Which civs should be left out?

[Weik]

Personally I think that unless the number of civilizations is incread to ~50, the following nations should be left out of civ 5:
The Holy Roman Empire - they are Germany to me
Celts - they were never united
Byzantium - Rome and Greece are already in the game
Native America - not an empire
Portugal and Netherlands - they were never big in Europe

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Personally I think that unless the number of civilizations is incread to ~50, the following nations should be left out of civ 5:
The Holy Roman Empire - they are Germany to me
Celts - they were never united
Byzantium - Rome and Greece are already in the game
Native America - not an empire
Portugal and Netherlands - they were never big in Europe

agree but:
Portugal was a leader in some sence ...
Celts had a great impact in spite of not being united

the more choice i have the better I enjoy the game; I dont see why the greater civilizations couldnt have more unique buildings or units...

 

[r_rolo1]

I could build a nice case for leaving America out..... But there seems to not be that option

Saying to put Portugal and the netherlands out, while keeping people like the Vikings or even the Aztecs if we were going to measure the stability and importance of the aztecs by Old world standarts, even Greaco-indian Bactria would deverve more to be in game ) is a serious historical sin. And measuring the merit of civ being in game by being big in Europe.... well, that pretty much excludes anyone in the world except the Russians

 

[climat]

Holy Roman : we already have germany.

Native America : Sioux or Iroquoi can represent them.

 

[CDarwin1701]

I would rename "Native American" as "Mississippian," but otherwise keep them. Going by the city names (Cahokia, Mound City), it really represents the Mississippian culture of the pre-contact American Southeast. It was an important culture, with large trade and ceremonial centers that seems to have been on the cusp of complexifying to the perhaps the same level as the Central and South American civilizations that are a little more famous. Civ should be about what "could have been," after all. Based upon their performance in the real historical record, the Mississippians seem to certainly deserve place before the Sioux, and probably the Iroquois (who still weren't urban).

I would get rid of the Holy Romans too. I hate having maps where the Celts have "Vienne," the Holy Romans have "Vienna," and neither of the Viennese apparently speak German since there is a separate Germany on another continent.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not a fan of getting rid of any of the civilizations. I would like 100 civs in the game. But, if I had to choose five, they'd be:

1. Native America- Just not all that important, in the grand scheme of things. The Aztecs, Maya and Inca suffice to represent the Americas.
2. Celts- Not really one entity, and therefore quite insignificant for a European civilization.
3. Sumer- Pretty much the same as Babylon. And old. I don't care as much for ancient civs.
4. Ethiopia- Not really all that significant, particularly compared to European civs. Mali, Carthage, Egypt and the Zulus do fine for Africa.
5. HRE- I wouldn't really want to get rid of them, but I suppose they are basically the same as Germany, so meh.

 

[CDarwin1701]

What's the 'grand scheme of things,' though? What happened in our history? The point of Civ seems to me to be the ability to radically change history. Relying only on the 'successful' countries in our history makes the game far too Eurocentric. If the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca are sufficient for the Americas then Rome, Greece, and someone like the Celts to represent all the northern tribes should be sufficient for Europe. I'm willing to go to the mat for "Native America" (although I don't like the name) here, because I think it was a good inclusion philosophically (as well as covering an interesting culture).

Ethiopia, too, did a handful of fairly important things in Africa, including being the last African nation to launch an invasion onto another continent. I think the Ethiopians have a much better case than the Zulus, who were a rather short-lived movement in the mid 19th Century and didn't have any especially ancient history or extensive territory. I would cut them.


Aside, there is something to be said for the Holy Roman Empire, I suppose, in that it permits some important Central European cites like Prague to be on the map which wouldn't otherwise fall into any other "civilization." More Eurocentrism, though.

 

[climat]

Aside, there is something to be said for the Holy Roman Empire, I suppose, in that it permits some important Central European cites like Prague to be on the map which wouldn't otherwise fall into any other "civilization." More Eurocentrism, though.

Then, Austria-Hungary is better than HRE.

 

[Camikaze]

What's the 'grand scheme of things,' though? What happened in our history? The point of Civ seems to me to be the ability to radically change history. Relying only on the 'successful' countries in our history makes the game far too Eurocentric. If the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca are sufficient for the Americas then Rome, Greece, and someone like the Celts to represent all the northern tribes should be sufficient for Europe. I'm willing to go to the mat for "Native America" (although I don't like the name) here, because I think it was a good inclusion philosophically (as well as covering an interesting culture).

Point taken, but I just find it more interesting to play as those civilizations that were quite important, more so than those that weren't. So, if I were to cut any, I would cut the ones that would seemingly have had a smaller impact on history, or who were less important for their time. It may seem Eurocentric, but in reality, history is Eurocentric. A middling European civ, let's say, Germany, has had more significance in history than the Aztec civilization, for example. So, to reiterate, I want as many civs in the game as possible, but if I had to cut civs, I would rather go for the likes of Native America and Ethiopia than, say, Portugal.

Ethiopia, too, did a handful of fairly important things in Africa, including being the last African nation to launch an invasion onto another continent. I think the Ethiopians have a much better case than the Zulus, who were a rather short-lived movement in the mid 19th Century and didn't have any especially ancient history or extensive territory. I would cut them.

Yeah, that would work. I'm no expert on African history, so either would be fine to cut, I suppose, so long as they don't remain in the game whilst more significant civs are cut.

Aside, there is something to be said for the Holy Roman Empire, I suppose, in that it permits some important Central European cites like Prague to be on the map which wouldn't otherwise fall into any other "civilization." More Eurocentrism, though.

I guess, although it seems to be quite well covered by Germany. If you have a Prussian leader as part of the German civilization, then why not also incorporate the HRE into Germany as well?

 

[AmazonQueen]

I wouldn't get rid of any
I would replace same of the conglomerate civs like the Celts, Native America and India with more historical entities

eg instead of Celts the Britons and Gauls
instead of native America the Cherokee, Iroquois etc
instead of India the Chola, Maurya, Mughals etc

I'd also add a lot more civs and give the ability to select random leaders from a particular subgroup

eg the player could specify ancient, medieval, modern etc, European, Middle-Eastern, Far Eastern etc. Some civs might be in several groups

So a player might select random civs from the Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern areas belonging to the Ancient and Classical eras if thats what they fancy playing without knowing exactly who they will face

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I could build a nice case for leaving America out..... But there seems to not be that option

$$$ makes for a very compelling argument. It's hard to make a business-sense case for the removal of any civ that has a current target market for the game . I think they did nicely with America in IV in that its uniques are quite weak unless you play a later era start.

I would include as many civs as possible - it's all about the variety, and the mere premise of civ already damns historical accuracy somewhat . Sure, maybe the Sumer empire didn't quite do as much as Rome or China, but what if its best leader ever lived 6000+ years and ran the civ better ?

Although some of those are definitely not civ or IV civs (hitite and iroquois are barb cities!), and IIRC they weren't in the other ones either...although I have no problem with more civs than ever.

The one I could see axing is the Native American empire -----> I'd like to see a more accurate representation of perhaps the top 1-3 tribes by population/influence, rather than just making one up X_X.

Portugal/Netherlands have both impacted European/World history significantly and would be strange to remove.

 

[r_rolo1]

Microsoft Rise of nations only added America as a playable nation in the expansion ( and don't argue that Microosoft has a better market than America ). Given that the Civ community has a seriously history buff tendency, I think that people would understand if America out..... not that I'm asking to get it out, just pointing that in terms of global impact in terms of Civilization, America's contribution so far is negligible compared with pretty much anyone else now in game and a lot of the candidates, just because it is a infant country.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Microsoft Rise of nations only added America as a playable nation in the expansion ( and don't argue that Microosoft has a better market than America ). Given that the Civ community has a seriously history buff tendency, I think that people would understand if America out..... not that I'm asking to get it out, just pointing that in terms of global impact in terms of Civilization, America's contribution so far is negligible compared with pretty much anyone else now in game and a lot of the candidates, just because it is a infant country.

Fair enough, except the contribution compared to "pretty much anyone else" . I'd say MOST of the empires have had more significant influence...but although my history learnings aren't great I don't recall this "native american empire" turning history a great deal...certainly not more than the nation that destroyed it...well...if it existed and wasn't actually something else .

The same could be said for the nations with double or triple-representation of the same land area ----> you can then divide their impacts and the US compares a bit more favorably than it would otherwise.

Some of the nations in the game weren't around or didn't have a HUGE political influence for more than a short period of time, too.

I do agree that America is towards the bottom of historical significance though, out of the civs that made it.

 

[r_rolo1]

Pretty much everyone else != everyone else

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah yeah. Anyway, unless adding more civs reduce their ability to make the gameplay solid, more is better than less.

 

[Camikaze]

I'll stick my head up (to be chopped off I'm sure) and say that America is historically significant, and as such should be included in the game. It just really depends on what you regard as historical significance. If you mean lasting cultural influence on our society, then surely that means that only ancient civilizations rate a berth in the game. Sumeria must be the most important civ of them all! But that, evidently, is not the case. As it is impossible to judge a civilization's significance on cultural influence on society, historically, as a whole, then that variable must be eliminated from the equation, and replaced with the question as to how they influenced the world in their time period. And no nation influences the world today (or for over 60 years) as much as the United States of America. And, you could even say, the level to which they influence the world (in terms of cultural penetration- everywhere) is unparalleled in all of history. What other civilization has permeating every last corner of the Earth, and even space?

 

[r_rolo1]

What other civilization has permeating every last corner of the Earth, and even space?

Russia, with vodka and china with pretty much everything we write on

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Russia, with vodka and china with pretty much everything we write on

That's not bad company though, even if those two are well ahead .

 

[rysmiel]

The poll, annoyingly. has no option for "leave out all of them and do not label the opponents at all"; myself, I feel that linking the civilisations we play against to real-world historical civilisation adds nothing to the experience of the game, and it has the disadvantage of encouraging people to think in terms of civ-specific unique units and buildings and traits rather than circumstance-specific adaptations leading to unique choices of units and buildings and traits.

(And also endless whining in the "Why can't we have X ? X was a historically significant civilisation too" direction.)

 

[rysmiel]

I'll stick my head up (to be chopped off I'm sure) and say that America is historically significant, and as such should be included in the game.

Way too soon to tell, dude. Ask again in eight centuries or so.