Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[notyoueither]

I won't vote to eliminate any.

For those of you who want to know what the lasting impact of the Iroquois is. I give you the names of the twin pillars of Western Civilization. Ottawa and Toronto (also rumoured to be the centre of the universe).

BTW. I could argue that Rome lasted until 1920 (or maybe beyond) but that thread already went 7 or 8 pages and I was only half finished. You don't want that now do you?

[Grrr]

We don't ?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Trevman
The Iroquois and Zulus are not civilizations. They are only large tribes that just barely managed to get out of the stone age. They don't have cities, militaries, or the scientific, philosophical, and social advances that define a civilization. What have they done? Nothing. To compare them with the Romans or even the Aztecs is a joke.

* Sigh *

There we go again. Don't you people ever read some history before you post such silliness?

[Harovan]

No replacement and hence no vote. But I would glad to see more civs added. More African and Asian cultures for instance, and also Southern American. And the Aboriginals. Spain is the only European nation I would add, certainly not Austria or the Netherlands. Although I would also accept to replace all European nations (and England, France, Germany and Russia are nations) by appropriate civilizations, such as a mediterranean civ like Greeks/Romans (that's the same), Celts, Germanics and Slavs.

[Jethro83]

Since I wouldn't replace the existing ones, I'd ADD the following into the game:

1. Spanish
2. Vikings
3. Celts
4. Arabs
5. Phoenicians/Carthaginians
6. Hebrews
7. Ottomon Turks
8. Indonesians
9. Mongols
10. Incas
11. Nubians
12. Aborigines

And to say that the Zulu and Iroquois aren't civilizations and that they barely made it out of the stone age is a bit narrow-minded... no offense. Don't you people ever get your facts straight before forming these opinions?

[siredgar]

May I ask what exactly the Indonesians and the Aborigines accomplished (besides being good "space fillers") that they deserve to be ahead of the Dutch, Portuguese, and Koreans. Even the Hebrews and Nubians seem questionable choices compared to these three civs that I have just listed. Thanks.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by siredgar
May I ask what exactly the Indonesians and the Aborigines accomplished (besides being good "space fillers") that they deserve to be ahead of the Dutch, Portuguese, and Koreans. Even the Hebrews and Nubians seem questionable choices compared to these three civs that I have just listed. Thanks.

Whoa there. You want to see the Dutch, Portugese and Koreans in there. And that's Fine. But my belief differs. Please just live with it.

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 like the Spanish would be one of the four that Firaxis would add).

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.

As for the Indonesians, there is a lot more history with them than you think. Much culture there that may have been lost when Islam swept through. Indonesian culture seems somewhat underrated. I've read things about it that only glances the surface and it is quite interesting.

The Hebrews created a religion that has influenced western society, and middle-eastern society as we know it. Would Judism exist without them? Would Islam have come to exist and revive ancient Greek lore during the middle ages without this Hebrew religion? Were it not for this, much ancient lore would be lost to us forever.

And as for the Nubians, they were quite a strong contender for lands in northern Africa who even clashed with the Egyptians for supremacy in that part of the world. Before the Egyptians defeated them, they held the richest gold fields in the ancient world.

As for the ones I didn't say...

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.

Koreans... I haven't read into their history, so I couldn't use them in making a sound judgement of who I'd add.


I listed the ones that I find interesting. This is because I hold the fervent hope that Firaxis will let the choice of civs fall upon us, the gaming public. And if they let us create civs without having to hack civ3mod.bic with Civ3Multitool, then those are who I would add to my games.

Though I enjoy discussing history about a civilization, it shouldn't become "This civ should be here instead of that one." Its a worn out old argument that shouldn't be continued.

[notyoueither]

Eskimos should be there instead of Aborigines.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Eskimos should be there instead of Aborigines.

Oh yeah? And why's that?

[notyoueither]

Ice sculpture.

[Grrr]

Because Eskimos are worthy of mentioning. Aborigenes aren't.

[Jethro83]

Heh! Are you guys trying to test the extent of my patience? Well, I've got news... It will take a hell of a lot to kill off my patience.

BTW, how long have the eskimos existed?

[Ribannah]

Eskimo culture seems to be about 4,000 years old.
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/palaeo.html

With 12 extra slots I'd probably go for something like:

1. Anasazi (/Pueblo)
2. Arabia
3. Australia
4. Brazil
5. Dutch
6. Ethiopia
7. Mali
8. Maya
9. Mongolia
10. Polynesia (capital: Jakarta)
11. Tiahuanaco (/Inca)
12. Vikings

It's a tough choice. Eg Spain and Korea are also decent candidates.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
BTW, how long have the eskimos existed?

3000 years or so is guess I saw.

Australian Aborigines, assuming the oldest known find in Australia is ancestral goes back at least 62,000 years. Hows that for an old civ? However while the culture is definitly many tens of thousands years old they were never civilized. No cities, not ever.

[dunk]

Yay, the thread has become cool now. No more, "These jerks don't belong" crap. Well, for the most part its gone. And people are saying interesting things about people I've never learned diddly-poo about.

I would bet that the ability to add civs into the game won't be released with a patch. That's a XP feature if I ever saw one. I hope I'm wrong. I beleive SMAC did not have the ability to create civs, but SMAX did. Right?

I also wish that there was room for hundreds of civs. More civ-specific abilities too.

[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?