quote: Civ is a product of time, not of original growth and settling from the beginnning of human civilization as all the others seem to be (to a certain degree, nobody is perfectly original). As long as there are Civs with custom names, they can and probably should remove the Americans. It won't bother me. Maybe they should be the default race name for the civilization that forms whenever the English player gets a schism from having the capital captured

I think this is one of that tweak easy to do by Firaxis and very nice to see for the sake of "historic feeling".
Was suggested time ago: take original culture - proper Civ - then let the player change name every time his/her Civ have a main change, e.g. main terrain conquer, destroy of another Civ, change of government, etc. Lots of similar events should be added if "Rise and fall of Empire" concept will be implemented.

Pop up appear

quote: "Sir, we have annexed all cities from the Republic of Greek, now our German Sud East Province. We can celebrate this victory renaming our Civ as -Empire of German Europe- " (name suggested, player can overwrite it Choices: NO, keep our glorious name YES, this is my will

I think is it flexible, more educative because jounger players can realize their country didn't rule the world from the dawn of Civ (only Chinese have some point to believe this ), funny for everyone - change name sometimes to better fit your Civ feeling can be great, but if you like to keep the same 'til the end, fine!

I'm afraid Firaxis will not implement this, not because of programming trouble, but because of marketing reasons: lot of players want his/her original country name on the box, careless if it never was an early Civilization.

Imagine on game box side and reviews Civ III feature include more than 100 different civilization to play with; now imagine Civ III feature include five civilization and minor tribe from start, evolving into many different civ as game advance ".

Do you think a company that still insist keeping Sid name on the title will do the later choice or the former ?

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 02-12-2001 04:28 PM Leaving the Americans out due to their displacement of Native Americans is like leaving the English out because of their displacement of the Celts.

No there is a big difference. A big clue to the difference should be that we don't refer to the Celts as the Native English.

also a lot of the character of the people living in england has survived the many invasions over the millenia. The same cannot be said of what has happened in america. the american culture is largely that of english colonists with no trace of the ancient culture that grew natively in that area.

I bet that if you went back to 3000BC in england you'd find a miserable bunch of pasty faced britons, complaining about the weather, eating mind-numbingly plain food and get upset about the ring of stones that was supposed to be a millenium project.

for those who were interested in the 1812 discussion (and we are all interested in history here) the Britannica online says this:

"Though the U.S. gained none of its avowed aims, popular legend soon converted defeat into the illusion of victory."

note also that the English burned down all the public buildings in Washington.

got to hand it to the British of that era: they knew how to make there place in history.