No Incas?!

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
I'm sure Firaxis isn't THAT blind. They NEED a SA civ, as well as another African civ to fill up that big continent.

BTW, monkspider, are you actually socialist? (just out of curiosity, mind you. Feel free to not answer).

What means SA?

BTW May be MonkSpider are christian-cocialist?

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Of course there are Incas... but they're not in PTW. Actually, the Incas reserve a respectable position as one of the barbarian tribes in Civ3 original.

Why You call Incas as Barbarian??? When was Golden Age of Incas and other civs, Europeans was just Barbarians.

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma

What means SA?

I guess that's South America.

[siredgar]

I agree with Imp. Montezuma. Although I think the Incans are overrated as a civilization, they should NOT be considered barbarians because they absolutely weren't.

[Wernazuma III]

OK, I know that some people have a tendency towards "modern" or "advanced" civs, which includes a strong inclination towards European/Middle-East civs. But why the hell then are the Gauls (or even the Vikings) included? I don't want to debate whether I underestimate those civs or not but the fact remains that: a) Incans surely equal/surpass those two in certain aspects (especially Architecture) and b) would fill a place on the map which is still unoccupied.
Why the hell does Firaxis want to have two French civs? I simply don't get it.

[Txurce]

The inclusion of the Gauls in a game that already includes France blows my mind. The Incas filled a space. The Poles are a major, long-lasting civilization. The Huns would have been fun. The Basques would have been truly inspired. But the Gauls?

[monkspider]

Yep. I am a christian socialist actually

[Switch]

Back on topic: Yes, SA does mean South America.

Anyway, they shouldn't just add in civs based on how big they were. They should also use well known civs. ie, everyone has heard of the Incans and Mayans, but how many people have heard of the Gauls? or the Carthaginians? or the Ottomans? I hadn't until playing AOE. Now, I'm not saying to disclude those Civs entirely, but just that they should look at more known civs first.

And if they do include the Ottomans, would it not be wiser to use a more well known name, such as the Turks?

Thank you for your time.

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
Anyway, they shouldn't just add in civs based on how big they were. They should also use well known civs. ie, everyone has heard of the Incans and Mayans, but how many people have heard of the Gauls? or the Carthaginians? or the Ottomans? I hadn't until playing AOE. Now, I'm not saying to disclude those Civs entirely, but just that they should look at more known civs first.

And if they do include the Ottomans, would it not be wiser to use a more well known name, such as the Turks?

Well, I heard about the Gauls, Carthagians and Ottomans before, but that might be because in Europe the occidental history plays a bigger role in history lessons in school than they might do in the New World (might be a prejudice, correct me if I'm wrong).
I must also admit that the Gauls for me were always the French part of the Celts and the Turks are descendants of the Ottomans (again, correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore I'd prefer a Celtic civ to a Gaelic civ and the Ottomans to the Turks.
But that's all personal opinion and taste. After all, it's just a game and it's not supposed to mimic history in every detail.

[siredgar]

I am also shocked that there is the possibility of including the Gauls and not the Incans or another civilization entirely.

This game is more Euro-centric than I thought. And when I say Eurocentric I am including the Middle East which has always been a part of European history.

[Lucilla]

I didn't say that I wouldn't want the Incans. I just would prefer the Celts to the Gauls, etc.

It's true that the game has heaps of European civs but only very few American, Asian and African civs. My view is of course a European view and I just happen to know more about European history, philosophy and culture than I do about the history of the New World or Asia, e.g.

I guess the game is Eurocentric as you call it, because Europe always had and still has a big impact on the Worlds history and philosophy. But that doesn't mean that I'd feel personaly offended if there were the Incans instead of the Celts included.

I think there shouldn't be a limit on civs and every player should just be able to create or download exta civs whenever they feel like it. If there's a limit of 24 (or 32) civs for the game, the player could decide himself, which one to replace by another one.

[siredgar]

I agree that the world has been dominated by Europe in the past 500 years, but I still think that the game should not be so heavily skewed that way since we are dealing with 6,000 years of history, not just the past 500.

[Lucilla]

Well, the Greeks and Romans (just to name two civs) are older than 500 years...
Currently the US are dominating the world (whether people like it or not), and to be honest, I quite like it that an American game pays tribute to Europe for a change

[siredgar]

My point was that because Europeans (and European settlers, i.e. Americans, Canadians, etc) have dominated world affairs for the past 500 years, a Eurocentric world perspective is reflected on history and who and what was important in that history.

Since I consider the Middle East part of the Occidental world, the game is heavily skewed towards the West:

English, French, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Russians, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Americans, Spanish, Vikings, Carthaginians, Turks, Arabs, and Gauls (16 civs)

That leaves only Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and Koreans in the East (4 civs) and Zulu, Aztecs, and Iroquois as the others (3 civs). It appears that if they add the Gauls, there is only room for one more civ.

It's quite surprising (and yet not so suprising) that they added five more Occidental civs and only one Eastern civ so far. I am hoping that the Gauls are not added in and they include the Incans and an African or Asian civ in.

[moomin]

But if they do, people with jump on them clamouring they're racist, 'cause the leaders are ugly.

I'd throw out all non-Euro Civs if I were Firaxis. Let's see the PC crowd compaining 'bout how the fact that Bismarck is one ugly schmack means Firaxis are closet fascists.