Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Yahzi]

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.

Shades of MOO II!



I miss MOO II. Let us all give thanks that Civ, at no point in time, became the disaster that was MOO III.

 

[Jonathan]

*tears his hair out of his head while screaming "WHY GOD WHY?!?!"*

Oh dear, poor fellow, don't take it so hard. Have a nice drink of something. It's only a game...

I think at least part of the problem here is that the people who want Americans in the game and the people who want them out have fundamentally different criteria for inclusion and find it difficult to understand the mentality of the other side.

For instance, the Americans-in faction goes on about how important America is to the modern world; and the Americans-out faction is just puzzled by this line of argument, because it seems irrelevant.

Meanwhile the Americans-out faction goes on about how the USA has existed for less than 3 centuries and doesn't belong in the ancient world at all; and the Americans-in faction is just puzzled by this line of argument, because it seems irrelevant...

The two groups can't possibly agree when they're using different and conflicting criteria to decide the issue.

Fortunately there's no necessity for the two groups to agree. Anyone playing a solo game can select his own preferred lineup of civs without interfering with anyone else. (In multiplayer games, some compromise may be necessary.)

 

[Jecrell]

Oh dear, poor fellow, don't take it so hard. Have a nice drink of something. It's only a game...

I think at least part of the problem here is that the people who want Americans in the game and the people who want them out have fundamentally different criteria for inclusion and find it difficult to understand the mentality of the other side.

For instance, the Americans-in faction goes on about how important America is to the modern world; and the Americans-out faction is just puzzled by this line of argument, because it seems irrelevant.

Meanwhile the Americans-out faction goes on about how the USA has existed for less than 3 centuries and doesn't belong in the ancient world at all; and the Americans-in faction is just puzzled by this line of argument, because it seems irrelevant...

The two groups can't possibly agree when they're using different and conflicting criteria to decide the issue.

Fortunately there's no necessity for the two groups to agree. Anyone playing a solo game can select his own preferred lineup of civs without interfering with anyone else. (In multiplayer games, some compromise may be necessary.)

Call me the third party then. Personally I feel that Civilization IV is a game simulating the ability to play as a civilization throughout history -- regardless of when and where. The keyword is game (not history book), and the reason why America is deserving to be in Civilization IV is quite simple; it is one of the most played Civilizations in the franchise, and removing it wouldn't appeal to casual customers who want America in their scenarios. I've also found a lot of just general hostility towards America in Europe -- Does America come off as 'deserving?' to be in your favorite game franchise if you don't like America to begin with? Prejudice isn't far from the subject

I really don't know how many more ways I can possibly express myself -- it feels like I'm blowing out a lot of hot air at this point rather than ideas... I think I'm becoming cliché

[Edit] - Sorry that came off rather lop-sided. Also, I, as an American, find myself a bit nationalistic on the subject because it is my country that is getting the smackdown in this thread. I'm not sure how many of you are Malinese, but if you are, you'll understand how atrocious it feels to see your country up there with a large percent of the people saying it doesn't deserve to be in your favorite franchise. Such is my situation... it just hurts

 

[Urederra]

the Incan are by far the shortest lived empire last less then a hunderd years. followed closely by the Aztecs, Mongolian, USA and Mali. With Russia also being very short lived only a few hundred depending when you decide the Russian empire begins with Ivan or peter. The Maya, Olmec, and Teotihuacán people would all be a much better choice for mesoamerica

And both the Russians and the Mongolians have two leaders. Isn't that unfair?

 

[Urederra]

Well, Spain had to wait for an expansion pack in Civ 3.

Which was a big mistake.

 

[Jonathan]

I'm not sure how many of you are Malinese, but if you are, you'll understand how atrocious it feels to see your country up there with a large percent of the people saying it doesn't deserve to be in your favorite franchise. Such is my situation... it just hurts

I think this is a misunderstanding arising because of the unfortunate title of this thread and the poll attached to it.

I personally feel that the USA doesn't really belong in a game spanning 60 centuries because it doesn't have the historical background to fit into such a game. (I'm afraid I don't count the Native Americans because I see them as a different civ entirely.)

But the word "deserve" in the poll title suggests that there's something inferior and undeserving about the civ you choose to exclude, which isn't what I feel at all.

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that Firaxis should exclude the USA from the game: that would be rather silly given the number of people who want it in. I'm just saying that I may choose to exclude the USA from the solo games that I play -- which doesn't affect anyone else's enjoyment of the game.

Finally, it does seem a bit odd that we've had all this argument about the Americans, but no-one has stood up for Mali at all.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

America should be excluded. An argument can be made for all of the other civs' existance in 4000 b.c. but America's cannot.

 

[Jecrell]

I personally feel that the USA doesn't really belong in a game spanning 60 centuries because it doesn't have the historical background to fit into such a game. (I'm afraid I don't count the Native Americans because I see them as a different civ entirely.)

Finally, it does seem a bit odd that we've had all this argument about the Americans, but no-one has stood up for Mali at all.

You have to stand up for the Mali if you believe America is the least deserving out of all the civilizations here then Jon. I could if I would, but I know nothing about them - literally nothing. I have heard the name Mansa Musa before, but I know not where.

I did not however vote them as the least deserving.

America should be excluded. An argument can be made for all of the other civs' existance in 4000 b.c. but America's cannot.

Okay that's just way off.
... I was going to wait for someone to say "Rome" but I guess I needed to. Rome is to Greece as America is to Britain.
England, Arabia... there's a lot that did NOT start at 4000 BC. All genetics started before 4000 BC if that is what you are going to argue, but these civilizations did not emerge instantly as their own seperate cultures under their own banners at the time of 4000 BC.

 

[Alistic]

If you take out the Americans, I guess you'd have to take out a bit of the tech tree too.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Okay that's just way off.
... I was going to wait for someone to say "Rome" but I guess I needed to. Rome is to Greece as America is to Britain.
England, Arabia... there's a lot that did NOT start at 4000 BC. All genetics started before 4000 BC if that is what you are going to argue, but these civilizations did not emerge instantly as their own seperate cultures under their own banners at the time of 4000 BC.

What? The romans in no way came from Greece. Yes they did end up adopting greek culture, but they did not originate there.

As for the other half of your argument, it's not about the cultures existing as is around 4000 b.c., it's about thinking of a plausible explanation as to why they exist around that time. For your examples of Arabia and England, I would just consider them the indiginous people of those respecitive areas before their culture evolved. The problem with that for America is that they were at that time british.

 

[mitsho]

Mali is an entirely different case than America. It belongs (as for example Babylon, Carthage, or in civ3 the aztecs and somehow china) to the 'representation-civ's. It represents the whole continent of Africa and thus does not need to have had such huge international impact as for example Rome or Britain had. Same with the other civs I mentioned, China is the odd because in civ3 it represented the whole of Asia (uu: Mongol riders!), although it deserves to be its own civ.
And btw you can also see America in the line of these 'representation-civs', the difference is that it doesn't represent a geographical (and cultural) area, but modern times (and its culture).

mfg mitsho

PS: definitly last post in here

 

[elderotter]

how much of the no to USA is from game points and how much because you dont like the US in your real life?

 

[Alistic]

DNA shows that your wrong. They did migrate. Everyone did. Its not a matter of belief its a matter of fact. Lots has changed in the last 5 years. We know so much more now.

 

[Alistic]

We are a melting pot. One of the most unique civs.

 

[Jecrell]

As for the other half of your argument, it's not about the cultures existing as is around 4000 b.c., it's about thinking of a plausible explanation as to why they exist around that time. For your examples of Arabia and England, I would just consider them the indiginous people of those respecitive areas before their culture evolved. The problem with that for America is that they were at that time british.

Unfortunately, yes, the arguement can be made because American history starts, according to Wikipedia, "with the migration of people from Asia across the Bering land bridge approximately 12,000 years ago following large animals that they preyed upon into the Americas." There is the arguement for America. If you remember Civ III, early in the game America showed a lot of the "Native American" roots, by sharing the temple graphic with the iroquois along with a scout unit reflecting the roots of America.

You're thinking "United States of America" rather than America. Also, the arguement has been made now for America. Also I would like to say that this entire thread is FULL of such arguements, so it makes little sense why you would say that there is no arguement.

Please note that earlier in the thread it was also stated that you can start in different eras rather than 4000 BC. Also note that it's entirely plausable to create an arguement why certain civs shouldn't exist merely because they did not last long enough through history to begin with. We don't need to keep going over this again and again.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Unfortunately, yes, the arguement can be made because American history starts, according to Wikipedia, "with the migration of people from Asia across the Bering land bridge approximately 12,000 years ago following large animals that they preyed upon into the Americas." There is the arguement for America. If you remember Civ III, early in the game America showed a lot of the "Native American" roots, by sharing the temple graphic with the iroquois along with a scout unit reflecting the roots of America.

You're thinking "United States of America" rather than America. Also, the arguement has been made now for America. Also I would like to say that this entire thread is FULL of such arguements, so it makes little sense why you would say that there is no arguement.

Please let us not argue semantics, when I said "America" I'm sure you knew well that I meant the United States of America. Unfortunately, the two have practically become synonymus.

Yes there have been arguments made in this thread for the inclusion of America, and for the most part, I agree with them (Indeed, America was one of the largest world influences in the 20th century). But none of them have justified America's existance at 4000 b.c. as culture seperate from Britain.

 

[Nyvin]

I thought that a kewl idea would be to change the civ name each Era or at least every two Eras or something. Maybe then change the traits too, that'd add a ton of strategy to the game, also help with Empire's downfalls rather then expanding juggernauts...

All you'd have to do is say change the 'Romans' to the 'Italians' from whatever 'ancient' era there is to the 'reisnaisance-like' era.

Same could be done for the Greeks (Byzantines), Chinese (Ming?), Persia (tons of options), Arabs (ehh...?), Spainish (Iberians), Russians (Huns perhaps?), French (Gauls), English (Britons?), and Egyptians (tough one)

I guess there would be some you'd have problems with though, like the Japanese...but anyway, if their name changes, their traits (or maybe leader) does too. And It would make Eras more important...

I wonder if this is something that could be modded into the game?

 

[Jecrell]

Please let us not argue semantics, when I said "America" I'm sure you knew well that I meant the United States of America. Unfortunately, the two have practically become synonymus.

Yes there have been arguments made in this thread for the inclusion of America, and for the most part, I agree with them (Indeed, America was one of the largest world influences in the 20th century). But none of them have justified America's existance at 4000 b.c. as culture seperate from Britain.

You also can not argue that Britain, or, ENGLAND, was one and the same flying its own cultural civilization banner at 4000 b.c. And technically you can not argue that America is entirely British as this stage in history, or at its origins with the native americans. The British isles during the dark ages was, as I recall, as split up as the native american tribes.

Also you're trying to go with the philosopher's route rather than the "Civ IV the game, hmmm, which civilization is least deserving of the original 18?" but moreso trying to make Civ IV into historical accuracy, which it is not. Just as Rome did not exist in 4000 B.C., neither did America, yet, low and behold, both are in Civilization the game, co-existing at that time in randomly created versions of Earth.

Odd they didn't call England Great Britain either.

[Edit] Plus I don't think it'd be very fun to be forced to play England just for the sake of satisfying certain historical criteria which are actually just double-standards placed aimed to get a certain result. Yet following the algorithms we always find the errors.

 

[Nyvin]

But none of them have justified America's existance at 4000 b.c. as culture seperate from Britain.

Britain didn't exist in 4000 bc either, so how can what your saying be true? And the US has a whole ton of difference from Britain right from it's very birth. The English weren't the only ones migrating to the eastern coast...

And the 'majority' of the current population of britain came from the continent much later (as in around 300AD or so later, or maybe during Roman occupation...) They weren't there in 4000 bc, back then it was just a bunch of tribals painting their faces blue with blueberries. Very little if any simularities to what you see the Island become later...

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Britain didn't exist in 4000 bc either, so how can what your saying be true?

Please read my previous posts. I stated that the culture didn't have to exist at that I time, I would just consider the inhabitants to represent that culture before it came into being.

And the US has a whole ton of difference from Britain right from it's very birth. The English weren't the only ones migrating to the eastern coast...

British culture was still dominant, I can assure you that many colonials in those areas considered themselves british.

And the 'majority' of the current population of britain came from the continent much later (as in around 300AD or so later, or maybe during Roman occupation...) They weren't there in 4000 bc, back then it was just a bunch of tribals painting their faces blue with blueberries. Very little if any simularities to what you see the Island become later...

Please read my first argument.