Would you enjoy Civ less if your home civ was not in?

[Niptium]

I'm a Québécois (Quebecker) and just like Mexico, Brasil or Australia I really doubt Québec will be in as a nation at one point. Although some of Québec's cities (Québec, Trois-Rivières and Montréal) are present in the American Revolution scenario...

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Niptium
I'm a Québécois (Quebecker) and just like Mexico, Brasil or Australia I really doubt Québec will be in as a nation at one point. Although some of Québec's cities (Québec, Trois-Rivières and Montréal) are present in the American Revolution scenario...

Forgive an ignorant European, but what's Quebec? Isn't it just a part of canada?

[GeoModder]

It's the predominantly sort-of-french speaking part of Canada, with a strong urge of being independent.

[Nikolai]

Indeed, and they're nowhere near being a civ.

[clausewitz]

Since Civ1 I have hardly ever played another nation than Germany... sometimes, when playing on the real world map, I renamed Germany to Europe, but anyway...

To answer the question of this thread: I would indeed enjoy playing civ less if my home civ wasn't in there any more. If's just nicer to have my "home" cities of Cologne, Dresden and Berlin in the game...

And, by the way, I hope there will be a "crippled nations" mod again to prevent Zulu and Inca etc. from being beyond the best developped civilizations at the final stage of a game.

[Nikolai]

Why would you want some civs to be crippled? It will destroy the balance in the game and also make some civs all too alike from game to game...

[Ennet]

Originally posted by Nikolai
No, they were not. We had the hopeless and unhistoric name "Scandinavians" instead. I never liked that, if they are to make a civ out of us, why not do it right?

The only thing i disliked by that was that the Scandinavian Civ was ruled by a Dane (Danish) in the game. Modern use of the term Scandinavia is including Denmark as well as Norway and Sweden, but since it's actually refering to the mountain chain between Sweden and Norway it's a bit wrong to use the name (i think). Originally, the term Scandinavia comes ffom the word latin, Scandium, which is belived to refer to a province in south modern-day sweden.

EDIT: The vikings would on the other hand not make such a better choice, as one civilization, historically anyway.

[clausewitz]

@Nikolai: well, IMO it just feels more realistic to have todays nations stronger in the modern times. With Civ3 it worked quite fine. The effect was that those "crippled" nations could concentrate on producing units and thus were NO easy targets until the end of the game.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Frankly, I've never understood why America was in it to begin with (outside of commercial reasons).

What the hell is Abe doing in 4000 BC?

Doing as much as any of the leaders who weren't around in 4000 b.c., I suspect- it's not as if 4000 b.c. was littered with Iranian Achaemenids, Spanish Habsburgs, Ptolemaic Egpytians, Augustan Romans, German Hohenzollerns or French Bourbons.


If we accept that there are going to x number of civilizations in the game and that they represent y number of eras and countries or states, then it doesn't really matter if we begin with Zulus (19th Century state), Mongols (13th-14th Centuries), Stalin (20th Century) and so on.

[Niptium]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Indeed, and they're nowhere near being a civ.

Call me an ignorant - but I think Québec is a more populous nation then Norway ?!? You are what ? 4,4 millions ? We are 7,5 !

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Niptium


Call me an ignorant - but I think Québec is a more populous nation then Norway ?!?

Norway is a nation state, with an ancient history- Quebec is merely a PROVINCE of the nation state of Canada.


A belle province nonetheless, and I've met many charming Quebecois.

[conmcb25]

I dont care because I rarely played the Americans in CIV III anyway.

[Niptium]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Norway is a nation state, with an ancient history- Quebec is merely a PROVINCE of the nation state of Canada.


A belle province nonetheless, and I've met many charming Quebecois.

Ok ! This is some discussion best left in the OT - but I can't let that past. Canada isn't a nationstate. Canada is a state formed of two main nations (+minor amerindian nations that have the population of a small town). It's not to be rude - I just want to make things straight and... I don't think outside of France, people know our situation very well... even in France...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Niptium


Ok ! This is some discussion best left in the OT - but I can't let that past. Canada isn't a nationstate. Canada is a state formed of two main nations (+minor amerindian nations that have the population of a small town). It's not to be rude - I just want to make things straight and... I don't think outside of France, people know our situation very well... even in France...

Oh come on.

You must have realized I wasn't looking for exact definitions of what is and isn't a nation state, but calling the Cree or Tlingit or Quebecois a 'nation' isn't anywhere near calling France or Russia, say, a nation.

You're unnecessarily confusing and conflating the idea of nation=people with nation=state.

I could descant at length about the idea of 'two nations' within one state, but suffice to say that the Province of Quebec is not a 'nation' or 'state' in the same fashion as Norway.


I'd give it only a slim chance of political or cultural independence within an increasingly Anglo-Hispanic North America.


Unless of course it asked France if it could become one of its Departements d'Outremer- like Martinique or Reunion- and associate with the European Union.

[Niptium]

Well - if you were a bit more cultured, with all due respect - one of the first thging made clear in the first courses of the political science program I am following at the University is that - a nation and a country isn't the same thing. A nation is defined by a pool of people of relative importance that share the same motto of values, a same national history, a same language and same institutions.

France is a nationstate since there is only one nation in France (not counting the endless départements d'Outremer like Guyane Française, Martinique ou Nouvelle-Calédonie).

Spain is not a nationstate since there is the major nation (castillans or what we call spanish spanish) and there is the North-Western part wich you may have heard - the Catalogne ( I don't know how to say it in english) encompassing Barcelona. They (mostly) speak «Catalan», they share a different history and different values from the main Spanish castillan population. For that it makes them a nation. Same thing could be said from Québec since we share a different system of values than Canadians, a different language (French vs. english) and we have different institutions (Gouvernement du Québec) and well - we have a different history (Nouvelle-France, Patriots, Révolution Tranquille someone?)

It's just that Canadian nationalist take it as a minus to their own nationalism. Québec's nationalism isn't made up against the Canadian one but for it's own sack. The political term of province is acurate for the geopolitical point of view - but everyone knows that the biggest Canadian province is a nation on it's own.

One thing very important in a viable nation is that they have to be a majority in a political division so they can control all or at least a part of their existence. Nations scattered everywhere like some would say the afro-americans cannot make a viable nation. Same thing goes for amerindians... I think in Catalogne they compose 65% of the population of the political subdivision. Québec, it's 82% ...