Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Rhye]

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)

your ignorance is unbelievable.

 

[Jecrell]

Even after reading this entire thread it still makes little sense why it's so feverously disliked in this thread in the list for the 18 civilizations that should be in SM's Civilization IV; Too many double-standards being proposed. It really comes down to initial reactions perhaps -- does America come off as "deserving"? Maybe that's why it rated so low (European prejudice against America? Reviewing the thread yields some examples)

RabidMonkeyMan scares me like the people who call their french fries freedom fries. They're french fries for crying out loud!

 

[Roland Ehnström]

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.

Well, I understand how you are thinking, but consider that in Civ, a civilization can be destroyed but it can not be founded (other than in 4000 BC). Two examples will hopefully show what I mean:

1) If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct. Sure, in 4000 BC there were no Aztec civilization to speak of, but one can at least imagine that the ancestors of what became the Aztec civilization were roaming the same land in 4000 BC.

2) However, there is no way to play a game* in Civ as the Americans, and have it even remotely historically correct, because you'll always start in 4000 BC, on a continent that the ancestors of the modern Americans didn't even know of.

* = I'm excepting scenarios here. In certain scenarios I of course agree that America should be in, although more as a (great) NATION than as a CIVLIZATION.

-- Roland

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Even after reading this entire thread it still makes little sense why it's so feverously disliked in this thread in the list for the 18 civilizations that should be in SM's Civilization IV; Too many double-standards being proposed. It really comes down to initial reactions perhaps -- does America come off as "deserving"? Maybe that's why it rated so low (European prejudice against America? Reviewing the thread yields some examples)

Hmm, I for one have at least tried to put forward objective arguments as to why I vote America to be the CIV least worthy of being in the original 18. I've tried to point out that America is very similar to England, share the same history up until very recently, and that because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct.

I definately do NOT vote America because I dislike them or share some "European prejudice against America". I DON'T dislike America. In fact, I've said that I WISH the rules in Civ were more flexible (civil wars and different start-times being two possibilities), so that America could take it's rightful place in Civ without screwing history up beyond recognition.

RabidMonkeyMan scares me like the people who call their french fries freedom fries. They're french fries for crying out loud!

Agree on all points. Very scary attitude there.

-- Roland

 

[southafrica]

Well, as an historian, since mankind spread from africa, cradle of mankind is in fact South Africa (the caves around Jo'burg, soon if not already a world heritage site) Europeans can trace all there genetic material from roughly 23 or so people, which came from africa after some settling in asia. Why is this relevant? Well, the whole arguement that since the the US wasn't around in 4000 BC, but other 'civilizations' could (however farfetched could claim that their ancestors were already unique enough to be deemed an independant civilization) In fact EVERY civilization but the first, was in fact a combination of 'civilization' from where it came. Can someone tell me what England would be without first being colonized by Rome? Then the Germanic Peoples, and finally the French? Well to be sure if it wasn't for the French we wouldn't have the ENGLISH we have today (language was simplified by them as the FRENCH, in this case vikings who settled in Normandy (Norsemen), couldn't be bothered to learn the old English. Or how about the Italians, the italians are IN NO WAY descendant from the ancient Romans (who widely believed they were founded by the Trojans, ROME adopted GREEK culture and spread "roman-greco" culture around the med...) The modern day Italians are mainly descended from the germanic lombards, and the Vikings that settled in southern italy later. (this is a very rough description, but by this time the "Roman" ethnicity was very limited IN FACT any historian knows that Ancient Romans didn't even extend Roman citizenship to anyone who was not rome (not a citizen of the city-state) until the Empire was degenerating... the whole Roman Empire is largely a myth, for the most part the local cities merely paid money or supplied troops for the Roman armies and kept a large part of thier autonomy (auxillary forces) In fact the Roman empire would have fallin a lot sooner if it hadn't a) recruited germanic tribes to defend the frontiers or b) another civilization from the outside begun to advance. The absence of any outside civilization postponed its destruction.

Even with all that said, why is it relevant, well most people who deem the US too young, also look at the world's history as if it begun at 4000 BC when in reality deemed in it entirity 4000bc to pressent is less than a sliver of world history. Also to all those people who deem that the US only began in 1776, the answer is really when jamestown was settled, for that is when the colonists began to be influenced by not only the indians but also the dutch, spanish and french colonists, and until 1776 they were largely forgotten by Britain, which is also one of the causes of the revolution to begin with! (colonists didn't believe that Britain could tax them without their consent) I would love someone to tell me who woke up and suddenly turned around the mindset of the colonists in 1776 and convinced 1/3 of them to forge a new 'civilization' must be the same stone age people who said one day you will become the English in 4000BC... Also in Civ 2 if i believe correctly if you killed off another civ in the early game a different one would start anew.

-SA

 

[trotskylite]

the argument that america doesn't warrant a slot in the game on the basis of america lacking a hemogenized base of ancestors is absurd. one of the central tenets of american civilization is cultural and ethnic plurality. it's part of the character of american civilization and is somewhat unique. it can't just be written off because every other civilization has some 'caveman with a club' ancestor to trace back to. that's just dishonest, really.

why is it hard to conceptualize an ancient people with the general civic principles and cultural character of america? you can play as the arabs in 4000 BC despite the fact that islam is what unified them as a civilization and islam didn't exist until the second millenium AD.

and the whole argument regarding how long america's been around is equally absurd. america has obviously affected the course of history as significantly as any civilization on that list and in some cases more. the amount of time it's been around only strengthens the case for putting them in the game when you take that into consideration.

and saying that american civilization is the same as english civilization is just ignorant.

 

[Shynji]

Hmm, I for one have at least tried to put forward objective arguments as to why I vote America to be the CIV least worthy of being in the original 18. I've tried to point out that America is very similar to England, share the same history up until very recently, and that because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct.

You are only shooting yourself in the foot here Roland. As you speak, France and Spain would fall under the same category from the Romans, along with the English who are partly descended from them. They had time to evolve their own dialects and then languages, but their technological advances were minimal for 10 centuries. Hell, even English is a butchering with germanic, latin, and greek roots. We all know about the Germans, but they didn't do much more than any of their neighbors until they formed an actual Nation, instead of a huge collection of small kingdoms.

Of all the reasons, America (The USA, that kinda bugs me, but oh well.) isn't in the game because of comercial reasons. It's in the game, because the world wouldn't be where it is today technologically if the USA didn't exist. So it's only been around for 239 years, but it also changes at a much more rapid rate than any other civilization out there. It may be lost and confused, but it does deserve its place in the list.

I'd also like to take this time and point out, that while the majority of non-Americans routinely only see caucasion males and females, they aren't the only inhabitants. There is a large population of black americans (I find it hard to say African American, because they are americans just as much as the whites, besides, their forced migration ended 150 years ago, they are americans.) The latino american population increases every year, along with the asian and every other ethnicity you can imagine. It's a unique nation, with a unique culture.

 

[Matches10]

I believe the Americans should be in. I believe they are a separate civilization from the English now (in 25 years on this earth I've known maybe 5 that have ANY straight up English in their blood.

American hate is not on the surface of this thread but it is under the surface based simply on the sheet number of votes it has received in this poll and the fact various arguments people use to discount IT, can be said to MORE apply to other choices in the game that have had dramatically less effect on the world. (Aztecs, Germans, Mongols)

The best argument against the Americans is that they are not a civilization but an offshoot of the English civilization. I think that is faulty for a couple reasons:

1.) See above. English blood is an extreme minority in America today. While it's origins are incredibly unique to the game, I think that's another reason for it's inclusion. This is a country that started out inhabited by nearly all english. The continent had some French and Spanish and natives as well and nary 2 centuries later the amount of French and English ancestry is minute.

2.) That the game calls the "teams" in the game "civilizations" is largely, if not entirely, a by-product of the fact that the name of the game is "Civilization." It's an austere name and a great name for a game, and of course it makes sense that in a game called "Civilization" you control a team called a "civilization". But the concept of "civilizations," as we know them in the game, is, in the modern world, such an anachronism that to argue against the "Americans" on these grounds is absurd. If there is no distinct American civilization, I would argue that there is and never was a distinct English civilization, German civilization, French Civilization, Spanish civilization. Somewhere along the line the concept of "civilizations", much like barracks after the development of gunpowder, became obsolete, in favor of sovereignity, of nationhood. Britain, France, Spain, Russia, the U.S., ought be considered more as "countries" than "civilizations." Rome, Inca, Mali more "civilization"-esque.

There are so many ways in which the game's version of Civilization skews away from modeling the history of our world that to complain that the idea of an "American spearman" is anachronistic is nitpicking. Because so too is the idea of 7 distinct civilizations dominating the world. So too is the idea of a "British spearman," really.

The problem is that in earlier iterations of the game, the civilizations were just names. Now there are individual characteristics that give them more personality it makes it harder to realize the disconnect. But it does exist.

 

[Jonathan]

why is it hard to conceptualize an ancient people with the general civic principles and cultural character of america?

Because those civic principles and cultural character didn't exist until modern times and couldn't have existed until modern times. The USA is a modern phenomenon and couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times.

I'm beginning to think that I and most others in this thread have tried to be too rational about this matter.

Basically, I plan to drop the Americans from my solo games for the very simple reason that it seems totally out of place to have Americans running around in ancient times, and it spoils the feel of the game for me.

It's also incorrect to have various other civs present in 4000 BC; but not quite so ridiculous.

This is a subjective distinction and doesn't need to be dressed up as anything more. If you don't agree with it, no problem, we can agree to differ. We all have the option of choosing the list of civs we prefer to play the game with, so there's no conflict.

 

[southafrica]

Because those civic principles and cultural character didn't exist until modern times and couldn't have existed until modern times. The USA is a modern phenomenon and couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times.

I'm beginning to think that I and most others in this thread have tried to be too rational about this matter.

Basically, I plan to drop the Americans from my solo games for the very simple reason that it seems totally out of place to have Americans running around in ancient times, and it spoils the feel of the game for me.

It's also incorrect to have various other civs present in 4000 BC; but not quite so ridiculous.

This is a subjective distinction and doesn't need to be dressed up as anything more. If you don't agree with it, no problem, we can agree to differ. We all have the option of choosing the list of civs we prefer to play the game with, so there's no conflict.

Say high to Ghandi, Caesar, and Napolean for me in 4000BC. Thanks for the realism we are all sooooo silly Definately not ridiculous, oh any why don't you eliminate any reference of america, like the statute of liberity (thanks for statue France) and any other references, because surely to add realism you can't have some civilization referenced that doesn't cut the grade... you know for realism in a game that is meant to provide some escapist entertainment. (you don't think you really shape the world on such a scale do you?)

-SA

 

[oldStatesman]

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)

If all U.S. Americans were like this - then I too would say U.S. America is not deserving of being called civilized.

But fortunately they are not - not even the majority...it's just that the extremists have a lot of the power right now. Please don't hate all U.S. Americans...

As far as the poll goes, all of the civs included are worthy. If I had to choose to remove one, I would probably remove either the Aztes or the Mayans - only reason would be for game flavor. My addition would be the "Pacific Island" Culture. Again, mainly for game flavor. (On Edit: If longetivity is the only requirement, then the Australian Aborigines would have a lock...Dreamtime lasted for many many many thousands of years...no, they were not a sophisticated technologocal culture - so totally un-Western or un-Oriental so as to be almost alien - but they were very advanced in many ways. They were just like that poor aI Civ in an island map who occupied a totally isolated land without any resources far from anyone, and were not discovered until Astromony or Navigation - still in the early ancient age and way way behind on techs since there were no other Civs to parlay with. An example of Civ imitating the real world...or vice-versa )

 

[trotskylite]

obviously certain aspects of american civic principles and the cultural character can be related to ancient times. it just takes a little bit of imagination.

the same imagination it takes to accept aztec stealth fighters.

 

[Matches10]

I agree that it is kind of subjective but there's nothing wrong with pointing how how strange/inconsistent some people's subjective opinions are.

Such as why does an "American" running around in BC times feel out of place ruin the feel of the game for you, but much more bizarre things such was someone like Elizabeth I existing in BCE years, or even that you deal with the same leader throughout 6,000 years of a game?

There are certain things you have to suspend a sense of reality for in this game, I don't see how the fact that a civ being called "Americans" is such a huge detraction that you need to remove them from your game. This kind of nitpicking stuff is why I say there's simply an inherent anti-americanism involved in a lot of these responses. Picking one civ that is anachronistic (when nearly ALL of them are anachronistic at the beginning of the game), I don't see that as a really justified motive.

I'm not saying you can't do what you want to, I'm just hoping people examine their motives a little more and be honest with themselves.


As for a much earlier comment on including a Native American leader or Native American cities/settlements in with the American civ in the game. This is an interesting idea but unfortunately would probably preclude the inclusion of a "Native American" civ in the lucrative expansion packs, so I don't think I see that happening.

 

[Ranos]

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

I didn't misunderstand you at all. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland were settled by the same people as you said. Call them all Scandinavia. They are all geographically, linguisticaly and culturally linked. But to say that the US and England are culturally linked is far from the truth. The original 13 colonies were settled by multiple different cultures but primarily English. When we won our independance, we were still culturally linked. More than two and a quarter centuries later though, we have evolved into our own culture for mainy reasons. One of those is the infusion of people from nearly every nation on earth due first to our own expansion and then their immigration. Native American and Mexican/Spanish from expansion and Russian, Italian, Irish, German, Czech, Japanese, Chinese, etc from immigration.

If the US should be a part of England due to mere linguistics, then Canada and Australia could never be civs. Arabians and Persians from this poll should be combined, as should the Incans and Aztecs and the Chinese and Japanese. They are all cultually and linguistically as similar as the US and England.

Civilization has never been a game about modern day civs or ancient civs. It is a game about some of the greatest empires/nations throughout history. England was a powerful nation for hundreds of years and was in control of a lot of territory during the latter part of that time. It was during this time that the US won its independance and became its own nation. One hundred and seventy years later we rose to become one of the two most powerful nations on Earth. That is why the US and England are not one civilization but two independant ones that get to compete during the game.

Well, I understand how you are thinking, but consider that in Civ, a civilization can be destroyed but it can not be founded (other than in 4000 BC). Two examples will hopefully show what I mean:

1) If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct. Sure, in 4000 BC there were no Aztec civilization to speak of, but one can at least imagine that the ancestors of what became the Aztec civilization were roaming the same land in 4000 BC.

2) However, there is no way to play a game* in Civ as the Americans, and have it even remotely historically correct, because you'll always start in 4000 BC, on a continent that the ancestors of the modern Americans didn't even know of.

Unfortunately, there were people roaming the area that are now known as Native Americans that are a part of our nation. While we don't speak the language that they did, they still make up some of our population.

By your thinking then, the Aztecs should never make it past 1500 AD. But wait, they should also never get past the ancient techs because they never advanced past lets say Bronze Age technology. They can't get Horseback riding because there were no horses. So when playing the Aztecs, you should stil be running around with Jaguar Warriors and Archers in the late game.

Trying to say they shouldn't be in the game because the game can't simulate real history is ridiculous. What happened in real life does not matter in the game. The Americans can be in 4000BC and the Egyptians can still be a vast Empire in 2000 AD.

Hmm, I for one have at least tried to put forward objective arguments as to why I vote America to be the CIV least worthy of being in the original 18. I've tried to point out that America is very similar to England, share the same history up until very recently, and that because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct.

See above for my responses to the first part of this quote. As for the last part I have a question. Lets say the game was made to simulate real world events. This means the person choosing to be America has to sit around and wait until almost the end of the game before a few cities that England owns break away. But if America should be properly simulated in that way, then Egypt can be the only civ that starts the game. The rest of the civs will spontaneously be spawned on the map when they came into existance. Greece will spawn and can be played for a while until Rome gets strong at which point it becomes a part of Rome. Germany, England, France, etc. will start out as a part of Rome, but when Rome declines, they will be formed with only a single city. Do you see how stupid this sounds? If a real world event should be simulated for one civ, then all civs should have real world events simulated for them. This means that you can't play from the beginning and a few civs can't play until the end.

Stop trying to use arguements like that because they are just ridiculous.

Because those civic principles and cultural character didn't exist until modern times and couldn't have existed until modern times. The USA is a modern phenomenon and couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times.

I'm beginning to think that I and most others in this thread have tried to be too rational about this matter.

Basically, I plan to drop the Americans from my solo games for the very simple reason that it seems totally out of place to have Americans running around in ancient times, and it spoils the feel of the game for me.

It's also incorrect to have various other civs present in 4000 BC; but not quite so ridiculous.

I love how you can say that American civil and cultural character didn't exist, blah, blah, blah and then you can turn around and say it isn't as ridiculous to have the other civs be in 4000BC. English "civil and cultural charachter" "couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times." French "civil and cultural charachter" "couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times." German "civil and cultural charachter" "couldn't possibly have existed in any recognizable form in ancient times." If the only reason that it isn't "quite so ridiculous" is because there were people in those areas 6000 years ago then the same can be said for America.

IMO, the only reason people really have for wanting America out is because of the current international tension. All of the above reason are lame excuses in an attempt to justify the petty reason you really have. The current 55 votes for America with only two people even attempting to justify their reasons is proof enough that there are many petty and childish people who visit these forums.

 

[Jonathan]

Say high to Ghandi, Caesar, and Napolean for me in 4000BC.

Agreed, the leaders are all ridiculous, none of them functioned for even as much as a century. Bad feature of the game. Makes it harder to produce new custom civs, too.

oh any why don't you eliminate any reference of america, like the statute of liberity

That's a new one on me, maybe you mean the Statue of Liberty? Well, I suppose anyone can build a Statue of Liberty.

 

[southafrica]

Agreed, the leaders are all ridiculous, none of them functioned for even as much as a century. Bad feature of the game. Makes it harder to produce new custom civs, too.



That's a new one on me, maybe you mean the Statue of Liberty? Well, I suppose anyone can build a Statue of Liberty.

That is the whole point, anyone can build any of the "wonders" but the spirit of the statue of liberty was one civilization, France, admiring American Liberty (at least to the french artist) In fact all the wonders are TIED to one civilization and infact into one Epoch. To take your reasoning to the extreme. It should be impossible to have technology or any wonders built before the time when they were ACTUALLY discovered and even then the only counties that would be able to build the wonders should be the Civilizations that ACTUALLY built them. I mean how ridiculus that the england may be able to build the pyramids, or the french being able to build stonehenge...

-SA

 

[trotskylite]

perhaps some of you should just read an encyclopedia and forget about this whole game business

 

[Ranos]

Wait. I have the perfect solution to this whole problem. Mod Civ4 so that each person selects their civs. The game starts and the computer automatically moves everything around, researches techs, builds cities, etc to the correct historical times and places. Everybody just gets to watch their civs. Nobody can play them because the human player might try to do something different from what happened historically. Once the game has reached the year 2006, the civs that are still in existance can be controlled by the player. However, when 2006 arrives, you can't do anything until 2007. At the end of 2006, if you did something that didn't actually occur in real life, your computer blows up because you screwed up what really happened.

 

[trotskylite]

no, you should be allowed to play. but if you step outside the boundaries of established history the game universe will implode.

 

[Jonathan]

American hate is not on the surface of this thread but it is under the surface

I don't hate Americans and I don't believe anyone else in this thread does. But if you want to believe you're hated, I don't see why I should bust a gut trying to persuade you otherwise.

I'd also mention that the remarkable lack of courtesy shown by some Americans in this thread isn't exactly lovable. Roland and I have both tried to explain our (slightly different) points of view calmly and politely, and look at what we've got in exchange.

It's not anti-American to point out that the game starts in 4000 BC but the USA didn't exist until 1776 AD.