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

[...]

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

I think time is very valid in history. ;)

Seriousely, to me the fact that the split between England and America was more recent than the others you mention, DOES make it less valid to include America than to include for example the French or the Spanish. Consider this: We have the EU now, but we agree it would be absurd to include the EU as a civilization in this game. However, 1000 years from now, it would probably be pretty relevant. Same thing goes for the US. It's just too young to be considered a seperate civilization from the English. To me, civilizations are built over time.

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

It's official ladies and gentlemen, I have been made an example out of.

Of course, of the few days I've been here I've seen some good community members and people who look down their noses at other people. Now I'm not going to insult you because you don't see things my way, but in-case it hasn't been clarified or brought to your attention previously on my position which is a different perspective on the issue to begin with --- the arguement keeps coming down to what "Civilization" means rather than what Civilizations should be included in Civilization... THE GAME. I understand why some people consider America to be unworthy of the title "one of the 18 greatest civilizations of all time," but I don't think that's what the topic is about.

I suppose all I want is an apology, because the definition of someone with a complete lack of understanding is an idiot. And I believe you don't consider yourself one to troll.
 
Heh, Oda made my point already. All the Civs seem to be chosen somewhat for their name recognition. Most people know who the Mongols (especially Genghis Khan) were. Same goes with the other Civs. The problem is that many Civ's high points happened in different times, Egypt in Ancient times, France in the Rennaisance, England in the Industrial age, America in Modern, etc. Few Civs, like Japan, had historical high points in different eras.

I don't often play America (I live here, lol!) because I like to play the Ancient Civs more. However, I must confess a guilty pleasure in competing with Abe Lincoln (and that Gandhi guy too!). I guess I make sense of it as some fantasy world where the Americans started as some primitive Civ (like the Pioneers) and slowly dominated their continent becoming what we are today. Doesn't make alot of sense to most people, but then again it doesn't make sense when the Aztecs attack me with tanks either. What can I say? It's a game, and I have fun with it. :)

I liked all the Civs, but voted the Incans out. Nothing against the Incans, I would rather they stay in too. The one Civ I would like to see replaced is the Malinese, with Zulu. Shaka was a famous historical figure and I liked him in the earlier Civ games. Hopefully he makes it back in the next expansion (which would give us two African Civs! :) ).
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
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".

The Ancient Brits were a primitive people who can be represented without absurdity by cavemen dudes with clubs. Since then, there have been various waves of invaders adding to the British gene pool (a process not really represented in the game), but we can still claim the Ancient Brits as ancestors.

A purist would insist on excluding all civs that can't definitely trace their histories back to 4000 BC. For non-purists, it's enough if the civ started off in a reasonably primitive state.
 
Jecrell said:
I suppose all I want is an apology, because the definition of someone with a complete lack of understanding is an idiot.

No, an idiot is "A person so deficient in mental or intellectual faculty as to be incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning or rational conduct." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition)

I've seen no hate directed against America in this thread. Certainly there's none coming from me. If you think you've seen it, I think you've completely misunderstood the posts you've read. But you don't have to be an idiot to misunderstand something now and then; that can happen to anyone.
 
Jonathan said:
The Ancient Brits were a primitive people who can be represented without absurdity by cavemen dudes with clubs. Since then, there have been various waves of invaders adding to the British gene pool (a process not really represented in the game), but we can still claim the Ancient Brits as ancestors.

The "Ancient" (ie, Native) Americans have had as much (and probably more) influence on modern America's genetic and cultural make-up as the ancient brits on today's england. Native Americans and mixed-bloods (ie, children of native americans and settlers) have made more than their fair share of room in American history - soem as enemies, true, but other as allies (Sacagawea and - much as I hate bringing her up - Pocahontas come to mind). Even the Bush family has Native American blood. And, needless to say, there are still a few millions "true" Native Americans that are part of the United States of America.

By your own argument, America belongs in the ancient age. Just because you delude yourself in thinking America is purely an offshot of European civs doesn't mean the rest of us forget the European civs DID mix and match with the natives.
 
Jonathan said:
No, an idiot is "A person so deficient in mental or intellectual faculty as to be incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning or rational conduct." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition)

I've seen no hate directed against America in this thread. Certainly there's none coming from me. If you think you've seen it, I think you've completely misunderstood the posts you've read. But you don't have to be an idiot to misunderstand something now and then; that can happen to anyone.

Now we argue on the definition of idiot? I'm not going to get into that, thanks.

Technically I was being sarcastic with the hate comment, but sarcasm is not translated with the text but rather depends on the reader. I'm not the type to use brackets to code out my sarcasm, but the sheer numbers against the Americans in this thread are certainly mind boggling. Especially considering that the thread asking which Civilization people are going to play shows the Americans going strong while this thread's poll states they arn't worthy of being in the game to begin with, let alone played.

Regardless I've said my peace, and I suppose I'll continue to keep my position on the issue.
 
To those who suggest removing America because it's a young culture. I would ask should the Aztecs, Incas, or others mysteriously disappear from the map during the game, just as in real life? The UU each civ gets is representative of a civ's peak culture. Some are early, some are late. That's what make it more interesting. I think it may be interesting to see one of the EU countries removed since there are so many of them. It's clear that there are more civs present from the cradle of civilization region of the world. Actually, I like having even more than 18 civs to choose from. It would be nice to see a mod with only smaller civs, like the Khmer.
 
Grey Fox said:
America, they are only in the game for commercial reasons.
Why don't you go search the web before you make stupid remarks like that. The US won its freedom from one of the superpowers in the world at the time and then spent a century expanding to become the third largest nation in the world today. Technologies that were developed in the US since then have changed the world in ways that no other nation has ever done.

Jonathon said:
The USA's influence on the modern world is undeniable, but irrelevant, compared with the fact that it's existed for less than 3 of the 60 centuries covered by the game.

All the other civs can trace their histories back, not usually to 4000 BC, but at least to a time when they were fairly primitive and lacked most of the technologies that can be researched in the game. The USA is the odd one out in this respect: it sprang into life with all the technology that the 18th century had to offer.

The only primitive ancestors of the founders of the USA were in fact European primitives belonging to other civs in the game.

Then the Arabians, Aztecs, Incans, Malinese and Persians should not be in because they don't exist as nations anymore. The Egyptians, Greeks, Mongolians, Romans and Spanish shouldn't be in because they are fairly weak and unimportant nations. That only leaves the Chinese, English, French, Germans, Indians, Japanese and Russians as the only civilizations that should be in the game. But wait, the US wone it's independance from the English, saved the French and Chinese during WWII, defeated the Germans and Japanese in the same war, defeated Russia in the cold war and we could nuke the Indians back to the stone age. That leaves.... NO ONE. That's it. Civilization shouldn't be a game because there are no worthy civs to be in it.

How long a country was/has been around means nothing. What it did/has done in its existance is why its in the game.

Corbeau said:
America. Or, more specifically, the United States of America.

Really, the US is a glaring example of a gaping hole in the Civ rules. Civ does not take into account the possibility of civil war of any kind, which is was what both the American Revolutionary War and American Civil War were (and both had the potential to create a new nation - it's just that one succeeded and one didn't).
The American Revolutionary War was not a civil war. We were colonies of the British Empire, not a part of the British Empire itself. We did not have the same rights as Britian did. Had we lost the war, it would have gone down in history as a rebellion or revolt, not as a civil war. The Confederate States of America had the same rights as every citizen of the US. They were just afraid Lincoln would take away their right to use blacks as slaves.

Jonathan said:
True, but the future stops for us at the end of the game (2050 AD).
So the older Civs should be in the game because if you play them well then their history can be longer than it was? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is that? If they should be in the game because things can occur differently in the game, then America can be in because it is in and therefore fits your "based on the game" criteria.

Jonathan said:
The Bavarians, Prussians, Hessians, etc. are not separately represented in the game, so they can all count as early Germans.
Then the US can be in the game because the Dutch, Irish, Czech, Austrians, etc aren't in the game and our ancestry comes from those nations as well.

lost_civantares said:
Mali definitly. I would much rather have one of the old civs than a new one that no one has really ever heard of. It was mainly just a part of a larger culture, a great one, but not a Mali one.
That's why I votes Mali.

Jonathan said:
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.
And its also absurd to have Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc as modern day civs that have a real impact on the world. Get over it. The ONLY civ that was around in 4000BC was Egypt. By your thinking then, they should be the only civ in the game. Only a few of the civs existed BC and they were all in the last half of the last milleninia. All of the rest were formed in the last two millenia. Quit trying to use when a nation was formed as a guideline as to whether it should be in the game or not.

Roland Ehnström said:
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.

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'.
Then by that arguement, America is just fine in the game because we are culturally different from England. The English have tea time relisously, we don't. We wear underwear and pants and pick boogers from our noses while the English wear pants and trousers and pick bogies from their noses. Our steering wheels are on the left of our cars and we drive our cars on the right side of the road while the English are the exact opposite. We pronounce words differently. Neether opposed to Nither. Scedule compaired to Shedule.

Culturally different. By your difinition then, we are separate civs.

Roland Ehnström said:
I think time is very valid in history. ;)

Seriousely, to me the fact that the split between England and America was more recent than the others you mention, DOES make it less valid to include America than to include for example the French or the Spanish. Consider this: We have the EU now, but we agree it would be absurd to include the EU as a civilization in this game. However, 1000 years from now, it would probably be pretty relevant. Same thing goes for the US. It's just too young to be considered a seperate civilization from the English. To me, civilizations are built over time.

-- Roland
Civilizations are also destroyed over time. If it matters when a civ formed, then it matters when a civ fell. Rome no longer exists except in the form of Italy. Mali, the Aztecs and the Incans no longer exist at all. If time should count one way, then it should count the other.

Jonathan said:
No, an idiot is "A person so deficient in mental or intellectual faculty as to be incapable of ordinary acts of reasoning or rational conduct." (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition)[//quote]
To put that in more simple terms, a person with complete lack of understanding. In laymans terms, that is exactly what that definition says.

Oda Nobunaga said:
The "Ancient" (ie, Native) Americans have had as much (and probably more) influence on modern America's genetic and cultural make-up as the ancient brits on today's england. Native Americans and mixed-bloods (ie, children of native americans and settlers) have made more than their fair share of room in American history - soem as enemies, true, but other as allies (Sacagawea and - much as I hate bringing her up - Pocahontas come to mind). Even the Bush family has Native American blood. And, needless to say, there are still a few millions "true" Native Americans that are part of the United States of America.

By your own argument, America belongs in the ancient age. Just because you delude yourself in thinking America is purely an offshot of European civs doesn't mean the rest of us forget the European civs DID mix and match with the natives.
Beautiful. An exquisite use of ones own arguements against themselves. Thank you Oda for making my day with that post.

Based on some of the arguments that have been used for removing civs, all should be removed. As I said earlier, I voted for Mali and I did that because I had never heard of them until Civ4. If a civ should be removed because of time, which seems to be the most prominent arguement, then all should be removed. That's my two cents.
 
I'll have to disagree with you on Mali, though. It's unfortunate that western history classes tend to not even mention the great sub-Saharan African civilizations (Ghana-Mali-Songhay, Ethiopia, etc), but that is no reason to exclude them.

Exclusion and inclusion should be based primarily on achievements (and lasting a long time is indeed an achievement in itself, see China and India), and possibly on geograhpic balance (that is, ensuring that every great geographic region has at least one civ to settle it on a real-world map).

Based on achievements, the Incans and Aztecs should be on the chopping block before Mali - they had smaller empires, shorter-lived ones, and where their only impact in history was to get conquered, Mali built an immense trade empire, and the Malinesse (and later Songhay) desert trade helped feed the coffers of the Italian renaissance.

Factoring in geograhpic location, all three of these are necessities - else there'd be absolutely no one in Sub-saharan Africa, Central America and South America. That makes Mongolia number one on the chopping block as I outlined before.

But ultimately all 18 civs in Civ IV really deserve being there. There are a few missing ones (Babylon being the "DUH" case of the lot, but overall, it's a fairly well-done list.
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
The "Ancient" (ie, Native) Americans have had as much (and probably more) influence on modern America's genetic and cultural make-up as the ancient brits on today's england. Native Americans and mixed-bloods (ie, children of native americans and settlers) have made more than their fair share of room in American history - soem as enemies, true, but other as allies (Sacagawea and - much as I hate bringing her up - Pocahontas come to mind). Even the Bush family has Native American blood. And, needless to say, there are still a few millions "true" Native Americans that are part of the United States of America.

This is the best argument I've heard for keeping the Americans in the game, and well presented too. Congratulations.

In this case it would be better if the American civ included at least one Native American leader and at least some non-modern city names, to try to present an illusion of continuity between past and present. In fact, there was virtually no continuity between the USA and the cultures that preceded it in America, despite a certain amount of interbreeding.

It's fair to point out that there was probably rather little continuity between the Ancient Brits and later inhabitants of Britain; but the transition was so long ago (and so poorly documented) that it's subjectively easier to overlook.

If you exclude the USA from the game, you can certainly make a case for excluding various other civs for the same kind of reasons. The USA is not the only anachronistic visitor to 4000 BC; but to any non-American at least it seems the most anachronistic by far.

But there's no need for anyone to get excited about this. The Americans are there in the game; if you like to have them, you're welcome to leave them there. Anyone who doesn't want any particular civ (American, Malian, whatever) can take it out. I suppose that various add-on civs will become available so that each player can pick his or her preferred mix.
 
all i have to say is...suck it france. i dont like france, never have and im not really going to explain myself, regardless of wether or not they had napolean, they can suck it. (although i would like an easy nation to just beat every now and again)
 
Mali or the Aztecs. Primitive Civs that ended up adding nothing to the progression of mankind- other than to give christians comfort that some should be converted so they stop sacrificing people.
 
I say spain, not because spain isnt important but because everybody else is more important.

America, they are only in the game for commercial reasons.

The game has 4 sections, america has been a huge influence during the industrial age, and the Nation of the modern era. Very few have spread across all 4.
 
RabidMonkeyMan said:
all i have to say is...suck it france. i dont like france, never have and im not really going to explain myself, regardless of wether or not they had napolean, they can suck it. (although i would like an easy nation to just beat every now and again)

America would not be independant if it wasn't for France.

In both the war of independance and the war of 1812, France was an American Ally and a major distraction to the English.

To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Years’ War was fought by the European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from Europe to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In North America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought here as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this thorough and fundamental reorganization.

The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous. This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775.

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms, uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in the West Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army. On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue. We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops, by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken.
 
Nobody said:
I say spain, not because spain isnt important but because everybody else is more important.



The game has 4 sections, america has been a huge influence during the industrial age, and the Nation of the modern era. Very few have spread across all 4.

I strongly disagree with Spain.


And about America, the game hasn't 4 sections. That was Civ3, and it had a huge misproportion. Marking 1800+ as half of the game was a crime.
America had huge influence in the last century. That's only a Century.
In my opinion it's enough to keep them in, but please let's avoid speaking in terms of civ3 categories.
 
Mongols are too important!
 
I won't participate on this poll... No offense meant, but it's always a downer to say "my civ deserves more than your civ". And furthermore: Personally I've had enough of this kind of threads!


P.S.: Nope, I'm not having no sense of humour :p
 
Ranos said:
Then by that arguement, America is just fine in the game because we are culturally different from England. The English have tea time relisously, we don't. We wear underwear and pants and pick boogers from our noses while the English wear pants and trousers and pick bogies from their noses. Our steering wheels are on the left of our cars and we drive our cars on the right side of the road while the English are the exact opposite. We pronounce words differently. Neether opposed to Nither. Scedule compaired to Shedule.

Culturally different. By your difinition then, we are separate civs.

You must have misunderstood me somewhere, 'cause this doesn't make much sense to me. I was trying to say that, since Sweden and Norway are very much alike as nations, they are NOT seperate civs. They both belong to the same civ, which I would like to call "Scandinavia".

To me the very SAME thing goes with America and England: The cultural difference between these two nations is very small, and they share the same history up until only a couple of hundred years ago. So they belong to the same civ. Looking at your examples, most cultural differences between America and England seem to have to do with small nuances in the language. But it's still the same language! They are far more similar than different, if you see what I mean. :)

In fact, the Norwegian language differs MORE from the Swedish language than US English differs from British English. So if you agree with me that Norway and Sweden should NOT be seperate civs, you can hardly use language-differences to try to show that the US and England should BE seperate civs.

-- Roland
 
Back
Top Bottom