Which civs should be left out?

[kochman]

And, of course, Stalin didn't practice "true communism"/marxism anyway, so I would say you are right...
Both these guys were abominations.

 

[Antilogic]

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.

Fighting the Axis powers? What I don't understand is we can have Frederick II in the game without any other contemporary leaders like Elisabeth of Russia or George II of England or Louis XV of France. We can live with Alexander without his rival Darius III (the Darius in the game lived long before Alexander was born). We can live with Mehmed II without Constantine XI for the Byzantines (look him up). But when it comes to WW2, this just isn't enough. It's not a matter of good vs. evil, it's a simple matter of selecting a broad range of leaders to cover the time periods, and the losers aren't always selected. At least Stalin and Mao ruled over nations that didn't collapse to foreign invasions in their lifetimes and end with their suicides (see Germany, 1945).

edit:


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

My language was imprecise. I should have said: "these numbers cause me to believe" or use some other construction like that. Or say "I have read books which I can look up for you that gives me significant information otherwise."

However, I don't agree with your measure of death rates; absolute numbers are nearly meaningless. Say I have two diseases in the following situations:

• A community of 1,000 people and every last one of them are wiped out by disease A.
• 1,000 people out of 1,000,000 die of disease B.

Which disease are you more afraid of? When the absolute number of people are widely different, then comparing 1,000 deaths to 1,000 deaths, or 100 million to 100 million, doesn't tell the whole story. What matters is the number of people affected, population density, and what percentage fall victim (to give an indication of how widespread the disease was and how lethal it was).

Furthermore, historians cannot agree on the actual numbers of indigenous Americans. Contemporary records from Spanish conquests are believed to be too low for a number of reasons, including a pro-Western bias (those savages can't have big cities like us) and the fact that disease spread more quickly than the colonizers (so regions were already depopulated before the Europeans got there to count). Modern estimates of 100 million are often believed to be too high (and some are accused of a anti-Western/anti-Christian bias or of being too enamored with extinct cultures).

If the range for the native population varies so widely, any absolute number doesn't give us good data. But if we can find a more realistic single settlement with a known number of subjects, and X% die from the disease, then we can make more accurate conclusions.

 

[Malchar]

What I don't understand is we can have Frederick II in the game without any other contemporary leaders like Elisabeth of Russia or George II of England or Louis XV of France. We can live with Alexander without his rival Darius III (the Darius in the game lived long before Alexander was born). We can live with Mehmed II without Constantine XI for the Byzantines (look him up). But when it comes to WW2, this just isn't enough. It's not a matter of good vs. evil, it's a simple matter of selecting a broad range of leaders to cover the time periods, and the losers aren't always selected. At least Stalin and Mao ruled over nations that didn't collapse to foreign invasions in their lifetimes and end with their suicides (see Germany, 1945).

You're right that there usually aren't co-contemporary leaders in the game. However, it seems like more than a coincidence that the game features FDR, Churchill, de Gaulle, Stalin, and Mao but none of the axis powers. Also, most of the "nations" in the game have had their fair shares of collapse to foreign invasion over the years.

My language was imprecise. [snip] However, I don't agree with your measure of death rates; absolute numbers are nearly meaningless.

This argument makes more sense than what I thought you meant in your previous post. You referred to "death toll," which I took to mean total deaths rather than percentage of local population killed.

Furthermore, historians cannot agree on the actual numbers of indigenous Americans. [snip] If the range for the native population varies so widely, any absolute number doesn't give us good data. But if we can find a more realistic single settlement with a known number of subjects, and X% die from the disease, then we can make more accurate conclusions.

This is similar to what I tried to argue in my previous post. The result is that these kind of measuring arguments can't be made because there isn't enough evidence.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, I was very confused by your post, which is why I wrote out so much. You said using percentages was useless and meaningless, and then you turned around and gave the exact reason why percentages were required (the vastly different population sizes).

However, nobody is saying we know there were exactly 60 million natives and 50 million were killed by disease. Using archaeological evidence as well as limited sample sizes from known settlements where we can get good data, we can get a good picture of what destroyed the indigenous peoples. Just because the numbers now disagree with what the Spanish figured a few centuries ago doesn't mean you should dismiss all the modern research out of hand and say there isn't enough evidence.

 

[Camikaze]

I know I've argued this before with you, Antilogic, so I won't go into it again, but perhaps it would be good to define what historical importance is, and how it is related to relevance. I think that historical importance directly relates to relevance to society, and that, as much as long gone events are extremely influential to today's society, they are only relevant indirectly, and therefore do not warrant as much historical scrutiny. This therefore applies to Civ, in that it attempts to represent what is historically important, and therefore by definition, what is more relevant. And that is what is more recent.

Now, it is better to have all sides of WWII represented in history than to have all sides of the Alexander's conquest represented. To understand WWII to the degree we should, we need to know about the Soviets, the Brits, the Japanese, the Germans and the Americans. To know about Alexander's conquests to the degree that we should, or that is relevant to today, we need to know about Alexander- if that.
________

P.S: I'm going to try and not post here in Ideas & Suggestions (and Off-Topic) for a while. It's not that I don't love you all twitch, it's just that I need time to study. So, just to let you know that I'm not actually dead.

 

[Continental Op]

So no love for the HRE, huh? But I must remind you that the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, nor all those other European civs in the game are not really civilizations, not in the sense that for example Russia, China, Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire are/were. We that live in the Europe or America are all part of the Western culture (western meaning Western Christendom). So basically we ARE the Holy Roman Empire, or what it has become (personally I think the whole western civilization is crumbling down pretty fast, China will be new world leader well before 2050).

And I am not saying that we should remove all European civs nor America, that would make the game just dull. But I think the HRE really deserve it's place in the game. Civ4 really is very eurocentric game by nature, but that's all right - that's where the market is, right? And if someone is worried about Germany being overly represeted, must I remind you that they only have two leaders to compensate that. Unless someone can make a valid argument on why for example France deserve more leaders than Germany (no answers from the French, please)

 

[Sian]

i'd rename Vikings into Scandinavia (or Norse which i think sums it up better) and call it a day

Calling them Vikings is like renaming the Dutch civ Sailors in my book

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

(no answers from the French, please)

Since you asked for it... (for info, I don't get either why we haven't more prussian/german leaders too ... )

So no love for the HRE, huh? But I must remind you that the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, nor all those other European civs in the game are not really civilizations, not in the sense that for example Russia, China, Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire are/were. We that live in the Europe or America are all part of the Western culture (western meaning Western Christendom). So basically we ARE the Holy Roman Empire, or what it has become (personally I think the whole western civilization is crumbling down pretty fast, China will be new world leader well before 2050).

You seem to confuse frankish empire (which is the true father of most of german states and France) and HRE. For reference, Charlemagne was nominated Occident emperor 14 years before he dies... Firaxis is not an accurate source of info .
Moreoever, while I see a difference between China and the other mentionned nations (they have been there since the beggining!), please clarify why Russia (russians are descendants of some Viking tribes) and Byzantium are true civilisations while the rest are not... (I am not offensive, but really that doesn't make sense to me )

Cheers

 

[Trias]

So no love for the HRE, huh? But I must remind you that the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, nor all those other European civs in the game are not really civilizations, not in the sense that for example Russia, China, Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire are/were. We that live in the Europe or America are all part of the Western culture (western meaning Western Christendom). So basically we ARE the Holy Roman Empire, or what it has become (personally I think the whole western civilization is crumbling down pretty fast, China will be new world leader well before 2050).

Why are you equating (western) Christianity with the HRE. There are huge parts of western europe that were never part of the HRE, most notably France and England, but also Spain, Scandinavia. The HRE is simply what remained of East Francia and for large periods of time existed mostly in name.

The main reason that the HRE was inlcuded as a civ, was to provide a civ to which Charlemagne could be leader. Not including him was a major insult to history, as he was ruler of one of the largest European empires ever. And he should return to future versions of civs.

As an alternative to the HRE you could include the Franks. That would however cause even more overlap, as France and Germany were formed out of West and East Francia respectively.

 

[Continental Op]

All right, I did confuse the HRE with the Franks, and sorry about that. As for the other questions, for example Russia has a very different (also younger) culture than European civilizations. Somebody (was it Karl Jaspers) divided European civilizations as Georgian, Armenian, Western Christendom, Byzantium, Eastern Orthodox and Russian civilizations. But there are so many theories and so many theorists, it's not really sensible to argue about these things here.

I guess I could accept all those European civs as distinct civilizations, if someone could convince me at what point in time and how exactly they separated from the other western countries and developed their own distinct culture.

 

[kochman]

Moreoever, while I see a difference between China and the other mentionned nations (they have been there since the beggining!), please clarify why Russia (russians are descendants of some Viking tribes) and Byzantium are true civilisations while the rest are not... (I am not offensive, but really that doesn't make sense to me

The Chinese people have been around since the beginning, but there were long periods of completely fractured states/countries within China. Aside from the 3 main dynasty, and today's dynasty, China has been as split as Europe almost.

 

[Malchar]

Actually, I was very confused by your post, which is why I wrote out so much. You said using percentages was useless and meaningless, and then you turned around and gave the exact reason why percentages were required (the vastly different population sizes).

Where in my posts did I "turn around and give the exact reason why percentages were required"? If you're referring to my:

"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."

I did not mean to turn around. By pointing out that Europe had a larger population, I meant to emphasize that while a larger percentage of Americans were killed, more Europeans died in total, which, to me, is what is used to measure "death toll". Anyway, I understand now that you meant to measure it differently all along anyway which is fine.

Just because the numbers now disagree with what the Spanish figured a few centuries ago doesn't mean you should dismiss all the modern research out of hand and say there isn't enough evidence.

I don't mean to "dismiss all the modern research". I simply stated the following: No one has provided evidence to establish the number (or percentage, for that matter) of Americans killed by disease. Therefore, it's impossible to compare with the black death of Europe.

Using archaeological evidence as well as limited sample sizes from known settlements where we can get good data, we can get a good picture of what destroyed the indigenous peoples.

Where is this evidenced, and if it is true, then what are the numbers of people that were killed?

Edit: On the other topic...

I also agree that a number of the European civilizations should be combined with America to create "The West". However, I understand why the game is the way that it is from a marketing perspective.

The problem arises because in the beginning of the game, a player is truly a "civilization". You're alone and quite different from everyone else. Once the world advances to around The Renaissance or so, everyone is really close together and quite similar. What were once civilizations are now more like nations. In general, the nations all get along if they're on the same unofficial team, religion, or general trade group. The concept of a "civilization" is now better defined as one of the previously mentioned groups of players/nations. Once the game advances to the Modern era, especially when the United Nations is built, it really feels like everyone is part of the same "civilization", except for maybe a few backward weirdos on a different continent.

The game mimics history rather well in this respect. The only real problem is that having America start out as its own civilization from the beginning of time doesn't make much sense (especially if the Native Americans are also in the game). The same is true of most of the European civilizations really. The reverse example of a modern day HRE or "Arabia" isn't quite as strikingly inappropriate. In conclusion, I would be happy to see some of the modern European civilizations combined with each other and perhaps also with America into a new civilization, and I realize that there is no chance that the game designers would ever actually do this.

 

[bestsss]

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

It's a very common error however vodka is not any Russian invention by far.
Presently I am writing on the keyboard

 

[kochman]

It's a very common error however vodka is not any Russian invention by far.
Presently I am writing on the keyboard

Nor do they make the best Vodka! I give that honor to Grey Goose, a product of France

 

[zaphod2016]

I think the HRE highlights a major issue- many civs were born of other civs.

HRE -> Germany & France

England -> America

I think it would be interesting to re-think the concept of a "civ" somewhat. I.e. instead of picking a civ, you would pick a leader. As the game progressed, the civ you belonged to might change. I.e. George Washington would spend the ancient age fighting in the Anglo/Saxon wars, and eons later, lead America which has split from England.

Very hard to execute properly, but I think it strikes at the core issue of what makes a civ a civ.

After all, "America" did not exist until Washington; "Germany" did not exist before Bismark- but the people, and the underlying cultures, were there much, much longer, derived from ancient civs that had fallen eons before these specific nations appeared on the map.

Assuming this is all way too complicated for a video game, don't remove anyone, just add more. Replace vague terms like "Native America" with specific tribes (like the Maya, Inca, Aztec, Iroquois). But in general, any civ is as worthy as any other- that (to me) is the whole point of the game. Balanced play, showing that different nations rise and fall based on different circumstances, and a lot of dumb luck.

 

[zaphod2016]

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...

Do some reading on the Iroquois Nations. They had a Constitutional government before we (America) did!

What if Montezuma had been more diplomatic, and successfully rallied his people to repel Spanish invasion? What if the experience taught him the value of technology, and thus began a new era of Aztec civilization in which literacy and education were valued? What if, hundreds of years later, the Aztec underwent an industrial revolution along with Europe, and became a major world player? Impossible? Look at Asia! Quite a few Asian nations were lagging the world technologically at the start of the 19th Century, but they caught up- in terms of technology and production- quite quickly.

I say leave any tribe, no matter how "insignificant". Warmongers can enjoy yet another nation to subjugate, and us anthropology/history buffs can imagine a world in which Europe never left the middle ages.

 

[kochman]

I guess all those "what ifs" are why they are in the game, because none of the N. American tribes really had a significant impact on the world today, because quite plainly, they weren't civilizations. They were tribes, hunter/gatherer societies.

But, the what ifs do make it more interesting... I guess in retrospect I would change my answer to not deleting any civ from Civ5, because the more the merrier... makes it interesting, less stale... That is why I like the Civ GOLD modpack and design my own civs that aren't really "civilizations" in the common sense of the word.

 

[Bridog7]

Native America, Holy Roman Empire. Also The khmer never heard of them before untill i searched them up. Definitly keep them in CIV.

 

[Antilogic]

I guess all those "what ifs" are why they are in the game, because none of the N. American tribes really had a significant impact on the world today, because quite plainly, they weren't civilizations. They were tribes, hunter/gatherer societies.

They weren't just hunters and gatherers. Go and read some books.

 

[kochman]

They weren't just hunters and gatherers. Go and read some books.

Um... whatever. Don't assume I haven't read. Well, I haven't read revisionist history.

N. American Indians were hunter/gatherer before the arrival of Europeans. The bottom line is, they were light years behind technologically.