Which civs should be left out?
- Thread starter Weik
- Start date
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
It is very simple. Have Hitler in as a leader would in all likelihood lead to the game being banned in a number of European contries (most notably France, I think), which have laws in place forbidding any public showing of nazi symbolism.
Putting in Hitler in would be economic suicide for the game.
AlphaShard
Emperor
I know it would, it's just funny to me that there able to put in other leaders just as bad as he was.
On a side note, I'm pleased to see that the HRE and "Native American Empire" are leading in the throwout category.
I've suggested representing Germany through Prussia and Austria. The Germany as depicted in Civ4 is basically Prussia--headquartered in Berlin with the choice between a Prussian Chancellor and a Prussian king for your leader. Okay, the UU/UB is distinctly 20th century, but it's still half-way there. I've renamed the HRE to Austria in my game, and rearranged the city list so Vienna, Innsbruck, Graz, Salzburg, and other Austrian cities were at the top of the list.
The "Native American Empire" should not be included in Civ5, but rather the important native tribes. The Aztecs, Inca, and Maya represent some of the most developed native American societies. The Iroquois, with a representative government and relatively advanced social structure despite a heavy metals disadvantage, could take the place of the NAE.
I've suggested representing Germany through Prussia and Austria. The Germany as depicted in Civ4 is basically Prussia--headquartered in Berlin with the choice between a Prussian Chancellor and a Prussian king for your leader. Okay, the UU/UB is distinctly 20th century, but it's still half-way there. I've renamed the HRE to Austria in my game, and rearranged the city list so Vienna, Innsbruck, Graz, Salzburg, and other Austrian cities were at the top of the list.
The "Native American Empire" should not be included in Civ5, but rather the important native tribes. The Aztecs, Inca, and Maya represent some of the most developed native American societies. The Iroquois, with a representative government and relatively advanced social structure despite a heavy metals disadvantage, could take the place of the NAE.
AlphaShard
Emperor
I seem to recall that the Native American's were the Sioux in Civ 2. I like having more varity of Civs but understand the need for more accuratly dipicted ones.
If were going for previous incarnations of Civ's why not the Gaul's?
If were going for previous incarnations of Civ's why not the Gaul's?
I wouldn't have a problem with a specific tribe of native Americans, as I've said before--I think the Iroquois are the best candidate (and I do remember them from Civ3--one of the things that game got right).
The Celts as a single civilization, or Indians, is already a stretch, covering several peoples who were loosely related in terms of culture but were politically all over the place. Even the Greeks fit that definition in the Classic period. But it's a step too far to generalize about people covering two entire continents.
The Celts as a single civilization, or Indians, is already a stretch, covering several peoples who were loosely related in terms of culture but were politically all over the place. Even the Greeks fit that definition in the Classic period. But it's a step too far to generalize about people covering two entire continents.
deanej
Deity
The Native American civ in BtS only represents the tribes located in the US and Canada, I think. The others are represented by the Aztec, Inca, and Maya.
I think you are right. The term "Native American" seems to have been adopted specifically by the aboriginal peoples of North America to refer to themselves collectively. BTS uses the term in that context.
I would prefer if the game used the Iroquois or Sioux as a civ to represent the North American native peoples. It's a bit more descriptive, and we're not lumping a bunch of people together that way. It givs the civ a bit more status, too. We don't lump the Aztecs, Inca, and Maya under the umbrella term of "Central/South American Indigenous Peoples" (Deliberate complex name elaboration there.). We treat them as distinct civs, and if they were to be included, the most prominent North American group should be accorded the same respect in the game, IMHO.
In Civ5, I'd like it if the Americans are the ONLY playable empire. Everyone else can just be lumped into one barbarian-like civ, call them the "terrorists" or "commies". American units will all be more powerful because they love freedom more.
/joke
In all seriousness though, it's pretty hard to justify some of the assertions that America is one of the "least important" civs in the game, unless you think the game should end at the Renaissance. Like it or not, it's been one of the most dominant forces in shaping the world for the past century or two.
Native America on the other hand... I personally feel like it's belittling to some of the actual tribes/nations in the area (e.g. Iroquois) to lump them into one made-up civ that doesn't even have a proper name.
I don't mind some of the groups that were never (or not until recently) actually united as one nation though. For most of history, that kind of unity was the exception rather than the norm, even for some very influential groups.
/joke
In all seriousness though, it's pretty hard to justify some of the assertions that America is one of the "least important" civs in the game, unless you think the game should end at the Renaissance. Like it or not, it's been one of the most dominant forces in shaping the world for the past century or two.
Native America on the other hand... I personally feel like it's belittling to some of the actual tribes/nations in the area (e.g. Iroquois) to lump them into one made-up civ that doesn't even have a proper name.
I don't mind some of the groups that were never (or not until recently) actually united as one nation though. For most of history, that kind of unity was the exception rather than the norm, even for some very influential groups.
The point from which I would make that argument, fwiw, is that the past century or two are not really that important as representatives of the past six thousand years.
Politics aside, (Firaxis is based in the USA, IIRC, and I think it's largest sales of Civ 4 are in North America.), America is in the game for a very good reason. It's been a large player in the world's history for over 200 years, and that fact certainly can't be ignored. If you look at it that way, it definitely belongs there, but for a different reason than China, for example. China, as a country or civ, has existed for more than 5000 years. You sort of can't leave it out if you are making a game which essentially salutes the world's major civilizations, the same as America can't be left out for its' contributions.
I don't really think that any of the current civs should be taken out of the game. I would actually like a couple of additions made to Civ 5. I would like to see South America, and maybe Africa represented a little more. Brazil, for instance, has been in existence (not specifically as "Brazil", necessarily) for a long time, and is a very large country with a rather unique culture and history. It would be a nice addition from a flavor aspect, that's all. I think that a couple of more "minor" civs would flesh out the game a little more. The rest can be added, as they are now, with mod packs.
A totally meaningless statement that is entirely dependent on how one defines "important."
One could say that the last 2 centuries are not that important compared to the last 6,000 years simply because 200<<6000. However there are many other ways to approach the question. One could say the last two centuries are the MOST important because they're the ones we're actually living in. One could say they're the most important because a much larger number of people lived during them. One could say they're more important because during them we have possessed the capacity to wipe ourselves out. EDIT: One can also make the argument that in game the modern era is as important as the ancient, because they actually contain a similar number of turns.
At any rate the entire discussion is pointless because it is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever played Civ that importance is not the only factor considered by the designers anyway. If it were countries like the Zulus, Aztecs and even Germany would not be included, and all 3 of those have been in the game since Civ I.
Weik
Warlord
America is the most important civ in the modern era and was also important in the industrial era. For example Sumer was only important in the ancient era, Byzantium was only important in the medeival era and the Zulus were only important in the industrial era. I beleive that the six eras are supposed to be equally important, and therefore America should definitely be in Civ.
Sprig
めんどくさい
I would get rid of the Dutch, Granted i am on the other side of the world to Europe but the Dutch don't do it for me.
And I would disagree.
Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be the number of turns of the game it takes up. IIRC, there are more turns from 1800 ---> 2009 than there are from 4000BC --->1800. I could be wrong, but it must be pretty damn close.
I think rather than use the word "important" a better choice would be "relevant". The past 200 years or so have more relevance to us as they have had a more recent effect on what has shaped our world as we currently know it. The accomplishments of 4000 to 5000 years ago have affected us, to be sure, but the events of that long ago have a smaller effect on our current world than have the past 4 or 5 centuries.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
How many civs have been truly influential at the global level for longer than that? Is America even last there? A lot of civs have been around, but with peaks and valleys. Although variance in technology makes the comparison more difficult.
No. Some of the civs (most notably the Zulus) were NEVER influential at the global level.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Byzantium?! They were an empire for 1,000 years, and covered quite a large area. This is much more of an accomplishment than early Greece managed. If anything, ditch early Greece.
I agree with the Celts.
HRE was more than just Germans, Charlemagne's HRE was mainly France.
Native America/Iroqois/Soiux Idians... AGREE completely. They were no empire, and they were rolled over pretty quickly. The Aztecs/Mayans were also rolled over, but there was at least a system there. N American indians were sparsely populated and except for a few rare occasions, never even united for a battle.
Portugal wasn't that big in Europe, but they got Eastern S. America, Africa and lands all over Indian/Pacific Oceans. That qualifies in my book.
The Dutch are a little questionable, but I love playing them... but its true... they did have some lands in Africa and in the Indian/Pacific Islands, just not nearly as much as Portugal.
Anyhow, long story short... ax any of the N. American Indian tribes. Tribes do not qualify as civilizations, particularly if there was no tech advance there AT ALL. Hunter/Gather societies...
Similar threads
