Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[nato]

Good call, Mikhail and LordAzreal!! How fun and interesting a civ is should be a top criterion. I shouldn't have lost sight of that.

Good list LordAzreal. Actually I think that expanded 16 + 8 list would satisfy most (but not all) players.

[nato]

Russia has a lot of great things like you listed Andreiguy. I just did not think Russia would be one of the civs that most people would agree on so strongly for Civ.

I do not think of Russia the same way I think of Rome or China. It is not as ancient, its culture has not spread so far, and it has only been highly influential since WWII.

It seems a surprising one to me, but I'm sure it is a natural choice to someone from Russia!

[Andreiguy]

Russian = very stubborn!

Yeah, I agree abt that ...
but wouldn't you agree that Russia is one of the more worthy civilizations, one that there is no doubt about? I mean, it is more important than most of the other civs...

Just say yes...
Actually, why are we even talking about taking out civs at all? For me, its the more the merrier...

[siredgar]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I sort of agree with a lot of nato's criteria. However, I don't really care about geo. distribution. But I also add the criteria of how interesting I find a civ. So in rethinking who I think belong, I'd say all of the civs already in do belong. Plus the following:

1. Spanish
2. Phoenicians/Carthaginians
3. Celts
4. Incas
5. Koreans
6. Vikings
7. Arabs/Saracens
8. Mongols

Then if in the XP, there is a proper editor that allows for the creation of civs, I'd just add extra civs based on my main criteria of how interesting I find that civ to be (that's when I'd add the Australians, Indonesians, Aborigines, Nubians, etc.)

Yes, I agree, that's a nice list.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I was thinking about the topic of this thread from the other direction. What civs definitely deserve to be in, based on a unequivocal contribution to world-wide culture and/or having formed an empire that was "world-wide" in scope.

Here's my list:

The English
The Chinese
The Romans
The Spanish
The Mongols
The French

For my money, the rest are regional powers.

I don't see China as qualifying as either contributing to world-wide culture or being world-wide in scope. While they get points for sheer longevity, China was always a fairly isolationist civilization and Chinese culture didn't spread far beyond China, certainly not beyond Asia.

As for the Mongols...How can you not consider the Germans but include the Mongols? The single greatest impact the mongols had on history was threatening Eastern Europe, and in the scope of things it was a short-lived heydey for the Mongols. They spread no culture, and their "empire" fell very quickly. They may be cool, but as a "civilization" that impacted the world, they hardly compare with the Germans.

I have to say, If I had to list the 3 countries that had the greatest impact on the 20th century, it would be the USA, Russia and Germany.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Russian = very stubborn!

Originally posted by Andreiguy
Yeah, I agree abt that ...
but wouldn't you agree that Russia is one of the more worthy civilizations, one that there is no doubt about? I mean, it is more important than most of the other civs...

Soviet Russia is Russia's most important, influential time. For that she has to be near the top. Without that, she'd be down the ladder a few rungs.

My 10 essential civs in the game now (no particular order) are:

Rome
Greece
Babylon
China
Germans
English
India
Russia
Egypt (not the most important in history by a longshot, but cool)
Persia

Despite being American, I feel no particular need for them in the game like I do the others.

And France would be right up there if it weren't for the fact it was inhabited by the French.

[Boris Godunov]

(Stalin murdered another 20 mil)
I think that alone is enough influence...

There is a book that came out last year, not sure the name, about Stalin, and the author puts the death toll for his reign, including starvation and famine, at about 96 million total

[Jethro83]

Re: Re: Russian = very stubborn!

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And France would be right up there if it weren't for the fact it was inhabited by the French.

"You don't frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I fart, in your general direction so-called Arthur King. You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnnnigits!!!"


Seriously though, what do you have against the French?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Russian = very stubborn!

Originally posted by LordAzreal




"You don't frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I fart, in your general direction so-called Arthur King. You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnnnigits!!!"


Seriously though, what do you have against the French?

Seriously, nothing. I have nothing against entire cultures, as I don't like to stereotype.

Just don't ask my grandfather the same question...he'll tell you his WWII experiences dealing with the French as an American GI.

[Mikhail]

Technically, the Mongols are less of a civilization than Iroquis (or any other civ in the game you don't think belongs)

They were a group of semi-connected tribes and barbarians before Genghis Khan, united for a while, then went right back to tribes and barbarians.

Saying that they impacted the world would be true, but in the same way that the Huns did: by destroying and conquering. Not by building cities, researching technology, spreading culture or any of the other things we associate with "civilization". They built nothing in the lands that they conquered. Just killed most of the people in them, and burnt what was left over.

Is that civilization?

None the less though, I'll bet you money that Firaxis will include them in the XP.

It would still be fun to play as them though. *anticipates a Genghis Khan leaderhead*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Mikhail
They built nothing in the lands that they conquered. Just killed most of the people in them, and burnt what was left over.

Not exactly true. The Mongols only wreaked such devastation in the lands where they met strong resistance. If the locals were content to just accept the Mongols as conquerers and pay them tribute, the Mongols generally left them alone.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see China as qualifying as either contributing to world-wide culture or being world-wide in scope. While they get points for sheer longevity, China was always a fairly isolationist civilization and Chinese culture didn't spread far beyond China, certainly not beyond Asia.

As for the Mongols...How can you not consider the Germans but include the Mongols? The single greatest impact the mongols had on history was threatening Eastern Europe, and in the scope of things it was a short-lived heydey for the Mongols. They spread no culture, and their "empire" fell very quickly. They may be cool, but as a "civilization" that impacted the world, they hardly compare with the Germans.

I have to say, If I had to list the 3 countries that had the greatest impact on the 20th century, it would be the USA, Russia and Germany.

LOL. Your points are valid, but if you're even hinting that the Chinese did not build a "worthy" civilization compared then I'll have to laugh. Just because they did not try to conquer the world (even though they could have), does not make the Chinese any less of a civilization than the others. In fact, I think it makes them more of a "true" CIVILization.

The Mongols kicked Russian ass. Don't be bitter about it.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union had a net negative impact on 20th century history. Yes, they helped fight the Germans (they were forced to) and made many scienfitic contributions, but they also helped spread an inefficient economic system around the world (communism) that eventually collapsed and kept millions of people from achieving a better way of life. They not only had tens of millions of their own people "purged", but aided in the oppression and killing of countless people in other countries. Also, they built way too many nuclear weapons and caused a major environmental disaster (Chernobyl) of which the consequences will still have to be dealt with.

Anyhow, civilization is about a number of ages, not a single century.

Your viewpoint seems quite Eurocentric, which is interesting because many Europeans don't even consider Russians truly "European".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar


LOL. Your points are valid, but if you're even hinting that the Chinese did not build a "worthy" civilization compared then I'll have to laugh. Just because they did not try to conquer the world (even though they could have), does not make the Chinese any less of a civilization than the others. In fact, I think it makes them more of a "true" CIVILization.

The Mongols kicked Russian ass. Don't be bitter about it.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union had a net negative impact on 20th century history. Yes, they helped fight the Germans (they were forced to) and made many scienfitic contributions, but they also helped spread an inefficient economic system around the world (communism) that eventually collapsed and kept millions of people from achieving a better way of life. They not only had tens of millions of their own people "purged", but aided in the oppression and killing of countless people in other countries. Also, they built way too many nuclear weapons and caused a major environmental disaster (Chernobyl) of which the consequences will still have to be dealt with.

Anyhow, civilization is about a number of ages, not a single century.

Your viewpoint seems quite Eurocentric, which is interesting because many Europeans don't even consider Russians truly "European".

You're misreading my post. I was responding to another poster's criterea for "worthwhile" civs and then pointing out how his choices seemed to violate his own criteria.

I would never dismiss Chinese civilization, and if you read my post about which civs I find essential, you'll find it is hardly Eurocentric. I resent the notion of being referred to as such strongly.

And I don't see why you're talking to me about the Russians...I wasn't going gung-ho for them. I merely pointed out they have had a great impact, for good or bad. Impact is quantitative, not qualitative, when considering influence of a civ.

[nato]

The Chinese kind of have a world wide impact just by controlling themselves. After all, they are about 1/6 of humanity. (by that measure India also counts, and I would say they do)

Also China has had a huge effect on Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia, and other neighbors. The number of people effected by Chinese culture is very large.

You just cannot ignore them at all. They are huge, and not just in population.

I disagreed with that comment when I first saw it, but didn't bother to respond. I have no doubt you're a smart guy (you're here after all!), but that particular comment is way off.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nato
The Chinese kind of have a world wide impact just by controlling themselves. After all, they are about 1/6 of humanity. (by that measure India also counts, and I would say they do)

Also China has had a huge effect on Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia, and other neighbors. The number of people effected by Chinese culture is very large.

You just cannot ignore them at all. They are huge, and not just in population.

I disagreed with that comment when I first saw it, but didn't bother to respond. I have no doubt you're a smart guy (you're here after all!), but that particular comment is way off.

I totally agree with these sentiments, I am all for the Chinese. But again, I was merely going by the standards that other guy mentioned. By his standards, China wouldn't qualify. By MY standards, they are right up there!