Which civs should be left out?

[Weik]

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.

The Byzantines called themselves "The Empire of the Romans" and Western Europe called them "Empire of the Greeks". I think they should be included in one of those civilizations.

 

[Antilogic]

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.

This is very true, however I would go a step further. What happened in ancient times is simply taken for granted in the modern day--the existence of Christianity, for example, or the Battle of Hastings (the one naval invasion of the British Isles, after which no one tried until Napoleon and Hitler centuries later), had massive effects on the modern world. It's just that people don't think about it. They see all the WW2 shows on TV and assume that the greatest military minds of all time faced off 60 years ago, and nothing in the world is any more important than that.

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...

Depends on how you classify the Byzantines. Strictly speaking, they are an offshoot of the Roman Empire. Then, they become a Greek Empire (adopt the Greek as official language instead of Latin) that is wholly unique from the classical Greek roots. Also, see the Persian Wars and the Greeks allowing a unique Western civilization to develop. Also, see Alexander's conquests. Also, see the contributions to science, medicine, astronomy, etc. that the Hellenistic cultures contributed to the modern world.

All that being said, I can survive with having Rome, Greece, and Byzantium all as independent civs.

On the native Americans, I'm not saying eliminate native societies, just replace the NAE with a specific tribe. The reason why they got steamrolled was biology--their immune systems were not up to the challenge of fighting European diseases. But don't mistake this for a lack of sophistication: the Aztecs and Mayans built aqueducts and pyramids in much rougher terrain than the Romans and Egyptians had to deal with. They had complicated social hierarchies and in some ways were more advanced than their European counterparts (look at the Iroquois on women's rights, for example). The Iroquois also had a functional representative government as well as good agriculture.

I'm not sure why you are talking about the Mayans getting rolled over. The Mayans disappeared before Columbus and the conquistadors arrived...you must be talking about the Aztecs and Incas.

Many mistake the lack of technological sophistication for a lack of social/economic/political sophistication. However, technology is not the sole requirement for being in Civ.

And I just can't believe you suggested the Dutch were questionable. Amount of land colonized is not what the Dutch are there for--they came up with modern banking, stock markets, and not to mention the contribution to painting, music, and the arts (the culture category of Civ4). And that's just off the top of my head, I'm certain there is more.

 

[Ndynslvr]

I dont think you should leave out civs cause that will give you less options in choosing the starting tech/uu/ub/leader characteristics/

 

[kochman]

The Indians got steamrolled by a lot more than Biology.
I mean, they didn't have the wheel, or writing. How far can you get without those two?
Try playing a game of Civilization and never getting those two techs... let me know how you do?

 

[Malchar]

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.

At the very least, this would solve the problem of whether or not to include Hitler. In my opinion, it can't be done without having Germany be the actual civilization. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing him since we already have Mao and Stalin for leaders and civics like despotism and everyone's favorite: slavery!

 

[kochman]

Stalin killed WAY more people than Hitler did... I have always wondered why he seems to not get the bad wrap...
The answer? Communist sympathizers.
Not many fascist sympathizers out there these days.

 

[Antilogic]

The Indians got steamrolled by a lot more than Biology.
I mean, they didn't have the wheel, or writing. How far can you get without those two?
Try playing a game of Civilization and never getting those two techs... let me know how you do?

That's a crock load of BS--not every real life civilization followed the tech tree of the Civilization series.

Death rates for indigenous Americans due to disease are estimated to be as high as 90% in the worst areas, which is much more devastating than the "puny" 33% death toll from the Black Death. I would cite this as evidence that microbes did far more slaughtering of natives than guns or slave labor.

At the very least, this would solve the problem of whether or not to include Hitler. In my opinion, it can't be done without having Germany be the actual civilization. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing him since we already have Mao and Stalin for leaders and civics like despotism and everyone's favorite: slavery!

I wouldn't mind leaving Hitler, Stalin, and Mao out. About a tenth of the leaders in a game spanning six millenia come from the last century, or 1/60th the time.

 

[kochman]

That's a crock load of BS--not every real life civilization followed the tech tree of the Civilization series.

Every successful real life civilization has.
Thousands of years of history refutes what you are saying, but judging by your reply, I guess you just don't care. I certainly am not one to argue with emotion, it never works.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The Indians got steamrolled by a lot more than Biology.
I mean, they didn't have the wheel, or writing. How far can you get without those two?
Try playing a game of Civilization and never getting those two techs... let me know how you do?

Stalin killed WAY more people than Hitler did... I have always wondered why he seems to not get the bad wrap...
The answer? Communist sympathizers.
Not many fascist sympathizers out there these days.

Every successful real life civilization has.
Thousands of years of history refutes what you are saying, but judging by your reply, I guess you just don't care. I certainly am not one to argue with emotion, it never works.

You aren't really arguing at all. You're just posting these inflammatory statements in the form of twisted little Haiku's without any specific examples, data, or cited references to back them up.

 

[kochman]

Facts are facts. Most of this is common knowledge. You can research this all on your own time if you are genuinely curious.
The statements I have made are (for your ease of research):

1) The Indians were conquered by a lot more than just simple germs/illnesses
2) Stalin killed more people than Hitler
3) Stalin doesn't get as bad a rap as Hitler
4) There are certainly more people sympathetic in the world today to communism than there are to fascism

Let me know if you find an error in my statements.

 

[Robo-Star]

Stalin killed WAY more people than Hitler did... I have always wondered why he seems to not get the bad wrap...
The answer?

The people Stalin killed weren't as valued as the people Hitler killed.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The statements I have made are <snip>:

Deliberately inflammatory, controversial, possibly offensive, and bordering on trolling.

[/Feeding Troll]

 

[kochman]

double post

 

[kochman]

Sorry that you find facts to be controversial/offensive/etc. I don't subscribe to PC standards over truth, and I don't think that applying PC ideals to facts makes the speaker of said facts a troll.
If a fact is not PC according to you, it won't stop me from referring to it.
In fact, I find your posts to be much more trollish because you haven't refuted any of the facts, but you are just insulting me.
I challenged your support your statement of "posting these inflammatory statements in the form of twisted little Haiku's", and all you are doing is continuing to say I am wrong, but provide no examples of how those facts are wrong.

 

[Malchar]

I wouldn't mind leaving Hitler, Stalin, and Mao out. About a tenth of the leaders in a game spanning six millenia come from the last century, or 1/60th the time.

Due to exponential population growth, it kind of makes a lot of sense. About 1/3 of the tech tree comes from the last century.

However, I would welcome some new faces from earlier time periods. There's plenty of history that lots of people don't know about. For example, I had no idea that the Khmer empire even existed at all. Perhaps the problem is that new stuff is more popular and helps to carry the rest of the game. I might be hesitant to buy a video game if it seems like it's all a bunch of dusty history figures that I've never even heard of.

As for the debate about the "evil" leaders, I would have had no problem if they included Hitler. But, since they left him out, it begs the question of why they still included Stalin, Mao, and probably others that I'm unaware of. They should either all be left in or all be left out. Picking sides just causes huge problems. It would appear that fighting against the axis powers in WW2 is justification enough to be included in the game regardless of anything else that happened later.

edit:

Death rates for indigenous Americans due to disease are estimated to be as high as 90% in the worst areas, which is much more devastating than the "puny" 33% death toll from the Black Death. I would cite this as evidence that microbes did far more slaughtering of natives than guns or slave labor.

You "cite" this as evidence, yet you don't cite this. People are unsure about how many Native Americans died to disease. However, simply comparing percentages of death is useless and misleading. Europe had a much larger population than America did. In the end, the numbers of people that actually died are near equal using the most generous numbers by my approximation.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America An estimate of Native Americans at 100 million
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html 1400 AD estimate between 75 to 100 million have died during the black death

 

[kochman]

Due to exponential population growth, it kind of makes a lot of sense. About 1/3 of the tech tree comes from the last century.

However, I would welcome some new faces from earlier time periods. There's plenty of history that lots of people don't know about. For example, I had no idea that the Khmer empire even existed at all. Perhaps the problem is that new stuff is more popular and helps to carry the rest of the game. I might be hesitant to buy a video game if it seems like it's all a bunch of dusty history figures that I've never even heard of.

As for the debate about the "evil" leaders, I would have had no problem if they included Hitler. But, since they left him out, it begs the question of why they still included Stalin, Mao, and probably others that I'm unaware of. They should either all be left in or all be left out. Picking sides just causes huge problems. It would appear that fighting against the axis powers in WW2 is justification enough to be included in the game regardless of anything else that happened later.

Somebody pointed out, re: Hitler, that he/his likeness was actually banned in several countries (France, Germany, Romania, etc). I guess they could have made it so that he was just in releases in certain nations, but they opted out.
Also, to be totally fair, he was only in charge for 12 years... Relatively short compared to the other leaders. True, in those 12 years his impact was HUGE, and some of the modern democratic leaders had less time in charge due to term limits.

I agree about having more leaders from other, earlier time periods though.
Goths for example... Gauls... Tartars... Kazaks... Angles... Saxons... Lombards... the list goes on and on...
I also didn't really know about the Khmer. Of course, I had heard of the Khmer Rouge, in its genocidal manifestation in modern times, but never about a previous empire in history.

Sometimes I also think they aim the civs at nations who are liable to buy the game to some extent. Marketing.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

Yeah, that would be a better way of looking at it. Although I would say that relevance = importance.

Stalin killed WAY more people than Hitler did... I have always wondered why he seems to not get the bad wrap...
The answer? Communist sympathizers.
Not many fascist sympathizers out there these days.

More likely to be American sympathisers. After all, America was the supporter of Stalin during World War Two, in a kind of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' policy. Any lack of historical wrath directed towards Stalin would come out of trying to save face for the Allies. And you aren't going to get far by typecasting Stalin as a communist, as opposed to Hitler as a fascist. It was the fascist elements of Stalin's rule that made him so evil. But I would suggest that if you wanted to continue this discussion, you take it to OT, WH or PM.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Rustling are the fertile steppes,
Running are the full-flowing rivers,
The spring dawns are shining
Over our joyous homes.
So let's thing a song, o comrades,
About the largest man of all,
About the most nearest and dearest man,
Let's thing a song about Stalin.

Stalin's out military glory,
Stalin is a flight of our youth,
Fighting and winning while singing songs,
Our people follow Stalin.

 

[kochman]

Put aside economics... Stalin and Hitler would have been great buddies.

 

[Camikaze]

Which makes the economics (i.e. communism) an independent, and therefore irrelevant, variable.