Civilization Thread!

[METALMAN]

I think ditching US would be silly. I'd personally view the US as being a major power ever since the Spanish-American War. So that's 1898. 115 years.

That's comparable to the amount of time that the likes of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mongols and the Achaemenid Empire stuck around for, yet nobody is questioning their inclusion. Even Babylonia wasn't a major power for much longer than the USA.

I know there's the notion that the United States isn't really a "civilisation", rather than just a mix of British, German and other European influences. But it didn't take long for a distinct national identity to emerge. For the purposes of this game, the United States is just as distinct a "civilisation" as the Arabs, who have the same background as previous Middle Eastern civs, merely converted to a different religion.

If we're applying these criteria to the USA, maybe we should appreciate that treating Austria and Germany as different civilisations is just as silly. After all, they are both Germanic people, and its not too implausible to imagine Germany being formulated around the South German Austrians rather than the North German Prussians. But we need to keep both Germany and Austria in, despite their similarities, because of the huge role both have played in history. Same goes for the USA.

What about the Byzantines, who are just Romano-Greeks with eunuchs?

My real problem - and I'm sorry if this makes it seem like I am being too eurocentric here - is the lack of Italian representation. Okay, you have Venice, but Italy was the centre of the civilised world during one of the most compelling periods of human history. Think about all the Italian great people in the game: Columbus, da Vinci and Galileo among others. None of them have a home. The Italian Dukedoms were the areas that Shakespeare lusted after. Whenever he wanted to convey luxury or culture, he'd invariably choose Italy as the setting.

Oh and also, Israel/Judah ought to be there. Remarkably influential.

[stokeriño]

Regarding Italy... Thay's what city states are for.

[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.'

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.

Obviously this is personal opinion, but i'm not counting manufacturing no, because that really has nothing to do with having a major role on the world stage in a political sense, Cuba led the world in sugar production at one point, did they have a major role on the world stage? My impression of having an impact on the world stage means having global influence and power, political clout etc, which the US did not have.

I mentioned US imperialism in Latin America already as well, but I don't see how that qualifies as having a major role on the world stage for 130 years, when it was sporadic and restricted to one region.

I never said including the US is a travesty, or used any adjective even remotely as hysterical as that. I also acknowledged the huge role the US has since 1945.

Complain? I had no intention of having a drawn out discussion on the subject, but I did not anticipate so many people would jump in.

I think ditching US would be silly. I'd personally view the US as being a major power ever since the Spanish-American War. So that's 1898. 115 years.

That's comparable to the amount of time that the likes of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mongols and the Achaemenid Empire stuck around for, yet nobody is questioning their inclusion. Even Babylonia wasn't a major power for much longer than the USA.

I know there's the notion that the United States isn't really a "civilisation", rather than just a mix of British, German and other European influences. But it didn't take long for a distinct national identity to emerge. For the purposes of this game, the United States is just as distinct a "civilisation" as the Arabs, who have the same background as previous Middle Eastern civs, merely converted to a different religion.

If we're applying these criteria to the USA, maybe we should appreciate that treating Austria and Germany as different civilisations is just as silly. After all, they are both Germanic people, and its not too implausible to imagine Germany being formulated around the South German Austrians rather than the North German Prussians. But we need to keep both Germany and Austria in, despite their similarities, because of the huge role both have played in history. Same goes for the USA.

What about the Byzantines, who are just Romano-Greeks with eunuchs?

My real problem - and I'm sorry if this makes it seem like I am being too eurocentric here - is the lack of Italian representation. Okay, you have Venice, but Italy was the centre of the civilised world during one of the most compelling periods of human history. Think about all the Italian great people in the game: Columbus, da Vinci and Galileo among others. None of them have a home. The Italian Dukedoms were the areas that Shakespeare lusted after. Whenever he wanted to convey luxury or culture, he'd invariably choose Italy as the setting.

Oh and also, Israel/Judah ought to be there. Remarkably influential.

I never said the US should be ditched, in fact I actually explained specifically why I think they are included and why other people would support this idea, i.e. their recent hegemony.

Very few historians (outside of the US) would consider a the US a major power in 1899, or until WWII - because the US did not participate in the world stage in a major way until their late entry into WWII. Many historians would consider the US-Spanish war as a turning point for the US, and their first meaningful step into international waters, like hey there is this new kid on the block - but the European powers who werent in terminal decline did not fear the US, nor did the US have any influence over them or any other part of the world.

The fact the US mugged the old lady Spain does not make the US a major player.

As I outlined previously, beyond proxy conflict in their immediate sphere, which was sporadic not constant, nor widespread or internationally significant, the US specifically eschewed being on the 'world stage', they stayed out of the problems of the 'old world' on purpose. That was their explicit policy after WWI.

Are my posts too long or something? I never said they should be removed, but rather, I don't like them being in the game, and further that modern civ leaders irk me as well.

That is, i'm expressing my personal preferences for the game - not attempting to dictate the rules by which Civ games should be made.

Why people are do determined to 'prove' my preferences incorrect I don't know. You think the US should be in the game? Guess what? Like I have already stated and then subsequently repeated, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. What's more, that's fine with me, if you think they should be I get that, I understand your POV and accept your reasoning, many people agree with that.

Well if by 'nobody' you mean, me - since I'm the only person being argued against in this thread - then yeah i'm not questioning the inclusion of those civs, because they are pre-modern and represent diverse cultures and periods of predmodern history.

I'd like to point out that although I did raise the point about the US being effectively represented, culturally, by the english and french etc., that being accepted or not, really had nothing to do with the reason for me not liking them being in the game. My reasoning for that was because of their recent, i.e. post-1945 ascendancy, nothing more. Not their short-lived ascendancy, not the fact they are actually just english, but because the 'American' century actually starts in 1945, and that is only 68 years ago.

So with that said, feel free to dissect the inclusion of other flavor civs to your hearts content, its of little relevance to my feelings about the inclusion of modern civs and civ leaders.

RE: Italy, when I play civ I roleplay the different civs to represent their root cultures, so by having Rome I feel like Italy is represented, and could view the later leaders and places as sort of magically evolving alongside a 4000 year old Roman empire with Nukes. Basically, the game is a little crazy.

-----

Israel? Yikes, that's another conversation entirely, though it will never happen in-game anyway.

Edited January 21, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[METALMAN]

If you say something and so someone disagrees with it, they will say so. That's how human interaction works. Nobody is making any personal remarks in here so you don't need to take anything personally. It's just a debate. :/

[snakesonaplane]

Seriously that's fine, I didn't expect people to agree with me - in fact I knew people would take issue with my opinion when I stated it. I'm not taking anything personal, promise! Carrying out conversations with multiple people is just exhausting though!

In conclusion, Civ needs to include every civilisation in game as a plug-in, also it is missing Neanderthals.

Edited January 21, 2014 by snakesonaplane

[Mick]

Was that necessary?

[TEOL]

So yeah, in my last game of Civ I was...

*sees discussion up to this point*

*slowly backs away*

[METALMAN]

Pfft. The only reason TEOL is here is because he's in hiding from Sear.

[Mick]

Another Civ idea: The Singularity.

Haven't heard of them? That's because they're from the future.

[Plubby]

If the contributions of the US driving the industrial era etc (one of the drivers anyway) are not significant enough to be a civ, then what has Japan (the comparative given) done aside from being old? Do you either need to have done something, or done nothing for an arbitrarily large amount of time? I think that who should and should not count as a civ is an interesting subject, but snakesonaplane your criteria strikes me as a little inconsistent...or perhaps unmeasurable.

[Mick]

That's also why I suggested Israel, due to the historical civilization and the modern state. Take your pick for a leader: King David, King Solomon or David Ben-Gurion.

However, to discount the Americans because they're simply not as old as the other civilizations is pure folly, especially considering the impact of the Monroe Doctrine and later the Truman Doctrine, and at no time prior to the Cold War was there a civilization that was capable of completely destroying civilization. When you combine that with the fact that in this day and age, the Americans have an economic system that the rest of the world depends on...you just can't exclude them. And by "Depend" I mean, if the US financial sector goes, so does the rest of the world's. Then there's the cultural impact (Hurray for Hollywood!), often imitated. I don't see the US as any more ridiculous than Brazil. And the fact that militarily, the US has redefined naval warfare, and is the owner of the largest navy the world has ever seen in any measurable sense. There is literally no argument you can make to strongly and realistically suggest that the US should not be included.

With Japan, following the end of the Samurai, just how much of their nation was influenced by Europe and later America? Same thing with China, although I view Chinese history as being much more worthy than Japan's (I am admittedly a Japanophile).

[Plubby]

That's also why I suggested Israel, due to the historical civilization and the modern state. Take your pick for a leader: King David, King Solomon or David Ben-Gurion.

However, to discount the Americans because they're simply not as old as the other civilizations is pure folly, especially considering the impact of the Monroe Doctrine and later the Truman Doctrine, and at no time prior to the Cold War was there a civilization that was capable of completely destroying civilization. When you combine that with the fact that in this day and age, the Americans have an economic system that the rest of the world depends on...you just can't exclude them. And by "Depend" I mean, if the US financial sector goes, so does the rest of the world's. Then there's the cultural impact (Hurray for Hollywood!), often imitated. I don't see the US as any more ridiculous than Brazil. And the fact that militarily, the US has redefined naval warfare, and is the owner of the largest navy the world has ever seen in any measurable sense. There is literally no argument you can make to strongly and realistically suggest that the US should not be included.

With Japan, following the end of the Samurai, just how much of their nation was influenced by Europe and later America? Same thing with China, although I view Chinese history as being much more worthy than Japan's (I am admittedly a Japanophile).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nlD2CR7tI

[Mick]

The Mongols would've killed themselves?

[gunnar hendershow]

My thing with Civs is they don't break it up well in a lot of cases. India being a prime example. India as we know it doesn't exist until 1947, though British imperialism helped solidify a national identity for the whole region. There are a number of different civilizations within India all with very distinct a long histories. To an extent China could be the same, though it has also been a continuous entity in some capacity for over 6000 years. They actually got it right with the Americas by including Aztecs, Shoshone, etc. and the civilizations that succeeded them geographically. That's not something I manage to see in the rest of the world.

Another point is Germany which, as a unified entity, didn't even exist until the late 19th century. Italy as well (which is the argument for them not existing and instead having city-states represent them). Though their geography is represented by Rome (and so is Spain's and France's and England's and Greece's and Egypt's and Morocco's if we're being nitpicky) It's an interesting discussion to have--what constitutes a civilization. Is it power, importance, history, legacy? Can multiple civilizations represent the same geographical area? Should Gandhi's India represent all of India? Should China just be represented by one dynasty? Should Egypt as well just be represented by one dynasty? I mean obviously they can't include everything, but it's a fun discussion to have as someone with a history degree.

[Plubby]

The Mongols would've killed themselves?

Humour me

[Mick]

I'd say one dynasty, tops. I would not be thrilled to be bordered by Mao and Cao Cao . Especially with Ancient Egypt; I doubt many people know the difference between the dynasties.

I'd say for a civilization, how much of an influence did they have on their neighbors or the rest of the world, for better or for worse before their general collapse by whatever means? For some, it's quite clear how to see it; China has never really gone away, in spite of the 20th century featuring a revolution, a world war and the resumption of a civil war, and there is no doubt that the People's Republic of China is, and has been, a player on the global stage.

India's had a few separate kingdoms before colonial and modern times, however it's easier to just blanket it together as one kingdom; would it make sense for, in addition to the current nation of China, to include the kingdoms of Wu, Shu Han and Wei? Of course not. In contrast, how many Native American tribes should be lumped in with the Americans? None, because the two are separate entities, and their civilizations were either absorbed or outright destroyed by the Americans.

[stokeriño]

Can we go back to talking about the actual game now?

[Mick]

As you wish.

Thing's I've come to realize in the last game I played (Venice, Cultural Win)

On Venice:

I hate Venice. Don't get me wrong, they're absolutely dynamite, but the problem is that by essentially being forced into playing an OCC, your priorities get made for you rather quickly. Go Tradition, then go for whichever tree best supports your goal of winning, and then you're just waiting for the Renaissance to hit to grab Rationalism, and then it's on to Ideology. While this is standard for any civ, with Venice you net much bigger profits, and as the cash comes in, you can ignore building outright and just focus exclusively on Wonders. The lack of settlers frees up early production as well, giving you an edge. The only real issue Venice faces is a scarcity on strategic resources, but that's offset either from buying alliances with city-states or outright buying the resources from the AI.

And another thing, I really feel that diplomatic and cultural victories are bullshit. All diplomatic is 1) Build Forbidden Palace 2) Buy-Up City-States and 3) Get your religion as World and preferred Ideology. Freedom's tenant "Treaty Organization" makes this almost trivial, giving you a +4 influence boost per turn with City-States you have a trade route with, and since Refridgeriation is discovered in the early Modern age (Giving you a sick range on your sea routes), and the World Leader vote isn't held until the Information Age, it builds such a lead that the AI can never hope to catch up, and if they do, it won't be for very long since you can just bribe the state again. And it's doubly worse with Venice, since they could possibly, on some maps, have enough trade routes to get every CS.

And Culture....well, all you really need to do is go tall and never open your damn borders. I was either 3rd or 4th through most of the game I did tonight, and yet I was winning the culture war hands down. My closest competitor was still at "Unknown" by the time I won,

In short, Venice is cruise control for winning. I enjoyed my games as Siam, Morocco and Korea a hell of a lot more than I do my Venice games, simply because I know it's a matter of time before I'm an economic powerhouse.

[Benji]

Another Civ idea: The Singularity.

Haven't heard of them? That's because they're from the future.

Psh, the Singularity was/will be/is way too small, the Multiplicity was/will be/is where it's at.

[MDK]

For those of you wanting to play Israel, there is a mod/scenario all about the whole Israel thing back in the day. Can't remember what its called but its pretty good.