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

[AeonOfTime]

I don't know how the guys over at firaxis chose the civs and their leaders, but my guess is that they did not put that much thought into it - and there are mostly americans at Firaxis if I am not mistaken

Edit: It just struck me that not all Civ games were made by Firaxis... It's too early in the evening without any coffe to help!

[Harovan]

I disagree, they probably put much tought in it. My guess is, the priorities for civ choices are something along these lines:

1) Modern, economically strong first and second world nations, especially with many potential customers (USA, England, France, Germany, Japan etc.)
2) Historically important civilizations like Rome and Egypt, as long as not already covered in 1)
3) Token civs to fill up empty spots on the world map.

[AeonOfTime]

@Sir Ralph: 1) Modern, economically strong first and second world nations, especially with many potential customers (USA, England, France, Germany, Japan etc.)
2) Historically important civilizations like Rome and Egypt, as long as not already covered in 1)
3) Token civs to fill up empty spots on the world map.

You have a point.

Nevertheless, I think that in this particular case of choosing William Wallace as leader for the English, they must not have thought too much about the fact that he way not that English after all... And yet again maybe they did, basing their choice on knowing that people like the image of the scottish hero.

I guess we'll never know.

BTW, what happend to your avatar?

[TheDarkside]

If my home civ is not in I will make several threads where I ***** and moan and cry and wail until someone at Firaxis hears me!!! Ok just kidding :P

I really don't understand why anyone would be like that because it is so damn easy to add in your civ however you like it

[Harovan]

I cleaned up my profile and removed it for the time being.

[AeonOfTime]

@TheDarkside: I really don't understand why anyone would be like that because it is so damn easy to add in your civ however you like it

While that is true if you play that civ yourself, the problem with adding Civs to play against is that unless you are a multitalent it's going to be difficult to create the leaderhead animations. Granted, that's not really that important but it certainly adds to the game...

However, that's not going to keep me from playing and enjoying the game either.

@Sir Ralph: I cleaned up my profile and removed it for the time being

Ok I just get confused everytime someone changes/removes their avatar, as I use them a lot to recognize posters... New avatars like the french leaderhead from Civ4 are giving me headaches, as everybody seems to pick that one nowadays... but I digress.

[Stuie]

I definitely do not need my home Civ in the game. I probably used them once or twice in Civ 3, and hardly ever in 1 or 2.

[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?

Meh. I never play the Americans anyway (unless I get them as random).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
Ok I just get confused everytime someone changes/removes their avatar, as I use them a lot to recognize posters... New avatars like the french leaderhead from Civ4 are giving me headaches, as everybody seems to pick that one nowadays... but I digress.

Alright, I put Barbarossa back in place.

[Adagio]

Would I enjoy Civ less if my home civ was not in? No! I would enjoy Civ less if it was in. IMHO Denmark does not belong into a Civ game. And I didn't like to play as/against the vikings either

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by Donegeal
What the hell is Abe doing in 4000 BC?

Yeah, but then again, what kind of leaders live for thousands of years governing your civilization the whole time?

[Nikolai]

Norway's never been in, but the Vikings of Civ2 was pretty near of course. I did enjoy playing as them, and would gladly play them again, but my enjoyment does not rely on them. And I played other civs much more often in those days.

[AeonOfTime]

@Sir Ralph: Alright, I put Barbarossa back in place.

Wow, thanks a bundle

@Adagio: Would I enjoy Civ less if my home civ was not in? No! I would enjoy Civ less if it was in

Now that's a poll option I did not think of...

@Nikolai: Norway's never been in, but the Vikings of Civ2 was pretty near of course.

The Vikings were also present in Civ3, but only with one of the expansions I think. I like the Vikings (they have axes and berserkers!), but the leaderhead they have in Civ3 is one of the ugliest around so I mostly avoided them as opponents...

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
The Vikings were also present in Civ3, but only with one of the expansions I think. I like the Vikings (they have axes and berserkers!), but the leaderhead they have in Civ3 is one of the ugliest around so I mostly avoided them as opponents...

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?

[Fosse]

I almost never play the Americans, so I don't think I'd be the least bit upset if they weren't in a version. I am usually drawn toward the ancient civs and the European civs. I don't go so far as to say they don't belong in the game (they aren't the only Civ that wasn't around in 4000 BC, after all), but it's just a non-issue for me.

That being said, I'm surprised to find myself looking forward to playing as Roosevelt.