict - the reason you stated, I think that's why some people are tempted to vote for the US.

Of the civs ON the list, they just are the unlucky ones. I'm happy with the choices now that I'm used to them, but I still think they might have squeezed in one or two more civs.

This is a democratic process, unfortunately if you don't agree with other forumites choices, there's not a lot you can do. Not that the result changes anything.

As for who voted for Rome - either it was a mistake, or we are seeing another case of backlash, this one for the Romans leading the 'Which Civs should be included first' poll.

 

[Kyriakos]

wow, someone voted Greece! (it wasnt me btw, i voted conservatively against Mali, although i might as well have voted vs Us or Germany)

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I personally wouldn't change the list, at most maybe switch Aztecs for Mayans, but that is it.

 

[Belboz]

I personally wouldn't change the list, at most maybe switch Aztecs for Mayans, but that is it.

My feelings exactly. If I were to pick one pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilization to include, it would have to be the Maya.

 

[Rhye]

someone voted Rome, Greece, France, England



Anyway I voted Mali.
2nd place for Aztecs. They're a short living empire, very famous only because of its unluck of meeting Spain. It wouldn't have lasted long or achieved anything great anyway. Incas were far better than Aztecs in almost every field.

 

[Antiochus]

The Mongols are barbarians, not a civilisation, and therefore should not be in the game. It's like putting the Huns in instead of Babylon.

 

[Roland Johansen]

For me: Aztec and Incans (and I picked Aztec). Mali is also not that great. I choose the civilization based on influence in its time and on the world we experience today. That's why civilizations like Rome and China are great in my opinion.



About the neverending debate on America in Civ. I can understand why some people want them in (a lot of influence today and last century or two). I can also see why some don't want them in (America in 4000BC???, America is represented by some of the European nations).

I also think that both sides understand the reasoning of the other side. They just reach a different conclusion. Is there really any reason for further debate? One cannot convince the other side. The arguments are known, just the conclusion is different. It's just what argument is important for you, there's no absolute truth to be gained in this discussion.

 

[Roland Johansen]

double post, please remove.

 

[Jecrell]

... So much America hate.

 

[HourlyDaily]

For everyone who thinks the Mongols don't deserve to be in because they are 'a barbarian horde' do a forum search in 'Ideas and Suggestions' on 'Of Mongols...'. You will find that the Mongols achieved far more than is popularly held.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

I dont see how people can think that america should be out, i under stand that people dont like america for various reasons but just think of their military power and influance on other peoples, not to mention all our commercial ties and influance

Yes, but is America really a civilization? To me, America is a product of the English civilization. Having both America and England as seperate civilizations with seperate history seems weird to me.

I know this goes for many (most) other civs too - for example the English are in part made up of former Romans. But in the case of America, the amount of time passed since they "broke free" of the English civilization is rather short. For this reason, America to me is the civ which least deserves to be in the original 18. So I voted America in this poll.

I wish we could have civil wars in Civ - then America could break free from the English and form their own civilization in the beginning of the industrial age. That would be much more historically correct.

-- Roland

 

[Belboz]

Y

I wish we could have civil wars in Civ - then America could break free from the English and form their own civilization in the beginning of the industrial age. That would be much more historically correct.

-- Roland

Out of curiosity, do you consider Norway a separate civilization from Sweden? Norway has only been independent from Sweden a century. And do you suppose the Norwegians consider themselves 'culturally Swedish?' And if they were to make a Civilization game that included a Norway separate from Sweden, would you object on the same grounds as you object to the inclusion of the United States as separate from England?

 

[Jonathan]

If the date a civ ended is irrelevant because of "What ifs" ("What if they had played better?", then the date a civ STARTED is equally irrelevant for the same reason ("What if America had been founded in 1520?").

A civ can contrive by good play to last longer than it did in reality.

A civ cannot contrive by good play to be founded earlier than it was in reality. Unless of course it has access to a time machine.

You can't play well, or even badly, if you don't exist.

True, it might have happened by chance in a different version of history that America was settled earlier by Europeans (perhaps by Vikings?), but the resulting North American civ would be very different from the USA as we know it. Different country name, different city names, different leaders, different culture, probably different language.

 

[Jecrell]

Yes, but is America really a civilization? To me, America is a product of the English civilization. Having both America and England as seperate civilizations with seperate history seems weird to me.

It would be just as strange to call any American an Englishman as much as it would be as strange to call a Canadian an American. The diversity and culture boom. It'd make no sense to declare America part of England for the sake of the game and attach their leaders alongside Victoria and Elizabeth. It's not ancient Egypt, but you can't compare the nation of Hollywood movies and Rock and Roll bands to the desert people who built the pyramids. Plus you'd have to eliminate every American wonder -- most of the late game scenarios are also removed concerning the World Wars as well.

Yet it justifys removing them from the game that you can't call them ancient? Also many civilizations were considered parts of other civilizations and share cultural links. America is to Britain as Rome is to Greece... eh?

 

[Jonathan]

About the neverending debate on America in Civ. I can understand why some people want them in (a lot of influence today and last century or two). I can also see why some don't want them in (America in 4000BC???, America is represented by some of the European nations).

A good summary in brief. Thank you, sir.

I also think that both sides understand the reasoning of the other side.

Really? I've seen little evidence of it. Comments such as "So much America hate" imply complete lack of understanding.

The USA is on the whole a well-meaning country and has had a major impact on the modern world. That doesn't change the fact that it's absurd to have Americans in the ancient world, represented by "caveman dudes with clubs" and trying to invent the wheel.

It's a sad fact that no-one is ever persuaded by argument. The only real point of posting arguments on a forum is to clarify the details of the argument for people who are willing to agree with you. The people who disagree are going to go on disagreeing, come what may.

 

[Evie]

About as nonsensical as having frenchmen, or spaniards, or englishmen, or anyone else except some of the really old civs in the ancient world.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You're goign to claim "but they had ancestors who aren't represented by other civs...". That would even be a semi-valid argument - if it wasn't for the fact that France and England are both essentialy descended from the Germanic Tribes (ie, Germany), mixed with Roman influence over Celtic (not in C-IV, true) background (and Spain is not much different either). By your argument, they should all be covered by the sole "Germany".

Just because the split between "England" and "America" is more recent than those above doesn't make it less valid.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Out of curiosity, do you consider Norway a separate civilization from Sweden? Norway has only been independent from Sweden a century.

I see what you're trying to prove, but I have to disappoint you. Sweden and Norway are seperate nations, yes, but clearly they belong to the very same civilization. Nation is not the same as civlization - and that's my whole point.

And do you suppose the Norwegians consider themselves 'culturally Swedish?'

IMO, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland definately belong to the same civilization. You can call it "Vikings" or, more correct, "Scandinavians". So to answer your question: I believe Norwegians as well as Swedes consider themself 'culturally Scandinavian'.

And if they were to make a Civilization game that included a Norway separate from Sweden, would you object on the same grounds as you object to the inclusion of the United States as separate from England

Yes I most definately would! It would be absurd to the extreme to include Sweden in civ as a seperate civilization. I'd much rather have America! However, the Vikings, or Scandinavia, would be a worthy add-on to Civ4. They would include Sweden AND Norway, as well as Iceland and Denmark. Finland (and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) would be a region Scandinavia would fight with Russia about.

-- Roland