Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Jecrell]

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.

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

Please read my first argument.

If you want to imagine the Americans at 4000 BC, follow their ancestry to the Native Americans, the British, the Spanish, the Irish, the Africans, and imagine them all as different settlers in their own parts of the known world. They existed in 4000 B.C., but they wern't adjecent to one another existing as a single unit (again I say "UNDER ONE BANNER"), and neither was Britain at 4000 B.C.

[Edit]
Please also note that Britain was also part of Rome, and the further down the line this goes the less civilizations we really have and it just comes down to even earlier civilizations.

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

For your examples of Arabia and England, I would just consider them the indiginous people of those respecitive areas before their culture evolved.

So the Ancient Britons count as English before the Anglo-Saxons arrive and before there is even an England to speak of, but the Native Americans aren't American before the Europeans arrive and the USA becomes independent?

Of the 18 Civs, only 6 (Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Japanese, and Persians) can be said to have reasonably existed around 4000 BC. The other 12 all emerged later in human history, or migrated from somewhere else. The Americans were the LAST to do so, certainly, but not by much. The Americans could be said to emerge as a civilization in the early 17th century, whereas the next youngest, the Aztecs, emerged in the late 13th century. That's only a little more than 300 years, and when you consider that in terms of 6000 years of human history, it's not that much.

 

[civaddict098]

all peoples were once other peoples, no civilizations just appeared out of nowhere.

 

[HourlyDaily]

Can we please stop equating the view that the USA doesn't deserve to be in the top 18 with hating America. I can't speak for the minority that may hold that view, but the two concepts are very different.

I'm sure you all are aware of this, but particularly towards Matches10, its as insulting to some of us to hear talk about America-hate as it is to hear someone talk about hating your country. We have to put up with 'America-hate' as a false, non-sensical notion in world politics, simply because you don't agree with the current government policy.

So the issue on this forum is if you include them in the top 18, please not on this forum too (again!)

Now - the Romans and the Italians may be distinct civs, but the links between them allow for the ability to join the two together for gameplay stakes. The Italians existed as a people who were north of Rome, and were intitially fighting them, but were won over by the benefits of citizenship. After the Roman Empire collapsed and the rise of Feudalism, the Italian Lombards still took a large part of their cultural influence from the ashes of Rome etc.

I am still heavily in favour of 'evolving' civs, in name, leader and in culture and hope to be able to mod it easily in my games. This will seemingly make acceptance issues easier for the existence of some civs at different points in history.

 

[Sildo]

America, might not have been around long but for time/influence ration they take the cake.

 

[Nyvin]

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

What your saying has no sense at all. 'The inhabitants represent that culture before it came into being'...okay, so then what your saying is that the native americans represent the USA before the country came into being, this would be the 'exact same' as the britons representing 'England' before the Anglo-Saxons and others arrived. There is NO difference, unless your considering the Native Americans to be a 'sub-human' species or something.

But I'd disagree with what your saying, under this view, the Inhabitants of Asia Minor / Greece would have doubles for representation, the Greeks, the Hittites, the Byzantines, and finally the Ottomons. There is no one group that would have a greater claim to the land area then the other, so how do you fit what your saying with this??? Who were the original 'people' of the Byzantines?

Plus the people known as the 'Britons' had nothing in common with the people who you see later, the Anglo-Saxons. There is no government that is seen between the two, they have no relation at all.

Lastly, Brittish culture was not entirely 'dominant'. New York (New Amsterdam) held it's Dutch culture quite well. It maintained it's open and welcoming feeling to the city, unlike the cold, heartless English feeling toward foreigners. The cabins in the colonies were built under a sweedish model, not a British one. A good portion of the population spoke German as their first language (about 15% or so) And plus even the original british rapidly developed a new culture in the land area, which is a major contributer to the Revolutionary War.

 

[crazybeard]

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

Excellent point. And the main reason Spain, Portugal, and Holland were in C3C was that they are crucuial for the "Age of Discovery" Conquest. (Far and away my fave, if you care)

So, for those of you keeping score (and I know you're out there), delete Spain from my original list.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

What your saying has no sense at all. 'The inhabitants represent that culture before it came into being'...okay, so then what your saying is that the native americans represent the USA before the country came into being, this would be the 'exact same' as the britons representing 'England' before the Anglo-Saxons and others arrived. There is NO difference, unless your considering the Native Americans to be a 'sub-human' species or something.

But I'd disagree with what your saying, under this view, the Inhabitants of Asia Minor / Greece would have doubles for representation, the Greeks, the Hittites, the Byzantines, and finally the Ottomons. There is no one group that would have a greater claim to the land area then the other, so how do you fit what your saying with this??? Who were the original 'people' of the Byzantines?

Plus the people known as the 'Britons' had nothing in common with the people who you see later, the Anglo-Saxons. There is no government that is seen between the two, they have no relation at all.

Lastly, Brittish culture was not entirely 'dominant'. New York (New Amsterdam) held it's Dutch culture quite well. It maintained it's open and welcoming feeling to the city, unlike the cold, heartless English feeling toward foreigners. The cabins in the colonies were built under a sweedish model, not a British one. A good portion of the population spoke German as their first language (about 15% or so) And plus even the original british rapidly developed a new culture in the land area, which is a major contributer to the Revolutionary War.

Forget it. I know when I have lost an argument. I still don't like the idea of America in the ancient age, but it is just my opinion.

 

[Jonathan]

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.

True. As far as I can tell, the only civilization that existed as such in 4000 BC was that of the Sumerians, who aren't represented in the game (!).

The fact is that Firaxis chose to start the game too early, perhaps in order to get some really early technologies into the tree.

Given that absolute accuracy is impossible in these circumstances, it would still be nice to have the superficial plausibility of using civs that were around in ancient times -- before Christ, say. For this reason I'd rather have the Ancient Britons in the game than the English, and I'd rather have the Native Americans than the USA.

Awkwardly, both groups really consisted of a bunch of separate tribes (as with the Indians and probably some others). In that case, I don't know whether it's better to refer to them collectively as one civ, or to choose one of the tribes to represent the rest, or to leave them out.

I haven't spoken up for Mali myself because, like most other people here, I know too little about it.

 

[Jonathan]

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

Not at all. For two reasons:

1. Just because a country isn't played in the game doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In the Civ model of the world, in which civs don't split, the USA can be regarded as a part of the European civs from which it's descended.

2. Even if the USA had never existed, modern technology would now be more or less as we know it. Science and technology have a momentum of their own: if it's not invented by one person, it will be invented by someone else soon after. Things are often invented separately by different people in different countries at around the same time.

 

[Jonathan]

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...

This seems a good idea, though it probably needs some more thought to get the details just right.

It's true that the civs appropriate to one era are mostly out of place in the next.

 

[Freedom]

I like that America is in the game - maybe I'm the kind of person that made Firaxis put them into the game. I like playing my nation

But I think it would be pretty weird to see Canada or Australia as a civilization... as im sure they feel about Amerca

I voted for Mali, anyway. I've heard about them in school but nowhere else, that tells me a bit about their influence

 

[Jonathan]

I like that America is in the game - maybe I'm the kind of person that made Firaxis put them into the game. I like playing my nation

Thanks for that contribution. That is of course the best reason for Firaxis to include America in the game. And that's why people all over the world will immediately set to work creating civs to represent their own countries. Whether it's historically right or not, people just have a urge to do it.

And of course there's no reason why people should feel constrained by history. Personally, I like the illusion of history, but to other people it evidently doesn't matter that much, and the game is there for us to get whatever we want from it.

 

[Ranos]

I know some of the following points have been argued, but as I read, I write and so you'll get my version as well. Sorry for any inconvenience.

If i'd remove any civ to replace it with another i'd boot America out in a blink of an eye.

It might have some reason to be here, but the main reason its in is 90% pure comemrcialistic and 10% for other reasons not all of them very good either.

Try the other way around. 10% (maybe) for commercial reasons and 905 because we developed half of the techs in the modern age (based on Civ3), we instrumental in the victories in WWI and WWII and have dominated the world as a superpower for 60 years. Thats only a couple of reasons, there are many more.

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.

First off, he was saying "WHY GOD WHY?!?!" because of the commercial reference, not the Anti-American sentiment behind the post.

Second, how could you not see the importance of America over the last 100years? (See the reasons listed above)

Third, I can completely understand, though I disagree with it, the America is young thinking. What I don't understand is the "America wasn't around in 4000BC so it's just weird seeing them" when the only civ that is in the game that was around back then is Egypt.

My criteria for a civ being in a game called Civilization, is a nation, state, empire, whatever, being powerful at some point in their history, majorly influencing world events at some point in their history, and contributing some kind of lasting legacy to the world. (Egypt: Pyramids, Early techs, Beer, etc.) (America: Statue of Liberty, First man on the moon, facing down the Soviet Union, etc.)

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.)

What civ in the game does have the historical background? What makes each civ a civ? When did that civ start?

Rome lasted a few hundred years but fell 15 centuries ago. All that remains is Italy, which is not the same civ that existed long ago.

Modern Germany wasn't founded until 1871. Prior to that, it was Prussia. Does Prussia count towards Germany?

What about the Aztecs? Depending on your point of view, they began sometime in the 12th-13th century or they began when Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325 or they began when the cities of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan formed an alliance with eachother in 1427-1428. That means that their civ lasted for 300-400 years, 200 years or less than 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec

So what does it take for a civilization/nation to have a "historical background"?

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

And arguements can be made against all of the others civs' existance in 4000BC, except Egypt. What's your point?

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).

America represents North America and our own culture. Just as every other civ represents its own culture.

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.

Yet the Native Americans that are descendents of those who crossed over 12,000+ years ago are now a part of our nation. No nation came claim cultural difference in 4000BC. Rome's culture was influenced by Greece's. Britain, Germany and France were all once ruled by Rome and just off the top of my head, a few French cities, cant remember which, were founded by Rome. Look up some of the French cities in the Wikipedia and you will see that a handful of them have their roots in Rome and the names those cities were called by are names that were used for Roman cities in Civ3, along with the French using those same cities under the French name.

Forget it. I know when I have lost an argument. I still don't like the idea of America in the ancient age, but it is just my opinion.

Forgive me, but this is just who I am and my wqay of thinking. For every opinion, there is a reason for an opinion. If you admit that you lost the arguement, then your opinion should change. If you still hold the same opinion that you were trying to argue, then there must be another reason. So please, tell us what your new reason for your opinion is.

True. As far as I can tell, the only civilization that existed as such in 4000 BC was that of the Sumerians, who aren't represented in the game (!).

The fact is that Firaxis chose to start the game too early, perhaps in order to get some really early technologies into the tree.

Given that absolute accuracy is impossible in these circumstances, it would still be nice to have the superficial plausibility of using civs that were around in ancient times -- before Christ, say. For this reason I'd rather have the Ancient Britons in the game than the English, and I'd rather have the Native Americans than the USA.

Awkwardly, both groups really consisted of a bunch of separate tribes (as with the Indians and probably some others). In that case, I don't know whether it's better to refer to them collectively as one civ, or to choose one of the tribes to represent the rest, or to leave them out.

I haven't spoken up for Mali myself because, like most other people here, I know too little about it.

Egypt also existed in 4000BC.

So Firaxis should have knocked off a bunch of turns, techs and fun just to be more historically accurate? This is a game based on historical technologies, civilizations and cities, not on history itself. In one of my earlier posts, I wrote about the game running itself until 2006 and then allowing the player to take over. Is that what you want? If historical accuracy is what you are looking for, go read a text book or watch a documentary.

But wait, history is written by the victor. What is accurate? Did things really happen the way it is written? How do we know?

Come on. How accurate do you really want to get? America didn't exist in ancient times is getting old because most of the 18 didn't exist in ancient times. For every civ, there were people living in that area in 4000BC and for almost every civ, there is an arguement for why those people don't count.

Thanks for that contribution. That is of course the best reason for Firaxis to include America in the game. And that's why people all over the world will immediately set to work creating civs to represent their own countries. Whether it's historically right or not, people just have a urge to do it.

And of course there's no reason why people should feel constrained by history. Personally, I like the illusion of history, but to other people it evidently doesn't matter that much, and the game is there for us to get whatever we want from it.

And finally, after 193 posts and days worth of arguing/debating, we get down to the true reason. Had you made the statement of liking "the illusion of history" for your reason for not wanting America in mush earlier, this thread would probably be much shorter. While I can look back at what you said and see that it refers to this statement, it is very difficult to see your earlier posts in this way. If you prefer the "illusion of history" then by all means, play that way. That is much easier than trying to convince a bunch of people that the Americans don't belong that far back in history.

While I could delete Most of this post, I spent over an hour writing it and that just wouldn't be right to delete it.

 

[Jonathan]

While I could delete Most of this post, I spent over an hour writing it and that just wouldn't be right to delete it.

We've both spent more time on this thread than it deserves. We must both have mildly obsessive personalities.

Had you made the statement of liking "the illusion of history" for your reason for not wanting America in mush earlier, this thread would probably be much shorter. While I can look back at what you said and see that it refers to this statement, it is very difficult to see your earlier posts in this way. If you prefer the "illusion of history" then by all means, play that way. That is much easier than trying to convince a bunch of people that the Americans don't belong that far back in history.

Alas for the deficiencies of human communication. I never intended to persuade anyone to play the game my way -- a futile task in any case, as it's so difficult to persuade anyone to change his opinion on anything. I merely explained why I voted as I did, and defended myself when I was criticized.

As I see it, a simulation game is like a novel. We know it's not real, but we "suspend our disbelief" in order to enjoy the experience better. If I'm reading a historical novel about Ancient Rome, and I read that Julius Caesar stubbed out his cigarette and consulted his digital watch, that gives me a problem in suspending my disbelief, and reduces my enjoyment of the novel. It's the same kind of thing to play Civ and encounter Americans (led by Washington or Roosevelt) in ancient or even medieval times.

In principle it's also anachronistic to encounter any of the other civs in 4000 BC, but subjectively it's not quite so jarring (apart from the leaders, which are awful), and I can manage to suspend disbelief if I don't think about it too much. It would be better if all the civs in the game were at least somewhat ancient.

how could you not see the importance of America over the last 100years?

I fully accept the importance of America over the last 100 years, and I think I've said so before; it's just not relevant to me in this context. I see the game as a competition between ancient civs trying to survive. The USA isn't an ancient civ.

Forgive me, but this is just who I am and my wqay of thinking. For every opinion, there is a reason for an opinion. If you admit that you lost the arguement, then your opinion should change. If you still hold the same opinion that you were trying to argue, then there must be another reason. So please, tell us what your new reason for your opinion is.

Good point (in your reply to Lord_all_Mighty). Though it risks prolonging the argument.

 

[Jonathan]

Rome lasted a few hundred years but fell 15 centuries ago.

In fact Rome lasted 1229 years (or 2206 years if you count the Eastern Empire) from when it was founded in 753 BC: a pretty good run. To have that civ surviving to the present day may seem anachronistic, but in fact it's just alternate history. Rome could have survived to the present day if it had been well led throughout.

Robert Silverberg has written a series of stories (under the general title of Roma Eterna) about such a world, in which the Roman Empire survives to the present day despite some troubled times along the way.

 

[elderotter]

Perhaps it would be more soothing for some if no historical names are used for civilizations, and hopefully leaders too. Each player could make up both the name of the civ and the name of the leader(and get a random set of charisteristics). My only problem with Civ games is that the civs are ruled from begining to start by one immortal god like incarnation of a historical leader. And we could argue forever who shouldnt be in the game, bet everyone thinks their country of origin should be. I think America should be though in Civ 3 I rarely played them and hated them when the AI played them.

 

[Jonathan]

Perhaps it would be more soothing for some if no historical names are used for civilizations, and hopefully leaders too. Each player could make up both the name of the civ and the name of the leader(and get a random set of charisteristics).

Yes, I agree in principle. But that seems to mean you'd have to name all your opponents in a solo game... and their cities...

To have it done automatically by the program is a matter of convenience and saving time. In practice I suppose this can be done with the game as it is, by editing the XML files. The only problem is the animated leader graphics; we'll have to find out in due course how difficult it is to replace those.

 

[knupp715]

I haven't read all the pages in this thread yet, mainly because I currently do not have the time but I will soon and I will read them all ASAP. I just wanted to say something. Those arguing that America shouldn't be in the game because they didn't exist if 4000 B.C. - The only "Civilized" people who existed in 4000 B.C. were the Egyptians, the Sumerians, and the Indians. Therefore your points are insubstantial. Also, I can almost gaurantee that 90% of the people who voted for America are Europeans. This is mainly because not many people in the world like our current policy of government. Including me and I live in USA. The facts are that the United States of America has had so much impact on modern history that they couldn't be excluded. World War I, World War II, many modern inventions, space program, invention of the atomic bomb, invention of MANY modern techs, and so many more reasons I can't think of them all, let alone write them all down. 1 last thing - America is the only superpower (currently) and you want to exclude them?

Anybody who is voting Mongolia I would just have to say that Mongolia was THE LARGEST NATION ever in world history. It was bigger than colonial England. Mongolia conquered most of Eurasia. Even though they had barely any cultural backround, being the largest country ever to exist has to count for something.

I would have to say Mali, because before I knew what civs were being in CIV4 I had no idea who the Malinese people were.

Now I'm going to try and read this 10 pages of posts.

 

[ANDL33]

I voted the Aztecs should be out and be replaced by the Turks.