The Perfect Civ List

[Cyclotron]

The Inca civ is needed for geographical reasons; it bothers me that there is no south American civ. How important they are historically matters less than geographical concerns... since this is, after all, a game.

[Quintrala]

Originally posted by XarXo
Don't worry, your chilean civ sure will appear the day that a Civilization game has 100 or more countries.

get a life... besides there are modpacks so we can get "our chilean civ" now, don't worry about it.

Again i'm with U Chilean Presi and with you cyclotron7. The Incas should be an official civ in the game, and the Mayas too.
From Africa, actually I don't know too much. (I have serious lack of knowledge from that continent! ) . But I hope that Civ4 could have lots of civs from all over the world and a good editor to build some new civs if the game don't have them officialy.

[Underseer]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
The Inca civ is needed for geographical reasons; it bothers me that there is no south American civ. How important they are historically matters less than geographical concerns... since this is, after all, a game.

I agree completely. More and more we're finding that South America produced advanced civilizations earlier than anyone thought. That's surprising when you consider that South America was the last continent to be colonized by humans.

Of the ancient South American civilizations, the Inca are clearly at the top of the list. Experts are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how they built such large, sturdy structures with mortarless masonry, and the Inca had incredible organizational skills.

Like you said, South America should have at least one civ on the list for geographical reasons. "Significance" be damned.

Oh, and XarXo? While I agree that ancient civs should be included before modern ones (e.g. Inca before Chileans), before you get too puffed up over yourself, remember this: at least the South Americans developed civilization on their own. Europeans didn't "get" civilization until it was forced on them by conquering Mediterranean empires.

[Cyclotron]

I don't know about the Mayas. It's arguable that they were as important as the Aztecs or Incas, but I doubt that fitting two civs in central America would be a good idea.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I don't know about the Mayas. It's arguable that they were as important as the Aztecs or Incas, but I doubt that fitting two civs in central America would be a good idea.

The Mayans were the most advanced civilization in the entire Western Hemisphere, much more so than the Aztecs and the Incas. The Mayan calendar, invented hundreds of years ago is actually more accurate than the calendar we use today.

The only good case I see for not having the Mayans is that the Aztecs are already in the game. Fine. But leaving out a Southamerican civ whether it be indian or modern should be rectified in the next installment.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Grandioso

Anyway is nicer to have a future to write in history than look back to see the former glory.

couldn't be more in agreement.

WE ARE NOT INDIANS!!! THE AZTEC, INCA, ETC EMPIRES DIED OUT CENTURIES AGO. We are pround of our indian heritage but Latinamericans, as a civilization are the mixture of spanish and indian cultures. It therefore constitutes an entirely new culture which has nothing to do with either.

[pedrojedi]

The Inca civ is needed for geographical reasons; it bothers me that there is no south American civ. How important they are historically matters less than geographical concerns... since this is, after all, a game.

And this is the chief argument why I agree with the existence of a South American Civ. It is a GAME, for crying out loud. That's why we can Edit our own civ.

If I decide that Brasil should be a civ, so I do it the way I want. If Chilean President decides to put Chile in the game, it's his call. So Manya, and so South killer with their respective countries (Uruguay, Argentina).

Historical significance should NOT be a barrier for us putting a culture or another. I never heard about the Iriquois, and AFAIK, they did not change the destiny of the Americas. They had their rites (great!), they had their knowledges (great!), but they did not leave a mark on world history - just go out in the streets and ask about them to regular people. Only USA people and guys who like pre-colombian history shall know about them.

The same argument goes for Africa. People know about Egipt. People may know about Zulu. And that's it. Even if you come saying about "a rich and florescent tribe that prospered about 4.000 years ago" no one shall know it. That is the hallmark of world impact.

Any civilization that leaves its mark in the world appears in some of the smallest or most simple way. Take the signs of the zodiac, our numbering system, our alphabet, gunpowder, or, for the lovers of south america, the concept of zero for mathematics.

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish here, XarXo, but surely it seems to be some kind of trauma that you had while staying around.

[XarXo]

Trauma?

I just think that there are lots of interesting civs out of Europe that should have a place in a Civ game before Chile or a latinoamerican civ.

Civ is a game of 6000 years, is quite pathetic look B. Franklin with furs at 4000 BC just because Firaxis doesn't implemented a system of independence movements.

Chile, Paraguay and these countries have some history to offer, but countries like Kazakhstan, Tibet, Afghanistan, Mali, Nubia or similar have a more interesting position in my point of view.

Chile seems to me like Papua New Guinea with a good economic/social development level.

This is the reason why I think that the civ list is simply incorrect.

NOTE: If I edited some posts isjust because I don't want to be rude. I know that usually I'm quite annoying (not always, this is what I believe ).

[Chilean President™]

Originally posted by XarXo
Chile seems to me like Papua New Guinea with a good economic/social development level.

anyway if Papua New Guinea have the development, economic strenght and political freedoms that Chile have, let me tell you, PNG should be on a Civ game

Nations or empires with a world historical background should be on a civ game. But, history is important for the people who live in those countries. Tibet is not quite important for me, besides they do have great cultural achievements, as for you, Chile (without considering the araucanos culture, the former Easter Island Kingdom, plus the rich history of Chile post independence) and other american countries are not important.

I'm with Quintrala and Pedrojedi. We have an editor to create our own civs, so that's no problem.
But I do understand that some countries are important for some people and others are less important, but that doesn't mean that this last ones do not have a valuable history background, cultural achievements or a good social an economical developement.

Cyclotron: You're right! It would be hard to have 2 civs in central america. Anyway the Mayas are kind of mysterous and we do not know too much of them. Maybe they even help to build some part of the Aztecs Empire.

But I repeat, (the same thing that Pedrojedi has said) Historical significance should NOT be a barrier for us putting a civ, just because "historical significance" is a really subjectif matter as I point before.

[Odin]

Here is my civ list for civ4:


Ancient Middle East

Babylonians/Sumerians
Egyptians
Phonecians
Persia


Classical Mediterranian

Greece
Rome


Europe

Scandinavians
Great Britain
France
Germany
Russia
Celts
Poland


Asia

Arabia
Turks
India
China
Mongols
Khermers


Africa

Mali
Ethiopia


Americas

Native Americans
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
US
Argentina

[Dr. Nick]

Or maybe its better to say, the countries of south america dont seem more distinct from one another, than the states of the US seem distinct from one another; and then the US from britain.

This is rich

Ehem , no one CULTURE produced AFTER Industrial Revolution could be assigned to ANY country, so speak about architects, nobel prizes and other is quite useless except in the case that a very specialized branch of a global movement develop a knowledge that originates a wonder, this is: Tour Eiffel, for example.

This is the most ignorant thing I've heard in years. Argentine culture was created as from 1880s because of the 'aluvion inmigratorio' when the mass immigration began after the conquest of the 'desierto'. Jesus christ, if you're going to post opinions make sure they aren't total BS first.

Of the ancient South American civilizations, the Inca are clearly at the top of the list. Experts are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how they built such large, sturdy structures with mortarless masonry, and the Inca had incredible organizational skills.

No, you're talking about the Nazca and Aymara.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Odin
Here is my civ list for civ4:
Africa

Mali
Ethiopia

No Zulu?

Americas

Native Americans
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
US
Argentina

Like I said, IMO the Mayas and Aztecs, while being worthy civs, would be too cramped together to be viable on a typical world map. Additionally, if I had to choose between Argentina and Brazil for a "modern" S. American nation, I would choose Brazil.

This is out of character for a Yank like me to say, but doesn't anybody else think we need the Canadians in to fill that big, lonely space up north?

[Chilean President™]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
This is out of character for a Yank like me to say, but doesn't anybody else think we need the Canadians in to fill that big, lonely space up north?

I do.. I think that another "big" civ should be in North America besides the US and the Aztecs (that are nearest central america and they tend to expand to south america) as a response to the USA, and to do more difficult and competitive the expansion for you guys

[Master Zen]

The Eskimos!!!

Anyway, I still think that there should be a Latinamerican civ, leader Bolivar, UU an improved guerrilla, perhaps Religious/Commercial or Industrious, which would represent all our countries in modernity.

I would actually prefer to play as this civ than the Aztecs!

Oh and before I forget,

XarXo:

the next time you compare countries like Chile and Papua New Guinea, I would advise you to read stuff like the U.N. Development Project or at least the CIA Factbook so you can actually acertain what level of prosperity and development they are in.

[Yanghead]

The perfect civ list:

1. Generic Industrius Civ w/ Infantry UU
2. Generic Industrius Civ w/ Cavalry UU
3. Generic Industrius Civ w/ Modern UU
4. Generic Commercial Civ w/ Infantry UU
5. Generic Commercial Civ w/ Cavalry UU
6. Gener....


End of Argument.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Odin
Here is my civ list for civ4:


Ancient Middle East

Babylonians/Sumerians
Egyptians
Phonecians
Persia


Classical Mediterranian

Greece
Rome


Europe

Scandinavians
Great Britain
France
Germany
Russia
Celts
Poland


Asia

Arabia
Turks
India
China
Mongols
Khermers


Africa

Mali
Ethiopia


Americas

Native Americans
Aztecs
Mayas
Incas
US
Argentina

Looks nice but, what about Egypt, and Canada?

[XarXo]

About the list: Except for "Native Americans" Argentinians (Eva Perón with a furry bikini? ) and US. What about "Northern Native Americans" and "Southern Native Americans" (with this araucarians are in!!) ?

Europe list is perfect, but I believe that you should replace Poland (or Lithuania), and "Great Britain" (???) for a more unified/ancient name.

Africa should have Ghana and Zimbabwe too, I believe.

Asia NEED Japan.

About Chilean President post:

Rapa-Nui Culture, Arawkan Culture, Ar'puch Culture or whatever doesn't have any today-every-day place in chilean culture. Chile is just another ex-colonial spanish-speaking country. Claim these cultures like yours sound like FYROM saying that they are the true Macedonians just because they control a piece of it (or have common last names). You probably have their blood, but the true thing must be in your brain and politic power.

If your country is what you see with some cute native words, great! Don't worry! In some time SURE that it will produce something really new, but these millenial cultures are or near to be destroyed, so don't argue this.

Look Paraguay, they transformed the Guaraní culture (a always not-really important culture in the border of Southern Amazon Jungle and inner small tribes) in a growing one. In some decades it will produce the first developed products like books, tvs, etc...

For claim a culture, you must develop and use it, not just support. I support the Guaraní use but I'm not in the Guaraní culture.

About including chileans in the list, check the list posted before this. I think that with my inclusions is by far accurate.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Master Zen
the next time you compare countries like Chile and Papua New Guinea, I would advise you to read stuff like the U.N. Development Project or at least the CIA Factbook so you can actually acertain what level of prosperity and development they are in.

I said: "with a good economic/social level".

Chile is not poor (at all, as I know), but this doesn't make it a civ (curiously, Papuas, without the "New Guinea", are one, jointly with Indonesia's Irian Jaia. A small and historically nullness one, of course!).

At the end, as a lot of people said before me: Is just a game.

I believe that you should spend this worry and time for the status of chilean "great and valuous" native culture than a stupid list of civs in a not-really entertaining game, IMHO.

[Master Zen]

XarXo:

"With a good economic/social level" can mean anything from Costa Rica to Japan so please be more specific when comparing countries which DO NOT have the same level of development.

And by the way, I noticed in your profile that you are 13 years old, you said you visited certain LA countries 5, 3 and 2 years ago, which would have made you 8, 10, and 11 years old at the time. Do you honestly think that 8 years old is enough to properly analize the history, economy and society of a country?

Trust me, when you get a little older, the bits and pieces will fall into place.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by rmds


A US author named Paul Theroux wrote a book a number of years back, called The Old Patagonian Express, about his attempt to take a railway journey from Boston's South Station to the farthest possible spot in Argentina's province of Patagonia.

Other than the (then and maybe still) contentious border between Colombia and Panama he was successful.

His return journey he wanted to do on the ocean, by steamer. He asked someone if a particular ship stopped at American ports. Told 'yes' he booked passage only to find that the ship did not go north of Brasil.

He realized then, he wrote, that citizens of the USA do NOT have a lock on the name 'American.' All those ports were American, but not USA.

That book opened my eyes, too. I call myself an American around my US friends, but to people from other nations I describe myself either as "from Indiana", or "a citizen of the US."

Both unwieldy terms.

But we're stuck with such forms. A union of fifty states that still maintain a fair amount of self-government, we've never had a chance or inkling to choose a national name. other than arrogantly appropriating the term 'American.'

I vote for 'Unitedstatittes.' Reminds me of the Hittites.

To keep a tiny bit on subject--maybe Firaxis should have added Arrogance as a civ trait. Then 'America' could be expansionist and arrogant (and commercial and militaristic and scientific and artistic and greedy and . . . and--OMG!--Left Out of the Game! I guess it was a marketing decision: how Unitedstatittian).

THAT'S IT! HITTITES!!

I'll take out the United States and put in Hittites! Cool, thanks!

[Chilean President™]

Originally posted by XarXo
About Chilean President post:
Rapa-Nui Culture, Arawkan Culture, Ar'puch Culture or whatever doesn't have any today-every-day place in chilean culture. Chile is just another ex-colonial spanish-speaking country. Claim these cultures like yours sound like FYROM saying that they are the true Macedonians just because they control a piece of it (or have common last names). You probably have their blood, but the true thing must be in your brain and politic power.
If your country is what you see with some cute native words, great! Don't worry! In some time SURE that it will produce something really new, but these millenial cultures are or near to be destroyed, so don't argue this.

About including chileans in the list, check the list posted before this. I think that with my inclusions is by far accurate.

Look XarXo, I don't want to tell you again that you're wrong because, the entire forum can see it. But I advice you that if you really don't know what you're talking about you must remain in silence.
You're right, lots of millenial native culture from Chile were lost due to spanish massacres and, of course, former chilean goverments that didn't care about them... even the araucanos were attacked by the chilean army in the 1880's. In the 1990's two native cultures were lost, and at this moment, from the yamana tribe remains only and old lady.
Besides all those problems, the goverments, since the mid XX century, create new policies for the support and help of the Pueblos Originarios. Of course the native cultures that were saved aren't that much of what the goverment did want to, but still the aymara, araucanos/mapuches, onas, huilliches and principaly the rapanui, received great help and support to keep they heritage alive. Easter Island is the prove of that, a huge natural musseum where chilean-rapanui mix create a new ethnic group.
But sure, the main language in Chile is the spanish, but that doesn't meen that we do not know other languages form the natives. Of course I can speak english and french, but in schools also we learn Mapudungun (from the araucanos) or the Pascuense (from the Rapa Nuis).. "Cüpa monguen quiñe huall tue que mapu meu cüme felen meu ca quellual", or "Te pito o'te henua, inti corua"... well probably I dont speak with a wonderful accent as the natives but I do know their language as the majority of the chilean people do.
Of course we do not have interest in rebuilding the Araucanos tribes or the Rapa Nui Kingdom.. or other native tribes or nations, because.. pff dont you get it? is the past! we are chileans and that's it. Our nation is build by europeans inmigrants who were mixed by natives and other europeans descendent, like the US. I don't see the US trying to rebuild the Iroquois or the Sioux nations, right? As the US, Chile do have natural sanctuaries for the native cultures, but that's it. Why is so hard for you to understand it? Also I don't see Britain trying to rebuild the celt, sajonian or even roman cultures that they have on their past. Every nation evolves and the culture evolve with them. If our official language is not the mapudungun that does not meen that we do not apreciate the araucanos heritage or that we don't know about them.

And sure, they are lots of civs that should be included in a civ game before Chile, no doubt about that. Acctualy I never said in this thread that Chile should be included before the Incas or the MAyans.. c'mon! I was only answering your post, as Master Zen did, Quintrala, Pedrojedi, El-Awrence, South Killer and others, were you said that in this side of the world, culture and historical important issues didn't exist, and thats so ignorant to say that I can't believe some one really think like that... we are in XXI century!! it seems like a joke.

Anyway, as Master Zen said, you're just a kid, and clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe in 5 or 6 years we could talk of this issues, but at this point is better that you do your history homework.

[Quintrala]

Originally posted by Master Zen
XarXo:

"With a good economic/social level" can mean anything from Costa Rica to Japan so please be more specific when comparing countries which DO NOT have the same level of development.

And by the way, I noticed in your profile that you are 13 years old, you said you visited certain LA countries 5, 3 and 2 years ago, which would have made you 8, 10, and 11 years old at the time. Do you honestly think that 8 years old is enough to properly analize the history, economy and society of a country?

Trust me, when you get a little older, the bits and pieces will fall into place.

Well you're a kid, I didn't realize that. Then you're forgiven. Oh and XarXo ün ayekantufe afkentu dofke chillkatufe af yafkan but still I prefer other languages

[pedrojedi]

Every nation evolves and the culture evolve with them.

MOST important detail the we missed, as well as our rather young european friend.

Cultures evolve. Cultures change. And this is such a fast, DINAMIC feature of human nature that it can make two different populations which live pretty close to each other choose different paths and eventually grow completelly different. Such examples can be found all over Brasil, where different tribes had radically different customs.

So, saying that this or that culture should be maintained for the ages is like saying we should have always eat the same food. The EXACT same food. Always. NO VARIATION. Eventually, we won't stand it anymore. And so it goes for all cultures of the world, not because they get pissed off about being the same all the time, but because people interacting with people from and of all over the world subjects each other to new and good/bad customs. If we like it, we "absorb" it.

A simple example: Portuguese. Portuguese is a big giant salad of languages gatthered together, mixed up and spoken by our nation and others. You can find Latin in its foundations, but there's a surprising number of words that are derived from various other languages.

The case is much worse if we talk about Brasilian Portuguese, Timor-Leste Portuguese, Moçambique Portuguese, Portuguese Portuguese!

There are words from arabian, english, french, german, guarani, spanish, russian, italian, african languages... Where I live in Brasil, there's even further differentiation, making some words we say completelly strange to other regions FROM BRASIL. That's not bad. That's good. That's the way it is, our evolving culture with every turn of the world. Each day, each one of us from all over the world gets richer in cultural development.

Our only restrains are the ones we set up ourselves, in not accepting our diferences, saying that someone or some countries do not have value just because they are not the way we think is "right".

Not accepting that sometimes cultures do not disappear because of extermination, but rather incorporate in another one because of natural assimilation is just stupid. As stupid as not seeing that the rather "bigger" culture ALSO absorved some traits of the "minor" one, and the two mixed up forming a third, RICHER culture.

That's what, in the end, ALL cultures throughout the world are: a mix up of different people from different places, all evolving and getting richer and (supposedly) WISER.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by 123john321
Looks nice but, what about Egypt, and Canada?

He has Egypt, he just put it under "middle east" and not Africa.

[XarXo]

I'm 29, I'm married and I'm school history teacher.

What about accepting this? : Your civs shouldn't be in a game that starts at 4000 BC.

[Grandioso]

well that's more terrible!! 29 and history teacher? Where did you get your degree!

[Grandioso]

Originally posted by XarXo
I'm 29, I'm married and I'm school history teacher.

Enough?

What about accepting this? : Your civs shouldn't be in a game that starts at 4000 BC.

yeah so what?.. then we should erase America, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, etc, etc, etc.. because, those civs did not exist in the game in 4000 bc. Sure, Galos, german tribes, anglos, celts, etc did exist but the cis as the ones who appear on the game didn't.

Maybe we should all play with Egyptians, Persians ...............

Of course, in the XXI we couldn't play with some of those civs so... Oh My God! how long should be the game?

common! who cares when the game really start and the civs that are included. If you're an history teacher you should know that a game could not be taked so seriously for historical accurasy.

[XarXo]

No, I don't tkae it, I just say that put Chile or a latinamerican civ in this game is simply pathetic. These countries never apported something to the world, they aren't different between them and have the typical independence history with some heroes and inner battles.

If you create the game "Latinization III" ok, they MUST be there, but in 6000 years of history take a country like "Chile" as an option for me is simply an insult to a lot countries that stayed before them, existed more time, had a larger territory and apported a lot of culture or just stayed as an important force.

USA can stay in Civ because is THE world leader in the last 80 years (I preffer Incas, but is OK). But Chile... What apported Chile to the world? Great spanish writters? For this they included Spain and this culture is supported.

As I said (3 times?), when Chile survived 400 years more, SURE that will be in a civ game, near to countries like Poland or similar, these countries are the middle-size ones that made a great local history (not global) but certainly could be in a game... At the end... IS A GAME!!

At 2403 the amount of states will be so small (Euroasiatic Union, African Union, Northamerica Union, china and the others) that with 8 or 9 options surely will be enough

Be patient!

EDIT: Degree in Universitat de Barcelona, Europe.

[Grandioso]

Originally posted by XarXo
No, I don't tkae it, I just say that put Chile or a latinamerican civ in this game is simply pathetic. These countries never apported something to the world

When I believe that you've said something really stupid you overcome you're self... that's commendable, bravo!
I really can't answer your comment beacuse.. is so.. sooooo... soooooooo... incredile poor of knowledge that I'm stun!

Originally posted by XarXo
they aren't different between them and have the typical independence history with some heroes and inner battles.

you see? full lack of knowledge.. is even funny

Originally posted by XarXo If you create the game "Latinization III" ok, they MUST be there, but in 6000 years of history take a country like "Chile" as an option for me is simply an insult to a lot countries that stayed before them, existed more time, had a larger territory and apported a lot of culture or just stayed as an important force.

USA can stay in Civ because is the world leader in the last 80 years

Kind of contradictory, right? Sure you say that the US is world leader in the last 80 years.. actually they are world leader for more than 100 years, you better check that... Anyway, 80 years against 6000 years? common! I believe that the USA should be included in the game, but you say that only countries with millenial culture and history should be included... ehh.. but the US just have "80 year" and you said that they do belong .. ehh.. sorry I'm confuse..
And what's that about of "larger territory"? Oh, too bad for Greece then we must take it out of the game!

Originally posted by XarXo But Chile... What apported Chile to the world? Great spanish writters? For this they included Spain and this culture is supported.

No we have apported great CHILEANS writters that they do write in spanish.. so what? because Spain semi create the language Chile can't use it?
Then the great US writers shouldn't be consider as that because they write in english and .. oh my God, England is on the game!!! you are really funny man.. Im starting to like you...

Originally posted by XarXo At the end... IS A GAME!!

Exactly.. finally you share an intelligent thought with the forum. It is a GAME.. that's why your "super global historical importance" theory doesn't work. Too bad, right?

Originally posted by XarXo Degree in Universitat de Barcelona, Europe.

Really? And I thought that the University of Barcelona was a good one.

[Master Zen]

Ok, so you changed your profile now, come on, are you reeeeeally 29? Why did you put you were only 13 years old? Your arguments seem more like those of a bratty kid than a respectable history teacher.

There's nothing wrong with being 13 if that's your real age, we are not insulting you about that, after all, we ALL were 13 at one time and probably none of us really cared much about truly understanding other countries' culture/society/economics, etc. At 13 all I cared about was playing soccer and Super Nintendo.

Anyway, you have really not proven your point on why certain countries don't deserve to be in Civ, it just shows lack of knowledge and respect for other countries, and I doubt that a history teacher, especially coming from such a respectable university would have that attitude.