Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your criteria for including a civ in the game?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What are your criteria for including a civ in the game?

    From lots of rather hostile conversations that I've been reading, it's apparent to me that just about everyone has different criteria for the inclusion of a civilization in Civ4, or even what constitutes a Civilization!

    So this thread is to see what the general consensus is.

    Keep in mind that there also needs to be an entertainment factor to the game.

    Please choose all options that apply, and please, please remain civil and cordial to each other in this thread!
    202
    Major civs with great influence (ie. Rome, China, India, etc.)
    21.78%
    44
    Some slightly lesser civs that were cultural greats (Incas, France).
    18.81%
    38
    Some smaller, more controversial civs (Celts, Portuguese).
    7.92%
    16
    Some lesser known civs with some influence (Mali, Hittites).
    8.42%
    17
    Some really rather insignificant civs (Dahomey, Dutch).
    2.48%
    5
    Every major civilization that has ever existed!
    7.43%
    15
    A cross section of the world, representing all ethnic groups and cultures regardless of civilization status.
    14.36%
    29
    Some utterly stupid civs (North Americans, Jamaicans).
    0.99%
    2
    I don't care, as long as they leave in America!
    2.97%
    6
    I don't care, as long as they take out America!
    3.96%
    8
    I don't care, as long as they take out Mali!
    4.46%
    9
    I really don't care. I just want to play!
    6.44%
    13
    Last edited by Alexander I; August 1, 2005, 11:07.
    The Apolytoner formerly known as Alexander01
    "God has given no greater spur to victory than contempt of death." - Hannibal Barca, c. 218 B.C.
    "We can legislate until doomsday but that will not make men righteous." - George Albert Smith, A.D. 1949
    The Kingdom of Jerusalem: Chronicles of the Golden Cross - a Crusader Kings After Action Report

  • #2
    1 and 2. I want this game to be Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's Political Correct Selection of the Cultures of the World.
    Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
    Also active on WePlayCiv.

    Comment


    • #3
      I concur.
      The Apolytoner formerly known as Alexander01
      "God has given no greater spur to victory than contempt of death." - Hannibal Barca, c. 218 B.C.
      "We can legislate until doomsday but that will not make men righteous." - George Albert Smith, A.D. 1949
      The Kingdom of Jerusalem: Chronicles of the Golden Cross - a Crusader Kings After Action Report

      Comment


      • #4
        1, 2 and 11.

        This should be a fun game, not a trip to the UN.
        It is an unarguable and self-evident fact that France has been responsible for all the major world conflicts of the last 200 years.

        Comment


        • #5
          7 it is. And I don't care, as long as they leave in Mali!

          Comment


          • #6
            Criteria

            1, 2, 4, 6

            1 and 2 are obvious.

            I disagree with 3, because we can eventually go tribal.

            I agree with 4, because some nations, although large and important are completely left out (like Indonesians or Thai). They definitely are as important as Portugese or Dutch, and were excluded because they are LESSER KNOWN.

            I disagree with 5 - No Dahomey. However Dutch were not as insignificant as it seems. Just have a look at Civ 2 Colonisation scenarios.

            I agree with 5 - I want to have all major civs.

            My criteria are
            1) Presence of state (required)
            2) Existence for long time (required)
            3) Population size (highly recommended)
            4) Contribution in wonders, leaders, UU, and technology (recommended)
            5) Major role in the respective area of the world. (recommended)

            Therefore, I am against Tribes (Iroquois, Sioux, Celts, Polynesians), against worthless civs (e.g. Tibet, Vikings, Hittites only meet criteria 1 and 2)

            I do note, that Wonders are selected in a very pro-European fashion, and so I make my own judgements.

            In this list the long absent Incas get 1+1+1+1+1+1=5; Mali gets 1+1+0+0+1=3, Zulu = 1+1+0+1+1=4; Indonesians = 1+1+1+1+1=5; Maya = 1+1+1+0+0=3; Aztec = 1+1+1+1+1=5; Thai = 1+1+1+0.5+0.5 =4; Cambodja = 1+1+1+1+0=4.

            On the contrary weird nations get 2 or less. Sioux = 0+0+0+1+0; Iroquois = 0+0+0+1+1=2; Polynesians = 1+0+0+1+0=2; Tibet = 1+0+0+1+0=2; Hittites = 1+1+0+0+0=2; Vikings = 1+1+0+0.5+0=2.5, Celts = 0+0+0+0+0.5=0.5.

            Also some European Nations get low marks, as they are not major in Europe, and are outcompeted by others.
            Portugese (&Brazil) = 1+1+1+0+0=3, but Spain = 1+1+1+1+1=5. Dutch = 1+1+1+0+0.5=3.5. Some nations are tough to grade: Carthage had elephants (unique?) and Hannibal (only one leader?) but no Wonders. Also its area of importance is limited. My rating = 1+0+0.5+0.5+0.5 = 2.5.

            Overall all civs with rating higher than 3 are OK, 3 is a marginal rating, and 1 and 2 are unacceptable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Therefore, I am against Tribes (Iroquois, Sioux, Celts, Polynesians), against worthless civs (e.g. Tibet, Vikings, Hittites only meet criteria 1 and 2)




              You still don't appear to really mean 'state' when you say so. You have a very narrow and extremely biased view of what a state is.
              Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
              Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
              I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

              Comment


              • #8
                1, 2, 4 & 7
                "7" is here not for political correctness, but for sake of diversity and fun. I like to be immerse in really different cultures and concepts.
                I know, civ can't give me that, but a thread like this one (or that about Mali, thanks Alexander01 ) can do it.

                Originally posted by Sir Ralph
                7 it is. And I don't care, as long as they leave in Mali!
                RIAA sucks
                The Optimistas
                I'm a political cartoonist

                Comment


                • #9
                  "A cross section of the world, representing all ethnic groups and cultures regardless of civilization status."

                  That sums it up, for the most part.

                  Really, I don't understand people who whine about which civs are or aren't included in the game. Such notions are going to have an inherent bias in them. Since most of us have been subjected to standard Western Civ courses in school, we're going to have a prejudice that those civs are the ones most worthy.

                  If I'm playing civ on a real-world map, I want enough civs to cover the map with diverse cultures. All European would be boring. I like having A sub-saharan African civ, someone in N. America to compete with the Americans (who should be in the game), etc.

                  Still, I think having all three Mesoamerican civs was overkill (why not just the Aztecs and Inca?), but then again, so is having so many European civs in C3C (England, France, Spain, Celts, Vikings, Germans, Austrians, Dutch).

                  I would love to see the inclusion of a S.E. Asian civ (Vietnam, Cambodia)

                  Oh, and the Iroquois were far more than just a "tribe." That's displaying patent ignorance of the social structure established (The federation was a major influence on the establishment of the U.S. Constitution) and their technological capabilities (considering their farming techniques were more "advanced" than the Europeans who showed up).
                  Tutto nel mondo è burla

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Solver
                    Therefore, I am against Tribes (Iroquois, Sioux, Celts, Polynesians), against worthless civs (e.g. Tibet, Vikings, Hittites only meet criteria 1 and 2)




                    You still don't appear to really mean 'state' when you say so. You have a very narrow and extremely biased view of what a state is.
                    Sorry, Solver,

                    but here I do not fully get what you mean. Please explain.

                    My definition of state is somewhat narrow, and by state I mean coersion system which sustains itself, and manages the people. So, my attributes of state are taxes, army, police, etc.

                    I granted state to Polynesians (Hawaiian kingdom), but I cannot afford to do so with Iroquois and Sioux. Not yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Taxes, army, police, those are all attributes of a Western state as we know it. However, many Native American tribes, Iroquois among them had a highly advanced social structure that was quite sustainable and managed the people.

                      This is a page with a very brief description that is not too detailed, but shows the basics of their advanced social and political structure.

                      Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
                      Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
                      I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Boris Godunov
                        "A cross section of the world, representing all ethnic groups and cultures regardless of civilization status."

                        That sums it up, for the most part.

                        Really, I don't understand people who whine about which civs are or aren't included in the game. Such notions are going to have an inherent bias in them. Since most of us have been subjected to standard Western Civ courses in school, we're going to have a prejudice that those civs are the ones most worthy.

                        If I'm playing civ on a real-world map, I want enough civs to cover the map with diverse cultures. All European would be boring. I like having A sub-saharan African civ, someone in N. America to compete with the Americans (who should be in the game), etc.
                        Agree so far.

                        Originally posted by Boris Godunov
                        Still, I think having all three Mesoamerican civs was overkill (why not just the Aztecs and Inca?), but then again, so is having so many European civs in C3C (England, France, Spain, Celts, Vikings, Germans, Austrians, Dutch).

                        I would love to see the inclusion of a S.E. Asian civ (Vietnam, Cambodia)
                        Agree again. I think we need Indonesians. Their history is just not that well known. And Cambodians.

                        Originally posted by Boris Godunov
                        Oh, and the Iroquois were far more than just a "tribe." That's displaying patent ignorance of the social structure established (The federation was a major influence on the establishment of the U.S. Constitution) and their technological capabilities (considering their farming techniques were more "advanced" than the Europeans who showed up).
                        Here I would agree with what is written. But not all is written, so I do not agree with conclusions.

                        Iroquois were a confederation of tribes, who eliminated other tribes through beaver wars. They eliminated such tribes as Erie, Wenro, Susquehanna, caused many tribes to run away (Wyandot, Fox and Sac, etc.), slaughtered much larger villages of Illini in Illinois, etc.

                        In addition to this barbaric behaviour they never had overall population above 30 000 people. They never had a single city. They did not collect taxes. They had no wonders. Their real UU is raiding party.

                        Why should we not have Burmans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Majapahit? Why are Iroquious more civilized than Zapotecs, Olmecs, Moche, Magyar and others.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          1 and 2, but also a represenation of other cultures. It's not a matter of pleasing or not some people, but simply that I think it presents the whole like this.
                          Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nikolai
                            1 and 2. I want this game to be Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's Political Correct Selection of the Cultures of the World.
                            I love being beaten by women - Lorizael

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              dont realy care

                              i trust the gaming gods
                              anti steam and proud of it

                              CDO ....its OCD in alpha order like it should be

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X