Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Roland Ehnström]

They say: A.

I say: B.

They then say: But then you must also mean C, D and E. And C, D and especially E are completely absurd! So you are wrong in saying B. Go A!

I say: No, I mean B, and only B, if you think otherwise you misunderstand what I say.

They say: Ha, but since you say B so much all the time, this in itself proves you REALLY must mean C, D and E!

I say: What's the point in discussing with these people?

-- Roland

 

[southafrica]

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.

Indeed it is not anti-american to point out that the game starts in 4000 BC, but it is quite true that in and of itself is a poor reason that America should not be included. I mean IS the only reason that were having this arguement is because a game designers decided to start the game at 4000 BC because if that is the case we should have expected that there wasn't more of an outcry for babylon...

I only started posting because I was a bit shocked at all the rubbish I saw on this site. The bottom line is that in two hunderd years America may be considered in the same league as Mongolia but in OUR history there is no doubt that America has had a profound impact in the Modern Era. (for the facts that it had embraced the enlightenment thinkers, influenced the most important event in modern history (yes, THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, not WW2)

The real essence of the game is to bend history to your will. To have most of the wonders of the world not only done by one civilization, but in perhaps a few cities... Give this a shoot, when you see the American settler, think to yourself, yeah that isn't very realistic but then realize that to achieve the realistic world you want you must stop playing the game at 1776. And with that the case, you wouldn't have Germany, France (you could argue before that that it was largely a colony of the German Franks, or the Vikings who settled there Normans.) In fact the only European country to be there would be britain as there highpoint was after the defeat of the spanish armada...

-SA

 

[southafrica]

They say: A.

I say: B.

They then say: But then you must also mean C, D and E. And C, D and especially E are completely absurd! So you are wrong in saying B. Go A!

I say: No, I mean B, and only B, if you think otherwise you misunderstand what I say.

They say: Ha, but since you say B so much all the time, this in itself proves you REALLY must mean C, D and E!

I say: What's the point in discussing with these people?

-- Roland

What if B is the final result of C, D and E?

-SA

[edit] That was supposed to funny by the way.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

southafrica, it isn't.

Three examples:

1) I said "If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct". The reply from Ranos was "By your thinking then, the Aztecs should never make it past 1500 AD". I'm saying B, he's sais I'm saying C, and there is no logical connection between B and C.

2) I pointed out that "because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct". According to Ranos, I should "Stop trying to use arguements like that because they are just ridiculous", which they are plainly not, unless you bend the B into a D, like he does.

3) I said that America is a nation, not a civilization of it's own. OldStatesman obviousily misinterpreted this as saying that America is not deserving of being called civilized. I say B, he thinks I say E.

You get the idea. It's just totally pointless to try to discuss with people that misunderstand, misinterpret and bend what one sais in order for them to get their prejudices about anyone who sais anything critical of America confirmed.

-- Roland

 

[trotskylite]

roland,

more than any other nation, america encompasses and represents the modern age. to have a modern age in civ without having the americans is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Evie]

America is DEFINITELY its own civilization, and not an offshot of England with little difference. Australia, NZ and *maybe* (I repeat : *maybe*) English Canada are offshots of England with little difference.

America, if it ever was that, has stopped being it long ago. America is a hodgepodge of Native American, English and Hispanic influence, formed together into a single civilization with its own cultural identity, etc.

All you're showing is that you don't know American culture in the least (which I guess is not surprising : you live half a world away from them.), and don't know their history all that well either ()again, not very surprising).

(And no, I'm not American myself. I'm Canadian)

 

[southafrica]

southafrica, it isn't.

Three examples:

1) I said "If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct". The reply from Ranos was "By your thinking then, the Aztecs should never make it past 1500 AD". I'm saying B, he's sais I'm saying C, and there is no logical connection between B and C.

2) I pointed out that "because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct". According to Ranos, I should "Stop trying to use arguements like that because they are just ridiculous", which they are plainly not, unless you bend the B into a D, like he does.

3) I said that America is a nation, not a civilization of it's own. OldStatesman obviousily misinterpreted this as saying that America is not deserving of being called civilized. I say B, he thinks I say E.

You get the idea.

-- Roland

Well that comes down to what you think is historically correct. I can't envision the current way the world is without the US involved much the way I can't see it without the Greeks. So it just comes down to whether you can make the sacrifice of realizing that the americans start in the 4000BC with others who started being a civilization AFTER the fall of Rome (which is the absolute earlist that anyone can really claim other European civilizations emerged) So it really sholdn't be too much a stretch as we are argueing about roughly a thousand years in a game that lasts 6000. As for the fact that America is not a civilization I will choose not to dignify that as I would like to see evidence that proves that statement. So the answer to leave what civilization is to me which one to take out that would affect world history the least, and to me that would not be america, in fact if I had to choose anyone that would be the Aztecs and Incas, as they had the least amount of impact as they were almost completely isolated and then when they came into contact with other civilizations they quickly dissapeared...

-SA

 

[Ranos]

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.

Which Americans are you referring to? I have seen only one person make any kind of discourteous remark and he was either ignored or rebuked. You have had people attempt to point out that your point of view makes no sense. You are right that the US didn't exist until 1776. The only nation that did exist in 4000BC was Egypt. How then does that make the US any different from the rest of the civs? Is it because its the youngest? Does that mean that your arguement is more relevent? If something should apply to one civ, it should apply to all civs. If the US shouldn't be in because it wasn't around 6000 years ago, then neither should the others. If the others can be in the game, then so can the US.

I'll admit that my last post was fairly sarcastic, but I am attempting to point out how ridiculous your claim is. If you want something to be historically accurate, then go watch the history channel. If you want to play a game with some of the greatest civs that ever existed, then the Americans will be in it starting in 4000BC.

They say: A.

I say: B.

They then say: But then you must also mean C, D and E. And C, D and especially E are completely absurd! So you are wrong in saying B. Go A!

I say: No, I mean B, and only B, if you think otherwise you misunderstand what I say.

They say: Ha, but since you say B so much all the time, this in itself proves you REALLY must mean C, D and E!

I say: What's the point in discussing with these people?

-- Roland

You misunderstand us.

We say: A

You say: B

We say: C, D and E are very similar and almost identical to B, so why do you single out B.

You say: B is nothing like C, D and E, you are misunderstanding me.

We say: Look. Here is how C, D and E are like B.

You say: I'm not talking to you anymore.

We say: He doesn't have anything to back up his claim.


There are other civs that could/should be in the game. There are dozens of civs that made an impact on the world throughout time. These are the civs the designers chose. Why is America in the game? In no particular order:

1) Its commercial impact on the world.
2) Its technological impact on the world.
3) The fact that it was the first colony to rebel against a more powerful nation.
4) Its military impact on the world. WWI and WWII are the primary ones but we helped in many different conflicts, whether sending in troops to fight, or merely supplying weapons and other support.
5) Its political impact on the world, good or bad.
6) Its ideals of freedom of speech and religion among other freedoms and the impact those had on the world.

There may be others but those are what I can think of right now. Compair those to the fact that it has only existed as a nation for 229 years and tell me which is more important.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

trotskylite, to use Ranos way of thinking, you must mean that any game in which America is wiped out before the modern age is "ridiculous".

Seriousely, I have a broader view of the term "civilization", so having a modern era without an American civilization is not a real problem for me, as long as there is at least one other western european civilization in the game. If for example the English have some cities on a second continent, I can call that continent "America". If not, it's not that big a deal anyway: It is still possible to imagine the history of the world without America ever appearing. At least, to me personally, that's easier to imagine than imagining a history of the world in which New York was founded in 3800 BC.

-- Roland

P.S. "Ridiculous" seems to be the word of the day around here...

 

[Roland Ehnström]

We say: He doesn't have anything to back up his claim.

And there's F!

-- Roland

 

[Roland Ehnström]

you don't know American culture in the least (which I guess is not surprising : you live half a world away from them.), and don't know their history all that well either ()again, not very surprising).

And there you have G.

Exactly where did I prove I don't know American culture and history??? OF COURSE there are differences between America and England, everyone knows that! All I'm saying is that these differences are hardly enough to call them totally seperate civilizations - at least not when your job is to divide the whole world into only 18 civilizations. Many more or less different cultures must then be merged, and my argument is that America may as well be merged with England, to give space for some other civ which is less like any of the civs already in Civ4. It's all simply a question of how you define the word "civilization", but it's NOT a question of who knows more or less about any perticular nation's culture and history!

-- Roland

 

[trotskylite]

no, i don't mean anything close to the words you put in my mouth. if you want to rant on and on about historical accuracy but at the same time completely botch the last two centuries by marginalizing america's significance, i'm going to call it ridiculous because there simply isn't another word to describe it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It seems the argument in favor of nixing America is that it is the most anachronistic civ in the ancient age (which all previous civ games, and all Civ IV epic games necessarily include)

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue with that.

However, I think that it is easily arguable that that is a really bad reason for excluding a civ.

I'd say the reasons to put In a civ (and therefore to take them out) would best be measured by impact (mostly measured by recognizability) corrected for geographical balance (the reason Mali, the Inca, and the Aztecs are in.)

As for America seperate from England. I would probably merge the two (probably eliminating America in favor of England for the Anachonism reason) once we got down to a dozen civs or less, since they have similarities. The impact is different and significant enough to keep the separate once you have about a dozen other civs.

I voted for Spain basically for geographical balance, they have one major contribution to their name (Age of Discovery) but after they started it they faltered. And because Europe is so crowded, it was ready to go (other candidates were Aztecs + Mongols)

 

[Ephor]

I think the Aztecs and the Incans should both be removed and replaced with the Maya. Then the extra slot could be filled in either by the Iroqious or perhaps the Babylonians.

No kidding, we don't need two original American civs and Mayans were cooler than either of them, constructing wonders (a working calander, a standard measurement unit, ect.) that western society didn't match for ages.

lol @ America winning the poll. Though it does seem ridiculous to play from the stone age with a society that shouldn't exist until the very end of the game. Until a revolution mechanic is implemented though, I think their inclusion is justified (and not just from a marketing standpoint).

Malinese seem to have them nearly tied, but I think we need to have at least one Civ from one of the world's biggest and most populated continents, and they're as good as any.

 

[Matches10]

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.

Okay certainly "hate" is a strong word. "American hate" ought to be interpreted as "anti-american bias".

I don't want to believe I'm hated, I'm looking at the facts, namely, the results of the poll, and the avoidance of arguments that support the inclusion of the "Americans" as a civilization in this game, and I have to think that there are other motives. I'm not asking you to bust a gut trying to persuade me that you don't hate me, I'm asking people to really think about the reasons they feel the way they do instead of hiding behind "It's all subjective." If it sounds like I'm attacking, I'm not - I'm challenging the way some people are thinking. South Africa's post sums things up. There has to be a reason the "Americans" are singled out as being the only civ worthy of deletion because of anachronism, and as Krikkitone, the argument against anachronism as reason for exclusion is valid, especially given all the other anachronistic things that the game puts in front of us.

Here's another argument for the Americans as being worthy. Assume a Civ-style "powergraph" representing the real world. Any civ or nation that for a period of time was the leader in the powergraph of all civs/nations in the world, probably ought to be in the game. This is why we have the Egyptions and Greeks and Chinese and Romans in the game, they were the strongest/among the strongest societies of their time. It's also why the English are there and another reason the Americans are a deserving nation. I don't necessarily buy the argument of "you can't have a modern age without the americans" because it contradicts my argument that the game is not meant to simulate the eras. But the fact that the U.S. and Russia were the two most powerful countries of the recent era warrants their includsion, I believe. They are/were the theoretical 19th-21st century successors to the large empires of Britain, France and Spain, all of whom are rightfully acknowledged in the game.

This histograph thought has long been an interest of mine. I would love to see some of the more knowledgable historians here make an attempt at a histograph (or series of graphs, maybe go in 500 year increments since you'll run out of colors!) to represent what a real-world game of Civilization would look like.

 

[trotskylite]

egypt is in africa

 

[trotskylite]

i wasn't arguing for america's inclusion due to it's preeminence in the modern age. i was relating that fact to roland's 'historical accuracy' farce of an argument.

 

[Jonathan]

There has to be a reason the "Americans" are singled out as being the only civ worthy of deletion because of anachronism

Yes, a very simple reason: they're more anachronistic than anyone else. Though there is also some attraction in the idea of a game with only truly ancient civs in it...

 

[Jonathan]

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.

I must admit that in earlier versions of Civ, although I found the American presence a bit odd, I never actually bothered to remove them from the game (oh! what an admission). The idea has only grown on me as a result of these recent forum discussions...

 

[Ranos]

Some posts were made while I was writing my last post. Here is my response to those.

southafrica, it isn't.

Three examples:

1) I said "If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct". The reply from Ranos was "By your thinking then, the Aztecs should never make it past 1500 AD". I'm saying B, he's sais I'm saying C, and there is no logical connection between B and C.

2) I pointed out that "because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct". According to Ranos, I should "Stop trying to use arguements like that because they are just ridiculous", which they are plainly not, unless you bend the B into a D, like he does.

3) I said that America is a nation, not a civilization of it's own. OldStatesman obviousily misinterpreted this as saying that America is not deserving of being called civilized. I say B, he thinks I say E.

You get the idea. It's just totally pointless to try to discuss with people that misunderstand, misinterpret and bend what one sais in order for them to get their prejudices about anyone who sais anything critical of America confirmed.

-- Roland

Lets change this to be a little more accurate.

1) You said "If you play the Aztecs and are destroyed in, say, 1500 AD, it's at least mildly historically correct" and The Americans shouldn't be in the game in 4000BC because they didn't exist until 1776.* My reply was "By your thinking then, the Aztecs should never make it past 1500 AD". You're saying a civ shouldn't start early when it didn't exist then, I'm just flipping the coin and saying they shouldn't exist after they were destroyed.

*May not be an exact quote but is the point coming across.

2) I pointed out that "because of the rules in Civ you can't play a game as the Americans that's even remotely historically correct". According to Ranos, I should "Stop trying to use arguements like that because they are just ridiculous." My saying that was in regards to the fact that you and Jonathan say the US shouldn't be in because it didn't exist in 4000BC but its okay for all of the other civs to be in it even though they didn't exist until thousands of years later. My response to your above comment was the response you used in #1.

3) I said that America is a nation, not a civilization of it's own. OldStatesman obviousily misinterpreted this as saying that America is not deserving of being called civilized. I say B, he thinks I say E.
How is America not a civilization. Was that your "America should be a part of England" arguement? If that is the case then:

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.

I said that in response to you. You have now switched from attempting to defend your position to attempting to attack our responses to you, yet you switch them around and misuse them jsut as you are accusing us of doing.

Go back and reread my responses to you and you will see that I was arguing against your points, not misunderstanding or misinterpreting you.

trotskylite, to use Ranos way of thinking, you must mean that any game in which America is wiped out before the modern age is "ridiculous".

My way of thinking is that its a game that represents historical civilizations and what happens in the game does not matter.

And there's F!

And there you have G.

Exactly where did I prove I don't know American culture and history??? OF COURSE there are differences between America and England, everyone knows that! All I'm saying is that these differences are hardly enough to call them totally seperate civilizations - at least not when your job is to divide the whole world into only 18 civilizations. Many more or less different cultures must then be merged, and my argument is that America may as well be merged with England, to give space for some other civ which is less like any of the civs already in Civ4. It's all simply a question of how you define the word "civilization", but it's NOT a question of who knows more or less about any perticular nation's culture and history!

And now your responses are limited to letters of the alphabet. You no longer attempt to support your claims or refute others, all you do is attack the way they make their claims.

You still have not responded to the fact that other civilizations can be grouped together just as easily or more so than England and America. What is your response to that? Should Japan and China be the same civ? What about the Aztecs and Incans?

There is only one definition of civilization. From dictionary.com:

civ·i·li·za·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.

Number two is the relevant definition and by that definition, AMerica is a civilization.

It seems the argument in favor of nixing America is that it is the most anachronistic civ in the ancient age (which all previous civ games, and all Civ IV epic games necessarily include)

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue with that.

However, I think that it is easily arguable that that is a really bad reason for excluding a civ.

I'd say the reasons to put In a civ (and therefore to take them out) would best be measured by impact (mostly measured by recognizability) corrected for geographical balance (the reason Mali, the Inca, and the Aztecs are in.)

I can't argue with the fact that it is the newest civ in the game but you are right, that doesn't matter.

I voted Mali because it was the only one on the list I didn't immediately recognize. When I looked it up, it didn't seem, IMO, to have had that much impact on the world. If I could go back, I would probably vote against the Aztecs or Incans. Oh well. Can't go back and change.

As far as the America in or out arguement goes, until someone can come up with a better reason than "they didn't exist in 400BC," I can't take anyone who argues against America seriously.

EDIT:

Yes, a very simple reason: they're more anachronistic than anyone else. Though there is also some attraction in the idea of a game with only truly ancient civs in it...

Define ancient. Is ancient 1000 years or older? 2000 years or older? By todays standards, ancient is at least 1BC. Then there should only be about six civs on the list. No more. England, Germany, France, Aztecs, Russia, and more don't go back that far. They are all products of the middle ages or later.