America?

rah · August 15, 2006, 10:31

Gee, an American Game has America as one of the civs and will probably sell over a million copies alone to AMERICANS.

What a silly discussion.

Smellycowsquid · August 15, 2006, 11:11

Blaupanzer · August 15, 2006, 11:43

This is so Off Topic, so yesterday, so pointless. So here I am, reading it all the way through.

Will9 · August 15, 2006, 11:45

Originally posted by LordShiva

You talking to me

BTW, Happy Indian Independence Day

We fought, with guns, for our independence. We fought civil wars (loyalists vs. patroits) before we got our independence. And you protested against the same nation we beat by the gun.

Prussia · August 15, 2006, 13:26

That only means that they are superior to us, Will9.

padillah · August 15, 2006, 14:35

Yeah, all the fuss we made and they got their independance, almost literally, without lifting a finger.

(EDIT: Removed apparently erronious statement)

And, BTW, England didn't rule the world... they just SAID they did.

As Eddie Izzard says: "England ruled the world through the clever use of FLAGS".

Tom P.

Qwertqwert · August 15, 2006, 14:53

Well anyway back on topic...

I don't seriously think that we need 2 USAs (maybe a mod of some sort but not the standard game) but I also don't see the use of multipul native civilizations. Eigher the Aztecs or the Incans is okay we don't need both.

padillah · August 15, 2006, 14:56

Well, then you get into things like: How close do they have to be before they are too close?

What about Mongols and China? Or America and England?

The entire discussion is too subjective to be anything but a parlor game.

Tom P.

LordShiva · August 15, 2006, 14:56

Erm, Aztecs and Incas were completely different...

Blaupanzer · August 15, 2006, 15:11

LordShiva has it right. If I recall correctly, they didn't even have contact with each other. Wouldn't hurt to include to include the Irriquois (Sp?) either. However, these inclusions are not relevant to the inclusion of the US. US and Korea belong because lots of people in these two countries play these type games and will be more inclined to buy if a civ they can identify with is in the game. This over and above scientific contributions and relative power charts justifies the developers' decisions.

The real question in terms of great civs is why not at least one from the Babylon/Sumeria/Akkadia group?

Prussia · August 15, 2006, 19:42

Originally posted by Qwertqwert
Eigher the Aztecs or the Incans is okay we don't need both.

Why don't we need both? They both held important roles in World History and, as stated above, were completely different civilizations that were as different as Americans and English today. Do we not need to include both of those? Should we make one civ called Americengland.

Qwertqwert · August 15, 2006, 22:30

Originally posted by LordShiva
Erm, Aztecs and Incas were completely different...

Neigher of them stood the test of time... The reason why I said one of the other, is because I feel there is only 1 native American civilization needed. That one could be the Iroquis also. There's definatly more worthy civilizations then having both Aztecs and Incans.

padillah · August 15, 2006, 23:10

I'm all for johnmcd's suggestion.

That sounds as cool as anything else.

Tom P.

Nugog · August 16, 2006, 04:27

Originally posted by rah
Gee, an American Game has America as one of the civs and will probably sell over a million copies alone to AMERICANS.

What a silly discussion.

Both statements are totally true!

Nugog · August 16, 2006, 04:29

Originally posted by LordShiva
Erm, Aztecs and Incas were completely different...

And if they are not counted as being different, the Austria & Bavaria are already covered by the Germans as well

Ka Plewy · August 16, 2006, 07:06

Originally posted by Qwertqwert

Neigher of them stood the test of time... The reason why I said one of the other, is because I feel there is only 1 native American civilization needed. That one could be the Iroquis also. There's definatly more worthy civilizations then having both Aztecs and Incans.

What constitutes standing the test of time?
200 years is a pretty good stretch in my book and is about the length if each civilization. Asztec capital, Tenochtitlán, was founded in 1325 and the civilization lasted until being conquered by the Spanish circa 1519.
Incan empire began somewhere around 1350 and lasted until Pizarro conqured them around 1532/1533.

Stuie · August 16, 2006, 07:42

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The real question in terms of great civs is why not at least one from the Babylon/Sumeria/Akkadia group?

Gotta save something for the second expansion.

Prussia · August 16, 2006, 08:49

Originally posted by Qwertqwert

Neigher of them stood the test of time... The reason why I said one of the other, is because I feel there is only 1 native American civilization needed. That one could be the Iroquis also. There's definatly more worthy civilizations then having both Aztecs and Incans.

There is no reason why the two of them should not be in this game. Stand the test of time? They really didn't have that option, since what could they do against gunpowder? If those European civs had come over with swords and spears, they would have nailed them back to the old world.

Also, there has to be some sort of representation from all parts of the world. The Aztecs and Incans represent Central and South America, and are perfect for the job, since everyone knows what and who they are. "Worthy" is kind of irrelavent in this case, you can't really compare two civilizations from two different time periods and say, "This one is more worthy."

Honestly, there are thousands of civilizations worthy, but you can't include them all.

dregor · August 16, 2006, 16:04

This thread is stupid and pointless, really it's beneath this community.

LordShiva · August 16, 2006, 16:06

Originally posted by dregor
This thread is stupid and pointless, really it's beneath this community.

You really don't know this community

Nugog · August 17, 2006, 06:50

Originally posted by LordShiva

You really don't know this community

jonta · August 17, 2006, 07:02

i voted yes, but mostly because it is just a game.
And civs put in the game are based on how well known
they are, and nothing else.

Based on history it would be too complicated.

DrrD · August 17, 2006, 18:06

Hey, if one leader can rule a civ for 4000 years, why not include countries with short histories?

Jaybe · August 17, 2006, 19:41

Might as well have America in the game. After all, isn't Civ an abstract educational game? If you wanted to be a "purist" there would be only 1 civ at start, and that would be the 'real' (as opposed to Judeo/Christian 'myth') Adam & Eve. All of the civs would branch out from them as people move away far enough to cut off regular communications.

BUT, since homo sapiens didn't just magically "appear" (unless they DID

), let's NOT start with first one-cell life forms.

EDIT: 'myth' replaced 'dogma'

timstam001 · August 17, 2006, 19:53

There are so many other countries that should be in the game in my opinion, because of the major role they have played in the world.

I think Janto has a point. Only the most well known civs can be found in the game.

For example if I look at the available European civs, I laugh my ass off. It's so cliché. There's France, England, Germany, Spain... These are all the larger countries of Europe.

I don't see the Netherlands anywhere in the game, even though their historical role in the world has been huge, in many ways.

The East India Company and the Dutch Golden Age, the colonisation (yes, the Dutch had large parts of the world as well, even though it might be smaller than for example the English Empire), the colonisation of Manhattan (yes the Dutch did that. New to some?) This was the first colony on the American mainland after the vikings for as far as I know. It was sold to England because the Dutch army couldn't handle the native americans who kept pillaging the settlements. If England hadn't taken over, all of USA would be speaking Dutch now, as would everyone else in the world.

Where's Portugal? The biggest opponent of the Netherlands. Very powerful Navy, first to have a trading post off the coast of China, controlled many crucial waterways (tradewise as well as military).

I could go on, but I think you all get the idea.

Wether the USA should be in, is the same thing. I think it should be, just as much as the Netherlands and Portugal should be. But hey, I see a difference there. Who kows Portugal or the Netherlands? Who knows the United States of America? I doubt if Sid Meier even knows the exact location or history of these two European nations. Of course, the USA is playing such a crucial part in the world these days, that everyone just has to know them, even though it's not something to be proud of in all cases. It just proves what Janto said. It's all about how well known countries are nowadays .

Again, we could ask ourselves, who knows the European Union? Both the Netherlands and Portugal are a part of it. I think everyone knows exactly where it is. No matter where in the world they live. It's very wealthy, it's very influential, it packs a good military punch, it's politically intimidating. It's like the United States. The EU plays a major role in the world nowadays. They are an economic powerhouse, very competative to the US for example. They play major roles in military conflicts nowadays, mainly peacekeeping forces.

Let me ask you this: Who knows Iowa or West Virginia? I bet that outside the USA they may have "vaguely" heard about them, and most people can't pinpoint the location of the two.

If you really compare the EU to the USA, what's the real difference? If you go deep enough of course you'll find plenty of differences, but you get the idea. They're both Federal governments instituted by the states inside it. Whether you combine 51 states or 25 states, it comes down to the same thing. Economic and military powerhouses that play a gigantic part in the world we know today.

Now let me introduce you to a new question that could fill thousands of threads and maybe draw attention off this thread;

why not introduce the European Union as a civ?

DirtyMartini · August 17, 2006, 20:17

I'm one of the people who posted somewhere else that I'd have left America out of the game. It was just a throw away off the cuff comment, but here's why I said it:

I just like the ancient/classical eras of the game the best, and for some reason I like games that have those RL civs in them: Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. Maybe my imagination is too active, maybe not active enough, but I don't like playing as America (or Germany or France, etc) and building the Pyramids or Stonehenge or whatever. Just don't like it, never have, makes no sense really.

That being said, of course America and France and Germany and every other modern nation/civ is going to be in the game. And they should be obviously. There was no intent to knock the U.S. It's a great country, misguided sure, beligerent obviously, but great nevertheless.

((Dirty ducks to avoid flying uber-patriotic vitriol))

LordShiva · August 17, 2006, 20:21

Originally posted by timstam001
why not introduce the European Union as a civ?

Unbelievable!

Kuciwalker · August 17, 2006, 20:28

Thief

Will9 · August 17, 2006, 20:40

Timstam001, you are calling West West Virginia and Iowa independent. They each have to answer to the fedral gov, but Portugal and Holland can refuse to do what the EU says. The EU is an organiztion (like the UN), but the United States is a nation. Does the EU tax or have an army, the US does.

Ka Plewy · August 17, 2006, 21:13

Originally posted by timstam001
why not introduce the European Union as a civ?

Because their contribution is yet to be felt in an historical sense.
Because their constituents retain powers beyond the individual states in the United States. Each country in the EU AFAIK still maintains a military. You made a point that the EU was a federal government. The EU is more like a confederation or even an association than a federation.