Which civs should be left out?

[kochman]

You are assuming my thoughts now, and incorrectly. I never mentioned horses or cows. But, also, you are wrong anyhow, which is funny. There were horses in the Americas before the Europeans RE-introduced them. The Indians, being hunter/gatherers, hunted them to extinction (not to bright, would have been better to domesticate them, but I guess they never had that idea... or maybe they just "chose" otherwise ). Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/?section=evolution

You can also design harnesses that would not utilize the neck. Like humans use backpacks. This is not rocket science here... there are alternate designs.

You didn't refute anything about the other uses of the wheels. Pulleys, gears, because you can't. So, yes, it is a case of failing to apply ideas, or a failure to even come up with the ideas to begin with. Either way, not good.

Your argument, in each post, is ill-informed.
You can have the last word, and keep on believing that these stone age civs were amazingly advanced (despite no written language, wheel, code of laws, etc, etc, etc) if it makes you feel better... because I am done with this topic.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You are assuming my thoughts now, and incorrectly. I never mentioned horses or cows. But, also, you are wrong anyhow, which is funny. There were horses in the Americas before the Europeans RE-introduced them. The Indians, being hunter/gatherers, hunted them to extinction (not to bright, would have been better to domesticate them, but I guess they never had that idea... or maybe they just "chose" otherwise ). Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/?section=evolution

You can also design harnesses that would not utilize the neck. Like humans use backpacks. This is not rocket science here... there are alternate designs.

You didn't refute anything about the other uses of the wheels. Pulleys, gears, because you can't. So, yes, it is a case of failing to apply ideas, or a failure to even come up with the ideas to begin with. Either way, not good.

Your argument, in each post, is ill-informed.
You can have the last word, and keep on believing that these stone age civs were amazingly advanced (despite no written language, wheel, code of laws, etc, etc, etc) if it makes you feel better... because I am done with this topic.

Yes, there were horses at one time in America
They were extinct before Europeans had domesticated the horse
Guess the native Americans were just too good at hunting. The native Americans domesticated those animals that were available to them

There are horse/ox harnesses that don't utilise the neck. They are no longer used because as they do not allow the animal to use their full body strength they are less efficient. Llamas do not make good draft animals which is why they are not used by anyone, native American, or otherwise as draft animals

I accept that they did not use the wheel for gears, pulleys etc

I mention horses and cows because they are the best draft animals, used throughout the world, and unavailable in the Americas until Europeans arrived. The Aztecs not only had no draft animals, their only pack animal was humans

I never said the Incas were incredibly advanced. However their agricultural techniques, building and government were quite sophisticated

You seem to feel that some peoples were superior to others whereas I feel that human history shows that people develop in a particular way because of geography, exchange of ideas with other cultures, and competition with other cultures

 

[kochman]

Since you decided to personally attack me, I feel obliged, and irritated, that I need to reply, despite having wanted to quit because you clearly lost the debate.

You seem to feel that some peoples were superior to others

Perhaps my writings lead you to this conclusion in your own head, because it is in no way what I was thinking. I really don't appreciate being called a racist because your ideas have been weakly supported and your arguments filled with assumptions.

Actually, I agree more with your other point:

human history shows that people develop in a particular way because of geography, exchange of ideas with other cultures, and competition with other cultures

This is exactly right, and I have cited a book, in this thread no less, (Guns, Germs and Steel) that proposes the exact same thing. I realize that the end result is that, while PEOPLE are created inherently equal, civilizations/cultures are not.

A difference is, I don't feel either of these positions, but I think them. Emotions do not guide my take on history, thoughts and research do.

Your utterly weak debate here is boring, and I would appreciate it you could lay off the assumptions and insults when your points falter in the face of reality. I can't make you do that though, you are free to expose your radicalism all you want. Just keep my name out of your insults please.
I have a hard time taking anyone with these types of scoresseriously
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
Its not that your thinking leads you to those scores, its that you think publicly broadcasting them on every single post you make is important and should matter to people. Ridiculous. No one cares about your personal politics lady.
But I humored you anyway, just to be shown that true to your radical nature, the insults were never far away. Thanks for showing everyone else that too, perhaps you can add that in your signature line as well.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Since you decided to personally attack me, I feel obliged, and irritated, that I need to reply, despite having wanted to quit because you clearly lost the debate.

Perhaps my writings lead you to this conclusion in your own head, because it is in no way what I was thinking. I really don't appreciate being called a racist because your ideas have been weakly supported and your arguments filled with assumptions.

Actually, I agree more with your other point:

This is exactly right, and I have cited a book, in this thread no less, (Guns, Germs and Steel) that proposes the exact same thing. I realize that the end result is that, while PEOPLE are created inherently equal, civilizations/cultures are not.

A difference is, I don't feel either of these positions, but I think them. Emotions do not guide my take on history, thoughts and research do.

Your utterly weak debate here is boring, and I would appreciate it you could lay off the assumptions and insults when your points falter in the face of reality. I can't make you do that though, you are free to expose your radicalism all you want. Just keep my name out of your insults please.
I have a hard time taking anyone with these types of scoresseriously
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
Its not that your thinking leads you to those scores, its that you think publicly broadcasting them on every single post you make is important and should matter to people. Ridiculous. No one cares about your personal politics lady.
But I humored you anyway, just to be shown that true to your radical nature, the insults were never far away. Thanks for showing everyone else that too, perhaps you can add that in your signature line as well.

You said in relation to the Incas not using the wheel

"Not a good choice was it?
That is the difference, applying knowledge is what matters. Not like they really came up with a better method...
That's a make or break decision... I don't think it was really a "decision" either... more like, they never thought of how they could apply it. You make it sound like they had better plans or something... "

No consideration that the wheel might be less useful to them (lacking draft animals and living in a mountainous region) than to Europeans, just a clear indication on your part that you felt it was a failure of thinking on their part.


__________________

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The Incas were one of the biggest and most unique cultures ever. They should be in. However, the great thing about Civ is that you can add or subtract civs by yourself! You cares which civs are in Vanilla! We can just add new ones by ourselves.

 

[kochman]

The Incas were one of the biggest and most unique cultures ever. They should be in. However, the great thing about Civ is that you can add or subtract civs by yourself! You cares which civs are in Vanilla! We can just add new ones by ourselves.

Agreed. I said long ago in this thread that all civs should stay, and wish I could go back and change how I originally voted (I didn't see that option I guess)... and they should add yet more and more news ones to the game, as many of us do through adding mods.
I have added several of my own (Kingdom of Jerusalem, Norman Sicily, House of Savoy, Venice, Romania, S. Africa) and added several done by others as well (Civ GOLD is a GOLDmine).
The more the merrier I say.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I said Holy Roman. They should be replaced with just roman AND Italy.
Native America. That is to broad and should be replaced with Iroquois, Aztecs, and other tribes.
Vikings should just be renamed to Scandinavia

 

[kochman]

I said Holy Roman. They should be replaced with just roman AND Italy.

Uh, the Holy Roman Empire was not really an "Italian" Empire... despite the misleading name. In fact, the Italian speaking portions of the Empire were often some of the most likely to try and separate through the years. It was really a more Franco-Germanic Empire than anything.

 

[Gamemaster77]

No. I want a Roman Empire along with an Italian Empire. I want the both. They are too different.

 

[kochman]

No. I want a Roman Empire along with an Italian Empire. I want the both. They are too different.

There was Rome.
There was the Holy Roman Empire (not really Italian).
There was several different groups you could combine to be an Italian Empire (Venice, Milan, Papal States, etc)

My point was that the HRE was not really Italian nor Roman, other than in name.

 

[Camikaze]

No. I want a Roman Empire along with an Italian Empire. I want the both. They are too different.

The 'Italian Empire' (as such) has only existed since the end of the 19th century, and has been an overall failure, notably with its complete invasion and occupation in World War Two. It would make much, much more sense to have, say, Venice, or Piedmont, as civs. They were far more successful for their time than Italy has been.

 

[Dumanios]

Byzantium
Holy Rome
Native America
Poland
Ukraine
Canada
Brazil
Australia
Kazakhstan
Polynesia
The Solomon Islands

 

[Camikaze]

Kazakhstan? With Borat as a leader?

The Solomon Islands don't really make sense, seeing as they aren't really an Empire, aren't really important, and didn't exist as an entity until 1978.

Polynesia would be far more appropriate, IMO.

I really don't see the place for either Poland or Ukraine in the game. Europe is crowded enough, and these two are of no great significance, relatively.

Brazil would be a possibility, but I would prefer a Bolivarian Empire, perhaps 'Bolivian Empire', to represent the Bolivarian states.

Canada and Australia are not worthy of a place in the game more if the game is to have 32 civs. If there are, say, 100 civs, these two might deserve a place, or at least get a place due to recentism, but on the whole, nations that have only existed under the monarchy of another nation don't really warrant a place.

 

[Gamemaster77]

The 'Italian Empire' (as such) has only existed since the end of the 19th century, and has been an overall failure, notably with its complete invasion and occupation in World War Two. It would make much, much more sense to have, say, Venice, or Piedmont, as civs. They were far more successful for their time than Italy has been.

Although they have failed in many ways including WWII, they still put up a good fight.

 

[Trias]

Agreed. I said long ago in this thread that all civs should stay, and wish I could go back and change how I originally voted (I didn't see that option I guess)... and they should add yet more and more news ones to the game, as many of us do through adding mods.
I have added several of my own (Kingdom of Jerusalem, Norman Sicily, House of Savoy, Venice, Romania, S. Africa) and added several done by others as well (Civ GOLD is a GOLDmine).
The more the merrier I say.

For a vanilla release of civ5 I'd rather have a few (equal to max. # players on a map) well thought civilizations, that each play differently due to well balanced UUs and UBs. More civs can later be added by the community or in expansion packs. Of course, it would be even better to have a lot of well developed civs, but given that game dev time is a limited quantity, I'd rather have them spend it on good innovative gameplay and improved AI, than on creating a million bland civs for us to play with.

Another reason to limit the number of civs in a vanilla release is not scare away new comers with an overflow of choices. Experienced players will easily find mods to satisfy their need for more choices, but newb's need a limited number of choices of which they can see the consequence. (have a million civs to choose from is like having no choice at all.)

 

[Camikaze]

Although they have failed in many ways including WWII, they still put up a good fight.

But for only a bit over 100 years. New Zealand would make more sense. They haven't lost a war, and have been around for almost as long.

 

[Nitram15]

There are many, many civs in the world but civ4 have got a very few civilization!

I think there are many other civs live in the world, to put into game!

 

[History buff33]

I would replace the Native Americans with both the Sioux and Iroqouis. I would also get rid of the Sumerians. Plus I would add a couple more Asian civs. Having the Khmer in the game was awesome. Without a doubt, my 2nd-favorite civ behind the Japanese.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'd say that Babylon is more redundant than Sumeria. Plus you can't really call it Civilization if you don't even have the first one in there!

 

[Antilogic]

Yeah, keep in the originals. Even Sargon's empire should be considered for addition on top of Babylon and Sumer.

I wouldn't so much drop civilizations as transform them: transform the currently ill-defined German civilization into Prussia and Austria, the two preeminent German states.

Native America -> Iroquois is heavily favored in my book. I'm not sure about the Sioux, although in my current mod I just renamed the NAE to the Sioux and added the Iroquois from Colonization.

For a vanilla release of civ5 I'd rather have a few (equal to max. # players on a map) well thought civilizations, that each play differently due to well balanced UUs and UBs. More civs can later be added by the community or in expansion packs. Of course, it would be even better to have a lot of well developed civs, but given that game dev time is a limited quantity, I'd rather have them spend it on good innovative gameplay and improved AI, than on creating a million bland civs for us to play with.

Another reason to limit the number of civs in a vanilla release is not scare away new comers with an overflow of choices. Experienced players will easily find mods to satisfy their need for more choices, but newb's need a limited number of choices of which they can see the consequence. (have a million civs to choose from is like having no choice at all.)

Good thoughts, all. I think they do a good job at the moment with their releases: Civ5 should have roughly 15-20 or so civilizations along with 20-25 or so leaders, kind of like the initial release of Civ4. Warlords felt a little light for an expansion pack, but BtS was just right.

Somewhere around here, I have a distribution of 66 leaders and corresponding civilizations, assuming no doubling of traits and there is an extra trait added to the game (for 66 unique combos instead of 55). Whenever I finish it, I'll post it.