Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[dunk]

Let's see. I would add...

1) Mongols
2) Celts
3) Inuit
4) Navajo or Pueblo
5) Inca
6) Nubians
7) Carthage
8) Polynesia
9) Vikings
10) Siamese
11) Maya
12) Cubans or Jamaicans
13) Dutch
14) Spanish
15) Koreans
16) Mali

And I would love to add as many as possible. All we would need is UUs, leaders, and traits for them. I think the creative people here can help us all with that. The extra-civ pack looks very interesting.

[bigvic]

Actually w/ 32 slots open, doesn't that mean there are 15, since one is taken by barbarians? Can't live w/o barbarians now.

Here's my suggestions for 15, in no particular order.

1. Vikings
2. Celts
3. Spanish
4. Portuguese
5. Dutch
6. Turks
7. Arabs
8. Hebrews
9. Maghreb (Mali/Songhai)
10. Mongols
11. Koreans
12. Polynesions
13. Incas
14. Maya
15. Cambodia/Thailand (SE Asia, Angkor Wat)

[bigvic]

Originally posted by LordAzreal

But the choices I made are just those who I would add to my own game. As I said before, Firaxis should only work on about four more civs, then release a stable editor that allows you to fill the remaining spaces. As Gramphos and Civ3Multitool have shown, THERE IS ROOM FOR 32 CIVS!!! Those are just the 12 I'd want in my game aside from the 16 already there, and the four Firaxis would add (though I don't doubt that some l

What did the Aborigines accomplish? Only 40 000 years of civilization, and a very rich culture that is still being observed today. Being Australian, I see much of it. So what else? Only a complete harmony with the land. While all other civilizations spread like viruses, consuming every available resource, the Aborigines learnt to maintain natural equilibrium with the land they lived in.

Portugese and Dutch?! Isn't this game too Eurocentric as it is? Spain, Vikings and Celts are all the extra Europeans we need. They definitely made greater impact than the Portugese and Dutch. Time to move on to other cultural groups methinks.

OK, interesting post. First of all, I'd love to see firaxis release something with all the suggestions above and many more. And, yeah, a good editor to make scenarios. Then we could choose what we want. Isn't that what they should be going for, giving the customer what he/she wants?

Aborigines? Hmm...well... I don't want to insult Aborigines, I think they are too cool, but how many advances did they have by the time the Limeys showed up in the early/middle period of their industrial age? Well, if we are to be limited to a number like 15, I just can't see the Australian Aboriginies in there. Which brings to mind the Iroqois. Should have made 'em the "Native Americans", made cities names of tribes. There were thousands of smaller tribes to choose for barbarians.

As far as Dutch and Portugese, come on, man! Those guys rocked. They were all over the place, much bigger than their homelands. I'm assuming you are of European heritage (though I have no idea, true) and are suffering from PESH (pathetic euro self hatred) syndrome. Get over it. There was simply a point in history where Europe dominated the world. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years this will be eclipsed by the development of history and some underrepresented areas will step forward (as they are actually doing as I write), but, til then...

[Boris Godunov]

Why do we have to remove any? Just make it so you can add more.

No civ is inherently superior to another, because the criteria is all a matter of opinion.

Personally, the Aztecs are top of my list to go. A savage bunch of warmongerer murderers who got pretty much what they deserved. The Mayas or Incas would be more suitable. Aztec Civilization is practically oxymoronic.

But that's just my opinion...

[Boris Godunov]

Don't y'all argue with Ribannah about the Iroquois. Lost cause.

[Ribannah]

I second that.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why do we have to remove any? Just make it so you can add more.

Bravo.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Personally, the Aztecs are top of my list to go. A savage bunch of warmongerer murderers who got pretty much what they deserved. The Mayas or Incas would be more suitable. Aztec Civilization is practically oxymoronic.

The Aztecs were actually quite civilized. They had the largest city (>250,000 people) by far on the planet at the time the Spanish arrived in Mexico. For cripes sake, it was in the middle of a lake. And they accomplished all of their conquests, building, and culture without developing or using WHEELS. The Aztecs had no wheels at all. Or horses. They had no domesticated animals either. All of those fascinating buildings were done without wheels or pack animals. Talk about logistical engineering. They developed a very accurate calender. 360 days to a year IIRC. There was very neat art. They developed tools sharper and stronger than European ones without metalworking, but instead used obsidian to make knives sharper than razors. A very good system of irrigation, which I learned about, but forget now.

I think most people consider them as simple, mindless barbarians because of the human sacrifice, which by the way was their main motivation in war. They would attempt to capture prisoners as opposed to killing enemies in battle. Prisoners were usually sacrificed. Of course, I am glad the human sacrifice is gone.

I am sure about all this information except the size of Tenochtitlan. May have only been 100,000. But, it put European city sizes to shame. I took a class on the Aztec, Maya, and Inca in college. Very fascinating. Most of them were wiped out by, you guessed it, small pox. Second place, a Spanish-induced civil war where Cortez seized control of Mexico in the end.

[Ethelred]

They developed a very accurate calender. 360 days to a year IIRC.

Its based on the pre-existing Mayan calendar.

There was very neat art.

With lots of bloodletting. When I was in High School the first thing I saw every morning as I left my room was copy of an Aztec wall painting my mother had put in the hall. An Aztec priest piercing his toungue with a string and collecting the blood.

Just the perfect thing to wake up to.

They developed tools sharper and stronger than European ones without metalworking, but instead used obsidian to make knives sharper than razors.

Sharper yes. Stronger no. Obsidian is too brittle for that. Even today glass is sharper than steel. That nice eye surgery that is sometimes refered to as Flap and Zap uses a glass blade to cut the flap.

I am sure about all this information except the size of Tenochtitlan. May have only been 100,000.

Well it was definitly very large. Europes cities were kind of small at that time. Rome had been much larger during the Empire.

I suspect that the diseases that ravaged the Aztecs had kept down the population of European cities as well but over a much longer period of time. All that expansion and trade was hard on the gene pool.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm not saying they weren't a civ. I'm just saying I find their society personally repugnant, and none of their neighbors shed a tear when the Spaniards came in and conquered them. In fact, the neighbors all helped.

I would give preference to the Mayas and Incas over the Aztecs for Mesoamerican cultures to include.

[Apolex]

Zulus and Iroquois out, Vikings and Turks in.

- Apolex

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by bigvic

As far as Dutch and Portugese, come on, man! Those guys rocked. They were all over the place, much bigger than their homelands. I'm assuming you are of European heritage (though I have no idea, true) and are suffering from PESH (pathetic euro self hatred) syndrome. Get over it. There was simply a point in history where Europe dominated the world. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years this will be eclipsed by the development of history and some underrepresented areas will step forward (as they are actually doing as I write), but, til then...

I am of European heritage. But my heritage is derived from Denmark, Germany, Ireland, England and Spain.

Anyway, I just think that if I were to add the Spaniards, Vikings and Celts, there'd be enough people in the European cultural group as it is. I'm just the type that is eager to learn about the many civs that existed outside the bounds of European heritage.

[notyoueither]

Good attitude LordAzreal. I agree.

BTW. When I employ the ' ' smilie, it generally means I'm up to some mischief. Maybe I'm being serious, but...

If you're interested, about the only permanent mark the Inuit ever leave on the planet are stones piled up into a rough anthropomorphic shape. I think they call them Inukshuks. Then again, those aren't too permanent either. Pretty impressive though that they developed the skills required to live in permafrost and on ice flows.

[Mikhail]

I'd take out the Iroquis, simply because I feel 'America' encompasses all of the North American land, the modern day USA, and the natives (thus the architecture of the civ)

Not that Iroquis didn't have a civilization or culture or anything like others have been saying. I just feel it's a bit redundant to have BOTH Americans AND Iroquis

I'd ADD:

Incas
Mayans
Mongols
Spanish
Scandinavians
Celts (MAYBE)


Turks are more or less included in the already existing middle eastern civs, Itallians would be redundant with Rome already included (two civs with the same capital, ay?). Korea'd be alright, I suppose....but we already have Chinese and Japanese, and I'd really rather not have so many civs all occupying relatively the same area. Besides, Koreas been conquered so many times throughout history...Their greatest achievements were when they were under Mongol control, and I'd be adding the Mongols in...

[siredgar]

The Koreans were only really defeated once during their 5,000 year history.

This was at the hands of the Mongols, who pretty much conquered everyone in Eurasia including the most powerful civilization at the time-- the Chinese. Anyhow, they weren't "ruled" by the Mongols nor do any of their major achievements have anything to with them. You should understand the difference between being overrun by barbarians and cultivating a long-standing friendship with the highly civilized Ming Dynasty (which if you think is "Mongol" then you need to read more history), by the way.

So, if a single instance of defeat discounts a civilization as "great" then you'd have to remove not only the Chinese, but the French for losing to the Germans not once but twice as well as pretty much everyone else in the world.

In regards to your other statement, the Koreans were not "conquered" by the Japanese. They had a succession of kings who were poorly misguided and sometimes simply unfit to rule, leading them into a state of stagnation. More importantly, they began to rely too heavily on the Chinese who were also falling into a steady decline. The Japanese took advantage of these opportunities to diplomatically manipulate the Chinese, force the Koreans to sign unfair treaties, and infiltrate the country with its troops. Thus, Japanese occupation of Korea was not a result of military defeat, but diplomatic deception, strategic planning, and stealth maneuvering.

Anyhow, at one point in history, the Koreans conquered much of Manchuria and even parts of Siberia-- territory the size of Western Europe. They also defeated the Sui and Tang Dynasties, among others. In fact, the Sui Dynasty collapsed primarily because of its defeat at the hands of the Koreans when they lost 1 million men during their war against them.

Five thousand years is a long time. Maybe you should read a bit about it before you make simplified statements about two very complex events.

[F18fett]

Aborigines going back 60,000 years? Where did you get that?