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

[Brizey]

Canadian provincial politics makes the "Red State/Blue State" thing in the US seem a trifle.

My preference for the civ games to be prototype civilizations:

North American Amerind (Iriquois)
Central American Amerind (Aztecs)
South American Amerind (Incas)
Northern European (Germanic/Celts, etc.)
Southern European (Hellenist)
Steppe (Nomadic central Asians)
North African (Egypt)
South/West African (Mali/Eithopia)
Middle Eastern (Babylonians, Sumerians)
Indus Valley (Indians)
Chinese (Chinese)

This list is sure to insult somebody (for example, I tend to lump Japanese/Chinese culture together as part of the same prototype), but it follows my murky mostly self-taught world history knowledge.

[AeonOfTime]

@Brizey: This list is sure to insult somebody (for example, I tend to lump Japanese/Chinese culture together as part of the same prototype), but it follows my murky mostly self-taught world history knowledge.

Putting the murky aspect of your list aside, what exactly are you proposing? To only have prototype civs in the game like "North Africans" for ex?

...

Imagine exchanges on poly in that case: "The South American Amerindians declared war on turn X, and they had an alliance with the Middle easterners"

Nah seriously, what do you mean by prototype civs?

[Niptium]

Originally posted by spa

And this is where I think Quebeckers really misunderstand English Canada. If separation comes it won't be pretty. English Canada will be furious at the rejection and the perceived lack of gratitude. This will force English Canadian leaders to take a hardline or, if they don't, the following election will bring a hardline party to power. It seems to me that Quebeckers in general think that if separation happens it'll be a calm affair in which both sides negotiate calmy and rationally. They think that they'll get to keep their passports, the Canadian dollar, membership to NAFTA (for what that's worth these days), economic arrangements etc. They'll be in for a rude awakening. I just hope it doesn't happen. I think we would be nuts to break up the good deal we have going.

Well that's where the dilemna lies. 50% of the population of Québec thinks that we are better off as a province with all the constitutional fighting and national fisting going on then the other 50% that wants to take on their responsabilities and become a country. This percentage fluctuates with time - at the last referendum it ended 49-51% and now the independance option is around 54%. I for one, think that a nation is better to be ruled by itself then giving 60% of its revenu to another nation...

The one other thing that is interesting in the national mess that is Canada is English Canada's own regionalism. I'm originally from Atlantic Canada, but I'm living in Alberta right now (for school) and I can say Maritimers and Newfoundlanders have a definite identity as do Albertans, Saskatchewaners and British Columbians. It's only Manitoba and Ontario that don't seem to have conflicting loyalities to the Canadian state.

Yeah I know. These particular identities are excited more in particular in Alberta and in Newfoundland - remember when last year the Newfoundland and Labrador PM got to get all those canadian flags down their pole to make pressure on Ottawa to give them the oil revenu ashore ?

But still - Québec is the only province in Canada that STILL hasn't signed the Canadian Constitution and that won't change even if it is a Separatist or a Federalist party at the head of the Québec Government...

[Niptium]

Red state - blue state ? Democratic party vs Republican ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Freddz


Btw, Vikings didn't even have horns on their helmets.

Indeed- there is however, a Celtic 'horned' helmet in the British Museum-

This 'helmet' was dredged from the River Thames at Waterloo Bridge in the early 1860s. It is the only Iron Age helmet to have ever been found in southern England, and it is the only Iron Age helmet with horns ever to have been found anywhere in Europe. Horns were often a symbol of the gods in different parts of the ancient world. This might suggest the person who wore this was a special person, or that the helmet was made for a god to wear. Like the Deal Crown, this was more of a symbolic head-dress than actual protection for the head in battle. The person who wore the helmet would need a modern hat size of 7.

Like many other objects, especially weapons, this helmet was found in the River Thames. These include the Battersea Shield, which was also made for conspicuous display rather than use in war.

The helmet is made from sheet bronze pieces held together with many carefully placed bronze rivets. It is decorated with the style of La T~{((~}ne art used in Britain between 250 and 50 BC. The repouss~{(&~} decoration is repeated on the back and the front. Originally, the bronze helmet would have been a shining polished bronze colour, not the dull green colour it is today. It was also once decorated with studs of bright red glass. The decoration is similar to that on the Snettisham Great Torc.

Height: 24.2 cm
Circumference: 58.5 cm

Gift of the Port of London Authority

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ1477

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
yeah they terrorized the irish and french coasts too

And the coasts of the Caliphate in Spain, in North Africa, in Italy and the coast of the Byzantine Empire.

That's some wanderlust- or a wife who nags you, really badly.

[Brizey]

Sorry for the non-US people:

Red States: generally the non-coastal states that have tended to vote Republican (nominally conservative party) in the last few decades.

Blue States: generally the coastal states that have tended to vote Democratic (nominally liberal party) in the last few decades.

I like the prototype idea because it gets to the core differences among cultures attitudes towards "civilization". For example, historically, the people living in what is now modern Germany what is now modern France have had a nearly identical outlook on how to organize their society and how they view the cosmos as compared to say, the Aztecs.

From these base prototypes one could chose a particular civilization to represent it to give the game more color.

I just tend to things along these axes:

Spiritual - Physical (What is real in the cosmos)
Individual - Family - Society (What is the root political unit)
Agressive - Passive (How should people of other cultures be approached)

My list sort of gives a good assortment on those axes.

[Lambiorix_be]

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

Originally posted by AeonOfTime

Personally I would not care if france or germany (my home countries) were not included in the game. I base my selection of civs entirely on the fun I would have to play them/against them. So I second Volstag's perplexity at why people are so obsessed with that.

In all the missing civ threads, many good arguments for and against are always given for Civ X, but does the lack of civ X really affect how you play the game...

So... would you enjoy civ less if your home civ was not in?

Begium was never in the game and it never bothered me, certainly since I am able to change the name of the leader and of the empire. So if I feel the need I rename a civ to my county (never my country, come to think of it )

By the way since there are about 145 countries and only about 10 to 20 standard 'civs' I assume that what I do, is more the rule then the exception

[GeoModder]

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

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be
Begium was never in the game and it never bothered me, certainly since I am able to change the name of the leader and of the empire. So if I feel the need I rename a civ to my county (never my country, come to think of it )

Another lionflag-minded soul?