Civilization Thread!

[Mick]

So, the conclusion of said game:

Nothing happened, just built wonders like made, culture victory in 1862.

India's...okay I guess. I didn't get the tourism bonus from the forts thanks to my early victory, and I've had happier civilizations before. So...yay.

[gunnar hendershow]

India's a nightmare to play against but to play as, not so much.

[Mick]

Yeah, it was a disappointment. The only highlight of that game was me and Pedro tag-teaming Temujin, even though it was MY ARMY doing the fighting while Pedro presumably sat on the beach looking at some hot, topless sunbathing ass .

At least he wasn't all "BOO YOU ARE A WARMONGER".

Who else are the big builders? I know there's Portugal, but the extra gold I kind of equate to being similar to Morocco. Arabia too, for that matter.

[Mick]

Holy crap, Poland!

[Mick]

I lol'd.

Edit: Because like hell I'm making four posts in a row in here

So, that game was pretty awesome. Diplomatic victory that took for fucking ever, however, if you're going that route with Poland, the UA adds up to a maxed out tree. I was able to fill out everything except Rationalism and Aesthetics, not including my Ideology. It is a very nice bonus.

The Shoshone started being dicks to a city-state, capture it (it was under my protection, but the poor morons had no idea how to use a sub or Gatling gun ). So, I liberated that, then set out 4 frigates and a couple ironclads outside his capital as I waited for the peace treaty to end. At that point, two other Civs declared war, even though they did fuck-all. I just roared in (taking the Chicken Pizza that the prick snaked from me), and cleaned up the rest of his cities. Nobody really complained about it; they were too scared to .

Edited January 18, 2014 by Mick

[snakesonaplane]

I've been kicking around ideas for what civs I'd like to see in the game, inspiring me to make this chart. Every civ, along with the games they appeared in:

Civs.JPG

To sum it up, the only civilizations not included that have shown up previously include the Hittites, the Holy Roman Empire, Khmer, Mali, the Native Americans, the Sioux, and the Sumerians. However, you could argue the Native Americans are already covered with the Shoshone and the Iroquois.

That being said, the only civilization that really comes to mind that has yet to be represented, one way or another, is Israel. I'm really trying to think who else could be included. Call to power included Australia, Canada, Cuba, Israel, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Phoenicia, Thailand, Turkey and Wales, but some of these, in terms of Civ V, are a bit redundant.

So...any ideas on who you'd guys like to see?

I loathe modern civs in civ games, like the US, Israel and most of the countries on the second list. I wish I could just permanently delete the US from my game, it always breaks immersion and feels just cheesy when I bump into them whilst exploring. I understand why they're in the game ('murica etc.), but they shouldn't be, too modern for a game that starts at 2000 BCE; and besides they already effectively represented by the English, Celts, French etc. AKA the Europeans that colonised the land of the Iroquois, Shoshone etc.

I'd include some more African civs, Mali would be great (there's a great mod of them out there already), or an Igbo or Yoruba representative, as at the moment West Africa is only representated by a Muslim culture (but Indigenous cultures predate Islam significantly), the Songhai (love these guys though, one of my most played for that golden barb harvest and cavalry that absolutely wrecks). The Kush or someone from the Sudan area, or a Central African rep would be nice too. I'm a stickler for being able to do maps where I can populate a specific real area with civs that covers most of its territory in some kind of counterfactual but fun way, this is possible in most continents at present but not in Africa. And yeah, too many Muslim themed civs in Africa at present, it's not historically balanced.

An Indigenous australian civ would be nice too but logically not so feasible since there was no overarching 'kingdom' on the continent but rather a myriad (litrerally like 230 something) different, regional and localised culture/language groupings. Still, you could always do something based around a broader cultural grouping like the Koori or Murri etc. which covers large swathes of the continent, and then I can finally start in Australia on Real World Location maps

I love the conversations that these issues raise with civs fan though, since some people seem to think only civs that built 'great wonders' or had large empires based on conquest should be included, ignoring Koori, Murri, Nyoongar peoples etc. who are members of the oldest living culture on the planet!

Edited January 20, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[stokeriño]

I loathe modern civs in civ games, like the US, Israel and most of the countries on the second list. I wish I could just permanently delete the US from my game, it always breaks immersion and feels just cheesy when I bump into them whilst exploring. I understand why they're in the game ('murica etc.), but they shouldn't be, too modern for a game that starts at 2000 BCE; and besides they already effectively represented by the English, Celts, French etc. AKA the Europeans that colonised the land of the Iroquois, Shoshone etc.

But then, where the hell were the English and French in 2000 BCE?

What we need are some good old Akkadians.

[Benji]

It doesn't bother me because I subscribe to the afterlife theory of Civ.

ALL HAIL GLORIOUS ENRICO DANDOLO! (again)

[METALMAN]

only civs that built 'great wonders' or had large empires based on conquest should be included

Pretty much.

[snakesonaplane]

I loathe modern civs in civ games, like the US, Israel and most of the countries on the second list. I wish I could just permanently delete the US from my game, it always breaks immersion and feels just cheesy when I bump into them whilst exploring. I understand why they're in the game ('murica etc.), but they shouldn't be, too modern for a game that starts at 2000 BCE; and besides they already effectively represented by the English, Celts, French etc. AKA the Europeans that colonised the land of the Iroquois, Shoshone etc.

But then, where the hell were the English and French in 2000 BCE?

What we need are some good old Akkadians.

True, but I wasn't suggesting inclusion should be frozen at 2000 BCE, that would limit the potential number of Civs considerably.

I was saying that for a game that is based in history, the inclusion of a civilisation that only rose to significance in the last 50-100 years and which was founded by people from civs already in the game seems a bit redundant. Are you suggesting you think the US is a good inclusion? That's your perogative of course, as I merely expressing my personal play preference for immersion and role-playing.

BTW the Celts could easily be role-played as a representative of the ancient Gauls, who were contemporaries of the Roman Empire.

only civs that built 'great wonders' or had large empires based on conquest should be included

Pretty much.

Way to take my quote out of context; in response though... this criteria clearly isn't applied in the game at present so what is your point? It should be? Why? It would limit the list of playable civs considerably, whilst also reducing the flavor of the game and the cultures representated, neither of which seem attractive options from an immersion or general game playing POV.

[METALMAN]

Yes. If you aren't Greek, Roman or Scottish Enlightenment, you aren't a civilisation. You are a barbarian.

[Mick]

I loathe modern civs in civ games, like the US, Israel and most of the countries on the second list. I wish I could just permanently delete the US from my game, it always breaks immersion and feels just cheesy when I bump into them whilst exploring. I understand why they're in the game ('murica etc.), but they shouldn't be, too modern for a game that starts at 2000 BCE; and besides they already effectively represented by the English, Celts, French etc. AKA the Europeans that colonised the land of the Iroquois, Shoshone etc.

But then, where the hell were the English and French in 2000 BCE?

What we need are some good old Akkadians.

True, but I wasn't suggesting inclusion should be frozen at 2000 BCE, that would limit the potential number of Civs considerably.

I was saying that for a game that is based in history, the inclusion of a civilisation that only rose to significance in the last 50-100 years and which was founded by people from civs already in the game seems a bit redundant. Are you suggesting you think the US is a good inclusion? That's your perogative of course, as I merely expressing my personal play preference for immersion and role-playing.

BTW the Celts could easily be role-played as a representative of the ancient Gauls, who were contemporaries of the Roman Empire.

only civs that built 'great wonders' or had large empires based on conquest should be included

Pretty much.

Way to take my quote out of context; in response though... this criteria clearly isn't applied in the game at present so what is your point? It should be? Why? It would limit the list of playable civs considerably, whilst also reducing the flavor of the game and the cultures representated, neither of which seem attractive options from an immersion or general game playing POV.

But America would be included

Aside from that, when you consider the worldwide effect of the American Revolution, it is easy to see why America should be included. That and nukes

[snakesonaplane]

The worldwide effect of the American revolution?

I've already explained why I don't think it's necessary for the US to be included but another question instead, do you ever play as America? If not why? I don't. As far as I can tell not many people do, due probably to the late onset of their rather forgettable set of specialities, sadly an unavoidable facet of the late emergence of 'American civilization' generally. In conclusion, they're not fun! But alas they're here to stay.

Edited January 21, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[Mick]

Well, the American Revolution was a huge inspiration for the French, leading to their own revolution, and the giant mess that created, including the establishment of Civ V's French leader. Not to mention the major role the US has played over the last say, 130 years on the world stage. Of course in the grand scheme America's accomplishments seem minor, but when you consider that the age we live in, everything is greatly accelerated. Any Great Power should be included as a playable civilization.

I realize of course there can be reason to interpret this as somewhat nationalistic, but to just ditch the Americans because they're descended from Western Europeans is just plain silly. You could make the argument that Japan shouldn't be included because it was in a state of civil war for centuries, and then it was completely isolated from the rest of the world, save for one port. and that argument is further strengthened on their glorious leader, who was shot roughly twenty years before the Sengoku period was over.

And no, I don't play America because the UUs and UA suck. It it were replaced with something like earning Great Engineers 50% faster...sure, I might give them a go.

[snakesonaplane]

Undoubtedly the Declaration of Independence is an important document in world history, though I don't think this necessarily qualifies as a 'world wide effect', the relationship with the French revolution is noted but tell a Frenchman they have the US to thank for liberty, equality and fraternity and they might not believe you; nor do I agree that the US has been playing a 'major role' for the 'last 130 years on the world stage', that is from 1883.

Up until the 1945 the US had very little role on the 'world stage', on the contrary I think an argument could be made that US foreign policy was fairly insular for half of the past 130 years, with exception being US imperialism in Latin America, not focused on the world but domestic issues and the US' immediate sphere of influence.

However from 1945 the US should definitely be considered to have had a 'major role on the world stage', but prior to 1945?

1883-1900: The US was developing its national economy behind tarrifs in the 19th century and although it became a major power in industrial terms in the 20th century, I don't think domestic industrial power is the same as playing a 'major role on the world stage', with the latter usually understood as a political designation, rather than a nations level of manufacturing. The only real US foray on to the 'world stage' prior to 1900 was to smash and grab tiny Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, an exceedingly short war with little international signifcance against a declined European power.

From 1900 to 1942; when the US entered the second World War late, the only other really significant step of the US on to the 'world stage' was their late entry into World War I in 1917. Short participation in two major world wars does not to me, quality as having a 'major role on the world stage'. After WWI Woodrow Wilson (along with many others who contributed as much if not more, including writing the base document) was involved with the League of Nations but the US ultimately did not join (!), which in a sense is actually eschewing the notion of playing a 'major role on the world stage', since at that time the League was the 'world stage' for the powerful states. Between the period of 1918 and 1942, the US continued a policy of non-intervention in world affairs, whilst pursuing a program of light imperialism in Latin America.

TL:DR the US only became a 'major player on the world stage' from 1942 and the post WWII environment, prior to this time the US was not involved heavily in 'world affairs', and foreign policy exceptional to this consisted of some proxy conflicts in Latin America.

The part about Japan I don't really get, Japanese culture itself is thousands of years old, and is unique to the world, clearly Japanese culture should be represented.
------------

To the Civ related aspect of your post,

I'm not suggesting the US be 'ditched' because of the European civs, I mentioned the European origins of the US colony as a facet of a broader argument- mainly their recent and short lived ascendancy in historical terms, the fact that the founders of colonial America, the British and French etc. are already in the game, was from my POV a further indication of the redundancy of their inclusion, their 'civ' until recently was actually 'England' and 'France'. And American civilization in a base sense was a Western European transplant, like Australia.

That said, I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people. I personally like the history aspect of playing Civ games, and so its more personal preference that I prefer to Civs be included that represent more older, persistant or unique cultures, to me its just more immersive and fun, and I dislike modern civs (and civ leaders) in the game. This kind of thing is largely unavoidable though, as a game Civ is counterfactual history set in a fantasy realm, Benji's suggestion of a 'world leader valhalla game' is totally apt - it's an unreal environment that defies logic.

Edited January 21, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[Plubby]

If you're discounting the USA on account of insular policy between independence and the first world war, surely to christ that strikes out vast portions of historical influence of Japan as well.

[Lint]

Started a new game..first time playing on King...yea I know I'm a wimp.

God dammit Boudica...quit delcaring war on me! I'm playing as the Shoshone and she's tried to capture Te'Moak 3 times. Each time to be repelled by 3 chariot archers and the city attack. It says I have a world wonder she covets and lands she covets...maybe its because I settled Te'Moak on the shores of Lake Victoria

[snakesonaplane]

If you're discounting the USA on account of insular policy between independence and the first world war, surely to christ that strikes out vast portions of historical influence of Japan as well.

My post was made in a specific context relevant to a discussion I was having with Mick, and in response to his suggestion that the US had had a 'major role on the world stage for 130 years', i was disputing this assertion by pointing out that prior to 1945 US had in many ways strongly eschewed playing a 'major role on the world stage'. I later stated 'I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people.' And then explained why I personally didn't enjoy them being in the game.

Japanese culture is unique to the world and is thousands of years old, the United States has only existed for 237 years, and is a transplanted western European culture. The reason why I was disputing their inclusion or arguing against it, beyond the reasons that are simply personal preference (most of my reasoning actually), had little to do with the fact that they had pursued an insular foreign policy. Those comments were in a direct response to an idea raised by Mick, i.e. that the US had had 'major role on the world stage for 130 years.'

Edited January 21, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[MDK]

Everyone forgets about the Beakers :'(

[gunnar hendershow]

If you're discounting the USA on account of insular policy between independence and the first world war, surely to christ that strikes out vast portions of historical influence of Japan as well.

My post was made in a specific context relevant to a discussion I was having with Mick, and in response to his suggestion that the US had had a 'major role on the world stage for 130 years', i was disputing this assertion by pointing out that prior to 1945 US had in many ways strongly eschewed playing a 'major role on the world stage'. I later stated 'I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people.' And then explained why I personally didn't enjoy them being in the game.

Japanese culture is unique to the world and is thousands of years old, the United States has only existed for 237 years, and is a transplanted western European culture. The reason why I was disputing their inclusion or arguing against it, beyond the reasons that are simply personal preference (most of my reasoning actually), had little to do with the fact that they had pursued an insular foreign policy. Those comments were in a direct response to an idea raised by Mick, i.e. that the US had had 'major role on the world stage for 130 years.'

The US has had a major role for 130 years if you're counting economic (specifically manufacturing). Not to mention that despite their insular foreign policy there is a huge influence politically on the Americas as a whole dating back to the Monroe Doctrine.

I agree it might be better to just include past civilizations, but the US's inclusion isn't some travesty. There's a large part of modern history shaped by the United States.

If you want to complain about a civilization in the game the best option is Siam since large parts of their "history" very well might not have happened.