Which of the included civs is least important?

[Arent]

Hehe - I just love to set things on fire... it got boring...
As for the anti-americanism and this-is-only-a-game: There was some football
match (last saturday?) between England and Germany... motto: "two world wars and one world cup". 5(!):1 for England.

Arent

[Buck Birdseed]

Well, BC et al, we'll just have to disagree on that one. Civ to me is not a historical simulation but an alternate history game, and I want my civs to be diverse, exotic and interesting. This, ultimately, both keeps gameplay going and provides for the most interesting "potential" historical scenarios that never happened. Both the Iroquois and the Zulus were tiny footnotes in the annals of real history, but both could have been something different if the world had turned out differently and they both present enough unique features to make them interesting to play both philosophically and gameplay-wise.

[Felch]

Gramphos, the one nation that has had the most impact over the past hundred years is the United States. The impact that America has made far outshines the impact that Babylon or the Aztecs ever had.

If you disagree with that, than it's pointless for you to continue reading and you may as well skip ahead to the next post.

In terms of impact, the US deserves a place on the list of civs. It also has one feature which is unique among the nations on the list: It is the one civilization on the list which is fully absorbent of other cultures.

And to Snapcase, although its ruling class is still primarily White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP), American culture is a mix of its vast immigrant population.

In terms of cuisine everything from chow mein to burritos to hot dogs are equal in terms of their nativeness. Although someone from Canton, Mexico City or Frankfurt would recognize the food as being from their culture, it wouldn't be something that they would consider to be truly Chinese, Mexican or German. The food has been absorbed into America and adapted into American tastes which are not purely Anglo-Saxon by any stretch.

In terms of art and music America has produced unique genres such as Jazz and Rap, as well as generated many great artists and musicians. If you don't believe that America dominates both popular culture and the art world, I would recommend that you crawl out of your history books and try looking around.

Finally in terms of population Anglo-Saxons are not only a minority, but a diminishing minority. The old colonial English dominance has been giving way to immigrant cultures since the Great Potato Famine of the 1840s pushed masses of Irish onto boats headed for America. Even earlier, slave ships were bringing vast numbers of Africans which were the first non-Anglo minority. In fact, even earlier than that, aboriginal people were living in the current United States, and although they're mostly dead now, they sure were never Anglo-Saxon.

Basically what I'm saying is that the only reason I can come up with for the European antagonism is jealousy. And it's understandable. America took away the might of Europe, and now the former British and Spanish, and French, and Russian, and Dutch, and Swedish colonies are the dominant power on Earth. Europe hates America because America isn't about to take your ****.

[Gramphos]

I don't say that Americans haven't made impact, and I thnk US is a great Nation. I must get there and ride some rollercoasters when I'm older.
Anyway, I think that, for being a Civ in civilization you should start in a lower level of science and developed during a longer time then the US have had time to do. You (you are from America right) started with Democracy. Other Civs started with anarchy.

The Americans just don't fit in the timeline, I've always thought that all since I played Civ I for the first time.

[Dauphin]

So the Americans don't fit in the timeline because they are recent. In Civ2 there were ~150-200 turns when the US would have existed. Yes?

There would have been fewer turns for when the Babylonians and Persians existed.

so who should be out on that basis.

[Guynemer]

A history major's perspective...

The Iroquois should definitely NOT be removed. My US history isn't what it used to be, but I remember that the Five Nations (Iroquois) had a constitution long before the Americans, and that document influenced the great American documents more than European documents. The Iroquois tribes had an advanced culture and were remarkably egalitarian. Indeed, they were probably more free than any other nation on the planet. They had a profound impact on the development of America, which is, for better AND for worse, by far the world's dominant culture. As a representative of native North American peoples, the Iroquois are a top notch choice.

Historically, the weakest civ here appears to be the Zulus. I fully understand and agree with the need for at least one sub-Saharan civilization, and while the Zulus might be the most famous, the most powerful and significant, by far, are the Aksumites/Abyssians/Ethiopians. At the height of their power, in the early centuries AD, they were one of the most dominant nations in the world, bar none. And they remain today one of the unique cultures on Earth, though obviously nowhere near as powerful as they once were.

Hopefully, they will be added in any potential add-on, along with the Inca, the Arabs, the Spanish, the Vikings, the Vietnamese (or some other generalized SE Asian civ), and, perhaps, the Celts and Koreans. Obviously, to avoid overlap, Firaxis should add another civ category to Military, Scientific, etc., but that might be too optimistic.

Guynemer

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Guynemer
A history major's perspective...

The Iroquois should definitely NOT be removed. My US history isn't what it used to be, but I remember that the Five Nations (Iroquois) had a constitution long before the Americans, and that document influenced the great American documents more than European documents. The Iroquois tribes had an advanced culture and were remarkably egalitarian. Indeed, they were probably more free than any other nation on the planet. They had a profound impact on the development of America, which is, for better AND for worse, by far the world's dominant culture. As a representative of native North American peoples, the Iroquois are a top notch choice.

1. It didnt
2. The "Constitution" was not written down until years later
3. The European documents that influenced
-John Locke's writings
-Rosseau's writings
-Magna Carta (It said: wealthy landowners cannot be taxed without their consent... but, it WAS somewhat of an influence)
-Mayflower Compact (Judge, Jury, Government by the People!! TRUE DEMOCRACY! )
-Jamestown House of Burgesses (Representling Landowners)

---

Actually, when you look at it this way: If you rate a major civilization by its conquering power... America is the most important- it repelled Germany In World War II(yes, with help from: England, Russia) and in WWI (lesser role). Japan in WWII... If not for America, Japan would likely control China, parts of Russia, several islands in the pacific, Australia???, and other places.

IF Civs are rated by their impacto nthe whole world that way the ranking would be:

1. Romans
2. Greeks
3. Mongols/ (Huns... If you include the White and Black Huns)
4. America/Russia/England/Spain/ (any order probably Spain, England ahead of America... Russia is a recent "World" Power)
5. China (maybe ranked with place 4. They have a lot of land)
6. etc.
LOWER: India (only unified fully recently. helped the Silk Road.)

etc.

[HisMajestyBOB]

IF Civs are rated by their impacto nthe whole world that way the ranking would be:
1. Romans
2. Greeks
3. Mongols/ (Huns... If you include the White and Black Huns)
4. America/Russia/England/Spain/ (any order probably Spain, England ahead of America... Russia is a recent "World" Power)
5. China (maybe ranked with place 4. They have a lot of land)
6. etc.
LOWER: India (only unified fully recently. helped the Silk Road.)

Greeks should be #1, since the Romans got all their culture from Greece (but Rome did spread it around Europe, sop they can be #2 or 3)

[St Leo]

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is quite a bit of evidence that the ones we call Native Americans crossed the B[e]ring Straight from Asia. Therefore no civs should be in the Americas.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is quite a bit of evidence that the ones we call Europeans crossed the Russian Steppe from Central Asia. Therefore, no civs should be in Europe.

One Mesopotamian, one Asian(around the Ghanges River I think?) and one in Africa (have no clue where/who).

1. Only having the Egyptians, the Sumerians/Akkadians, and the Harappans would suck.
2. Why not only have an East African civ? After all, we did evolve in the region and moved everywhere else.

Gramphos, the one nation that has had the most impact over the past hundred years is the United States. The impact that America has made far outshines the impact that Babylon or the Aztecs ever had.

It's less than the impact the Spanish had, yet I support the Americans for land-filling reasons (the Iroquois being simply too un-urban).

[Felch]

The Spanish influence was dense, but not world-wide. Furthermore it was less a cultural influence and more military subjugation. The Spanish crown ruled over the most vast empire of its time (The sun never set on the Spanish Empire hundreds of years before Britain could make that claim), however American influence reaches into all but the most isolated parts of the globe and involves more peaceful exchange of ideas, such as film, fashion and dropping bombs on mofos who wanted to mess. This fits in very nicely with Civ3's cultural points.

Finally, Europe already has a half dozen civs, with Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Greece, Rome, and Russia all pressed into a rather small space. In Civ2 it was utterly rediculous to have Spain, the Vikings, and the Celts also crammed in. In Civ3 the idea seems to be to spread out the nation a bit more, which will naturally upset Europeans who think the world revolves around them, but is aight with Americans who know the world revolves around us.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Felch X
The Spanish influence was dense, but not world-wide. Furthermore it was less a cultural influence and more military subjugation. The Spanish crown ruled over the most vast empire of its time (The sun never set on the Spanish Empire hundreds of years before Britain could make that claim), however American influence reaches into all but the most isolated parts of the globe and involves more peaceful exchange of ideas, such as film, fashion and dropping bombs on mofos who wanted to mess. This fits in very nicely with Civ3's cultural points.

I would replace the Iroquois with the Inca, the Zulu with the Ethiopians and the Babylonians with the Spanish.

The Spanish DID have a world wide influence. They had colonies on ALL the continents. Besides controlling half of North America (from the Mississippi west and south) and a large portion of South America (excluding Brazil and the Guyanas), they had colonies in the Philipines, Morroco, Spanish Guinea (in West Africa), Guam, Micronesia, Taiwan, Indonesia, Maylasia and other small islands. Pretty extensive, no?

Spanish is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world and their contribution to the spread of Catholicism is unquestionable. At its height I think that the spread of Spanish culture was both "dense" as well as wide. I think that they could give the Americans a run for thier money. (In addition the Spanish crown controlled Portugal and it's colonies, England, Austria and the Hapsburg Empire and Italy.) I'd say that it deserves a place as one of the 16. Simply saying that there are too many European civs isn't a good enough reason to exclude them.

[Felch]

I agree with you on replacing the other civs, but frankly there are more European civs than from any other continent. I'd have no problem playing a mod with Spain, but not if there are already a half dozen odd other civs on the same little peninsula of Asia. I think we should discuss which European civ is immaterial before we discuss putting in Spain.

I agree that Spain had influence, I never said it didn't. It's just that I have a more narrow use of world-wide than you do. During Spain's height, Europe was simply not in any position to be as dominant in world affairs as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, much of the world was never dominated by Spanish colonization or cultural influence. Britain and America however have had their heights in eras of Western dominance, and hence their influence is more wide-spread.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
So the Americans don't fit in the timeline because they are recent. In Civ2 there were ~150-200 turns when the US would have existed. Yes?

There would have been fewer turns for when the Babylonians and Persians existed.

so who should be out on that basis.

I'm not speaking in number of turns, I'm speaking about when they start. Civ is about rewriting history, but a Civ formed from other civs after a Revolution, it has no place in that sort of game (from the beginning).

[monkspider]

My stance on the situation, keep the Americans, Iroquois, Persians, and the rest of the Civs in question, and allow one of the members of the Apolyton community to create a hack that allows you to add more than 16 civs (such as Mongols, Arabs, et al)

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by monkspider
My stance on the situation, keep the Americans, Iroquois, Persians, and the rest of the Civs in question, and allow one of the members of the Apolyton community to create a hack that allows you to add more than 16 civs (such as Mongols, Arabs, et al)

I hope for that ability to be included, if not we have to wait and see what happens. I have an idea that might work, depending on how the files look.