America?

[Ka Plewy]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LordShiva]

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

You really don't know this community

[Nugog]

Originally posted by LordShiva


You really don't know this community

[jonta]

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]

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

[Jaybe]

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]

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]

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]

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

Unbelievable!

[Kuciwalker]

Thief

[Will9]

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]

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.