Civilization IV Civs

[KyuuA4]

Actually, I would trade off the Babylonians for the Greeks. Greece has made a much much bigger impact on history than Babylon.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by KyuuA4
Actually, I would trade off the Babylonians for the Greeks. Greece has made a much much bigger impact on history than Babylon.

As would I, though I wouldn't want to lose Babylon either...

(I noticed one thing, one the Spearmen concept art, there's a Bull emblem. What's on the "Babylonian" flag? Though why Greece would use a bull is beyond me.)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Though why Greece would use a bull is beyond me.)

The legend of Pasiphae's punishment ?

Her lust for sexual congress with a bull gives us the Minotaur.

There's also Zeus's abduction of Europa whilst transformed into a bull, the oxen of the sun, Herakles and the Cretan bull, Herakles and the cattle of Geryon, Milo of Croton who is supposed to have entered the Olympic arena carrying a bull on his shoulders....


The bull is a potent symbol of aggression, masculinity and power, and would have been an expensive sacrificial animal with which to honour a deity.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by molly bloom



The legend of Pasiphae's punishment ?

Her lust for sexual congress with a bull gives us the Minotaur.

There's also Zeus's abduction of Europa whilst transformed into a bull, the oxen of the sun, Herakles and the Cretan bull, Herakles and the cattle of Geryon, Milo of Croton who is supposed to have entered the Olympic arena carrying a bull on his shoulders....


The bull is a potent symbol of aggression, masculinity and power, and would have been an expensive sacrificial animal with which to honour a deity.

I knew all about the Minoans and the bulls of Crete, but I wouldn't have thoguht that the bull would go to Greece as a symbol. No lightning bolts of Zeus?

[TechWins]

To those whom argue against the Americans being included:

For one, how would it be plausible to not include the most powerful (lets try not to be semantical on the term powerful either) military of a nation in recent modern times?

Secondly, how would it be plausible to not include the most far reaching influential nation in recent modern times?

Thirdly, how would it be plausible to not include (at least one of) the most technologically advanced nation in not only recent modern times but the past 200 years?

Fourthly, how would it be plausible to not include the largest economy of a nation in recent modern times?

Fifthly, how would it be plausible to not include the nation who has had the most effect in wars and politics in recent modern times?

Sixthly, how would it be plausible to not include the the nation that has nearly ~300 million people out of ~6.5 people in the world in recent modern times?

Seventhly, how would it be plausible to not include arguably the nation whose land is the richest in resources?

Eighthly, how would it be plausible to not include the nation whose land area is the third largest in the world in recent modern times?

Ninthly, how would it be plausible to not include the nation whose "culture" (albeit a corporate culture) dominates over the sphere of the world in recent modern times?

Tenthly, how would it be plausible to not include the single nation, American, who comprises the aforementioned 9 elements?


I can understand one's dissent (RIGHTFULLY SO!) towards America, but it almost makes one look silly claiming America doesn't deserve to be in the game. America is easily one of the greatest (whatever great may be in the game Cvilization's terms) civilizations ever. Yes, there are still other Civs who deserve to be in the game over America, namely the Greeks, but it is ridiculous to assume there are 18 or even 10 Civs who "deserve" to be in over America.

[Modo44]

TechWis, this is no useful argument, and I knew it before it even started. People have different views of what constitutes a civ worth of this game. For me, it is the history and long-term impact on the world. Not their current power. Sorry, but being only 200 years old, and basically a thing that developed from other civs' colonies, America is not in for a 4000 BC start, no matter what you say.

What would be much more interesting to see is the possibility of such young, powerful civs to evolve as the "offspring" of ancient ones. If the game can not simulate that (Civ 2 could, did it not?), then it is flawed, and adding the young civ is, in my opinion, a weak attempt to somehow "patch" that flaw.

[Niptium]

THE civilization missing is the Québécois one !

Yay ! I'll be the first to MOD this and add it with René Lévesques and Louis-Joseph Papineau as their leaders !

Je me souviens

[Kuciwalker]

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Modo44
TechWis, this is no useful argument, and I knew it before it even started. People have different views of what constitutes a civ worth of this game. For me, it is the history and long-term impact on the world. Not their current power. Sorry, but being only 200 years old, and basically a thing that developed from other civs' colonies, America is not in for a 4000 BC start, no matter what you say.

It's a BS argument anyway, since what you want is not going to happen no matter how well or often you demonstrate your point. Give it up.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's a BS argument anyway, since what you want is not going to happen no matter how well or often you demonstrate your point. Give it up.

Nice reality check.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Niptium
THE civilization missing is the Québécois one !

Yay ! I'll be the first to MOD this and add it with René Lévesques and Louis-Joseph Papineau as their leaders !

Je me souviens

Wouldn't Quebec have to qualify as a civilization first?

[Kuciwalker]

Wouldn't they have to be civilized?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Vince278
Nice reality check.

I get annoyed at people masturbating all over otherwise useful threads

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Babylon v. Greece seems like a pretty straightforward no-brainer for me, especially since I am assuming one of this game's units will be the hoplite or the phalanx. I can understand if they were looking to get more non-Western civs into the game, but did I not hear somewhere that there is an Arab civilization? That should cover the "Mesopotamia" aspect, at least*

*and please spare me the argument "Babylonians weren't remotely Arab, etc." I know, but we're talking gameplay here.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Modo44
TechWis, this is no useful argument, and I knew it before it even started. People have different views of what constitutes a civ worth of this game. For me, it is the history and long-term impact on the world. Not their current power. Sorry, but being only 200 years old, and basically a thing that developed from other civs' colonies, America is not in for a 4000 BC start, no matter what you say.

Why see the problem is putting what constitutes a worthy civ into singular terms; there are several different factors which can make a civ worthy that vary from civ to civ. You based your opinion of why America should not be included in Civ off of a subjective feeling of what makes a civ worthy to be in Civ, when in all seriouness there are easily found benchmarks: geography, impact in history, size, cultural, technological, militariastic, et al (all of which I believe I listed in my previous post supporting America's cause in Civ). In regard to long-term impact, the length is irrelevant; the overall impact comprised together is what matters most. It's a shallow attempt to use "age" as a disregard towards the importance of America. Very few Civs should be included if the matter of importance is having existed 6000 years ago, but you say, ah, at least they were around 1000-2000 years ago... Well, those Civs are measely colonies from the great Roman Empire we shouldn't include them either... The argument is moot considering civs are spawns from one another. You say but look these civs have established themselves in the realm of history, America has not! Being the volatile point of history for nearly the past 100 years does not place itself into the importance of history? What does make a civ important then, remaining idle for centuries at a time? Your argument is moot from the grounds of a civ needing to have long-term impact, overall impact is the deciding point over length of time. Also, it would be beneficial for when discussing/arguing not to end your discussion/argument with a near pouting-like statement.

Originally posted by Modo44
What would be much more interesting to see is the possibility of such young, powerful civs to evolve as the "offspring" of ancient ones. If the game can not simulate that (Civ 2 could, did it not?), then it is flawed, and adding the young civ is, in my opinion, a weak attempt to somehow "patch" that flaw.

Yes, while we are at it lets not even include the Romans, Greeks, French, Russians, English, or any of those late blooming offspring from the get go... The game is clearly flawed, as you eloquently put it, if they are included from the beginning.