I don't live in Canada but why not add Canada no harm in doing so.
Why only 18 empires? Isn't content easily addable/editable?
Game concepts are way more difficult to change, but content should be without limit
I'm sure Canada is a great country, but in an unbiased view, can you consider it one of the most powerful/influential nations in the world (In its history)?
Cannot remove America, as it's arguably the most powerful nation in the world (The economic and cultural aspects are just too great to be removed). Not Britain, as it was once considered the most powerful nation in the world and its impacts can be felt even today from former colonies, etc. Removing Rome or Greece would be foolish, as their accomplishments are undeniable. I just cannot think of a civilization to remove to add Canada.
What do you think mods are for anyway? If you want Canada, just add it to the game.
But, I'm sure there might be more than just 18 civs, so maybe they will add Canada, or through an expansion pack.
wow, just wow, the ignorance against Canada here is insulting as hell, I've stated my opinions, I'm no longer contributing to this thread, I just think that maybe you idiots need to do some research before you make oddball claims like Canada being "4th" largest country and Canada being culturally the same as America.
FYI, I would rather DIE, than become American!
Nothing wrong with loving your country, but I'm finding it hard to figure out the need for Canada in the original game. Obviously in the addition of an expansion pack or a mod pack.
Originally Posted by paradigmx
The point of the matter is, if there is indeed only 18 civilizations in the vanilla Civ5, what civ would be removed for Canada? This isn't an America vs. Canada argument.
there are some civs in this game which are states rather than a race.
there were many civs in civ4 which was of the same root.
like germans and Holy roman empire. even english, vikings and germans are cousins if you talk about race.
but they were seperate civs, right? because they are different civs but not of different roots.
the terminology civilization is sth different. america was a multi-nation civilization and became one nation.
so similar to america, canada, argentina, brazil etc. could also be civilizations.
however they wouldn't like to have so many civs. the number is only 18 now. so i doubt they will pick canada as 1 of them.
the game designers do it right and they generally pick historical civilizaitons.
america was exceptional and is most probably added as a civ because of its effect on 20th century wars and because it is a global power.
and because many gamers of civ live in USA.
americ is exceptional and i would like older civs to take place in 18 because they had more effect on the world's destiny.
Jesus Christ, you're the most arrogant person I've ever seen, take your arrogance out of this forum immediately, this isn't an America vs Canada debate.
Originally Posted by paradigmx
What would the UU and UB of Canada be?
Originally Posted by paradigmx
I mean, really... What have they got?
I think the Next Civilization should be in civ 5 (or most suitble for)
1) Egypt (Ramses, Cleopatra)
2) Shumer (Gilgamesh)
4) Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar)
5) Israel (Solomon, David)
6) Russia (Peter, Catherine, Ivan, Stalin)
7) Arab (Saladin)
8) Persia (Cyrus)
9) England/Britain (Elizabeth, Victoria, Churchil)
10) Greek/Hellenistic (Alexander)
11) Rome (Julius Cesar, Augustus)
14) German (Bismark, Frederick)
15) France (Napoleon, Louis XIV)
16) Spain (Isabella)
Last edited by Dostayer; 02-19-2010 at 02:29 AM.
It would be great to see:
Sumerians (history begins there)
Hittites (the greatest opponent of Egyptians, but it took place in only C3C! How fair!)
Assyrians (Yes, where are they???)
Also, it would be great to see Turks and their leader Ataturk. If there is Churchil for English civilization, we must choose Ataturk too, Ottomans is not enough.
Are you seriously implying that the size of a country is what makes a nation great? Most of Canada, Russia, China, and lots of the US territory is nothing but wilderness in the first place. And I hope what you say is true, cause I would like you to stop trashing this thread with your ridiculous speech, and I think I speak for most Americans when I say we don't give a sh-t if someone as arrogant as you hates America.
Originally Posted by paradigmx
Careful or he'll send his polar bear riders after you!
Originally Posted by Waphlez
I believe instead of civilizations, empires must be focused on.
Huns and Ottomans are Turks with completely different culture.
Empires like Egyptians, Greeks, Romans would be entered the game but how about the empires that had never been on a civilization game.
1) Hebrews: They had a lot of footprints at world history i always wondered why they are not presented in Civilization or games like Total War : Rome, Age of Empires I.
2)Huns: They did had a short time on the stage but their show was unforgettable and adding Atilla as ultimate aggressive leader would add game some fun.
3)Moors: They completely be deserved to be in a game that includes Ethiopians.
4)Hungaria and Poland: They had big history more than Dutch i believe.
5)Goths and Vandals: Arent they cute .
6)Schytians, Roxolani, Sarmatians: Well, they completely be deserved to be in a game that includes Ethiopians.
aaand i hope shamanism would be added in the game .
Signed. There should be Turks and their leader Ataturk. Ottomans are just a part of Turks' history. It's not enough.
Originally Posted by f451
That list is great, though I would rather have the Turks instead of Babylonians.
Originally Posted by ancestral
I feel they should make more civs on release.
Last edited by Weaver; 02-19-2010 at 04:29 AM.
god damn I can't wait, lets have a good spread !
That Canada at heart is two countries is reasonably accurate. Indeed, Québec Federalist leaders will identify themselves as good Québécois but also proud to be Canadian. Perhaps some of the tension in Canadian discourse comes from this uncertainty.
Originally Posted by JefA
The discussion over Canada is not useless, however, since it brings to light the difference between countries and civilizations, and cultures. Perhaps the Civ V could be an opportunity to change the starting premises. The beginning civilizations could be the ancient cultures: Asiatic or Mongoloid, Indo-European, African, Amerind, perhaps older civilizations like the Etruscans (or rather their mother civilization), and the ancient civilization of the Indus Valley. As the game progresses, and inventions develop, it would be possible for subdivisions to appear, so that Indo-European (for example) could split into Celtic, Germanic, Greek. The player could have a choice, and there would be advantages to either choice. Dividing could work like in blackjack, so that the player could run two civilizations and improve his chances of making discoveries. Not dividing could improve the number of cities possible, or facilitate the management of ressources; this choice would be more or less the history of China, or of the great hydraulic civilizations.
Ultimately, a player could become one of the modern countries, France or the United States, and the nature of these countries could be a variety of winning conditions. This approach would both move the game play into historical parameters and increase the scope for creativity
Ok I hope you have an open mind, because if you don't I'll just get this respone;
Originally Posted by Klopfer
YOU SICK! U HATE JEWS! U EVIL! etc...
Civ is based on histroy, it needs to include the good and the evil to acuratley reflect how civilizations have been formed. Besides which, their are many equally 'evil' acts conducted under Islam and Capatlism if we are going to go down this road. Besides which, you cannot call anyone evil, we have to understand the pathology of a person, evil is a fictious term best used to define things of a supernatural origon like god/ devil.
Additionally, this game is intended to allow you to carve your view and your will into your empire. If I want to kill all the Seikh's and make the world Jewish, then I should be able to (as it is I don't, I'm agnostic). It's a sim, not my political manifesto. Hitler brought about much good to Germany, and equally much bad. I'll go into this in more detail if we really want to change topic. Besides which, Hitler and his cohorts brought about one of the most powerful empires and millitary mights ever seen, if it weren't for a lot of luck and balls of the Allied forces, they would have dominion. Now I don't know bout u, but when I play Civ I go for domination.
I'd like to see a lot more poltical/ religous ideology in the game, but I'm pretty confident Sid and 2k will not have the gonads to do it.
I personally hope that there are as many nations as possible. If It's already confirmed to be 18 that I hope that there are not like Aztecs and Incas since they are so similar and that they choose a more unknown nation, such as the Serbs.
Sorry Canadian mates but I hope u guys knows that USA is the only new "civilization" chosen because it's the last hegemonic country of our history. Canada is a great country for sure, but have nothing so great to promote it to one of the 18 principals civs of world history.
Some of our canadians friends have said a few posts before that don't see any sence on the Portuguese empire in the first expansion of civ IV, saying that they could have chosen Canada. Well, i can say to him to study a little less of his own country history and try to study more world's history, or read the civ description at civipedia to know better the reasons.
At the least for 6 centuries we had around 8 great "western" nations, that have had hegemonic superiority over some period (starting at the XIV century
and ending at the XX century) like italians, portuguese, spanish, dutchs, french, english, german and US americans. I guess, because of the low number of game civs they use the cultural proximities to exclude the portuguese and dutchs as the italians they normally do because of the existance of the roman empire. So the Portuguese are excluded because of the proximity with the Spanish and the dutch with the british (maybe?) States that don't even speaks the same language and have long historical developments, culture and politics, yet supressed even with historical importance .
The point is, the game -I belive- use as criteria of the basics civs to play it's influence over the human history, if some "civ" have had being hegemonic at some point of history it's chosen.
Canada is a great nation, but till now don't play an hegemonic part at human history -sorry, canadian's mates, u couldn't deny that. So if they have to put canadians as a civ, they must put another moderns states that have some importance at global scenario, like Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Corea, Chile, Mexico, South Africa, New Zealand and some bunch of other nations from Europe. The thing is, this game have some concern about the places where those nations are, so if they do that inclusion I belive they will first take the modern nations on places that the basic civs weren't placed yet, like South Africa, Brazil and Australia we have here 3 "civs" in 3 continents that in most of the others civs don't have much civs on (most of the time we have only on or none civ's representing those areas. In north america we already have the native americas (they always appears at least on the first expansion, and the US americans, we have the central american natives that lived till noth of the mexican regions like the aztecs too. Yet we don't have big civs at Oceania and South America continents for instance...)
Finally, i would love to have my country represented at civ, but we have to have humility to know that ours country don't fit some criteria for this game that have to elect 18 civ from all over the world in all over the human history. Maybe an expansion with modern civilizations would be a great idea.
A thing that I realized since long time ago is that both Canadian and US americans don't study much world history as they should and focus a lot on his own country, It's good for guys to know lots of its own history, but it is bad because you tend to distort the global events by your own point of view, wich couldnt be the most complex in most of the time. Studing the other countries history is a better way to understand our history, you know...
I didn't mean to offend anyone and I know that we have lot's of Canadians and U.S. Americans that knows a lot of history, unfortunaly some have some blind patriotic history that made some ppl think that their country made and discovered everything alone or without an world global juncture analisys of science development etc
Another thing, U candians says that u are not like US Americas, agreed, but do u know that it happens in the rest of the world? Every contry have it's peculairities that makes it diferent from the others.
Well, if u say that a person from Argentina is the same as person from Mexico or Chile this person will be offended and say lots of things that makes it's country culture diferent from the other 2 and so on.
I'm from Brazil and normaly ppl from around the world come to talk to me in spanish, a language that I don't even speak, not my country language...
The point here is, how could u guys say that u are so diferent or deserve to be at one of the basic civilization on this game, that another person of another modern representantive state can't? Your country could have made some discoveries, other countries did too, do you have it ranked? If so, other countries have a bunch of other things diferents that can be used as argument, mexico have a strong culture, for example...
My country from my point of view have lots of unique things but I know that it could be the same for the eyes of a person who don't visit my country, what will make my country different from the rest of the world ppl will be when it gets strong enought to influenciate the rest of the world. This kind of thing is not decide by nationalists feelings,but by the influence that the country have in the rest of the world, how the world see our country...
Sorry for my bad english
I'm a Canadian. I don't think Canada deserves to be in Civ. Not important enough. Just be England and change all the city and nation Names.
A big but almost forgotten civ: the Goths (who had their own writing). Were based in the southern part of sweden and spread their culture far and wide.
Actually, a game where you started off playing city states that later formed bonds and pacts under strong rulers and thus formed countries leading to empires and such over time, could be a nice mod for this game??!!
Woah many responses to the thread BTW...
France, England/UK, Spain, Portugal, Rome/Italy, Germany, Egypt, Russia, Persia, Greece/Macedonia, USA, Aztec, India, China, Japan, Mongol, Arabs, Ottoman/Turks...
AND PLEASE MORE LEADERS FOR SPAIN xD
Phillip II would be GREAT!
Why do Canadians always insist on being taken seriously.. I mean, really, come on. It's like the munchkins of Oz insisting that they have the right to sit at the grown-ups table.
Originally Posted by CptMarvelous
For some of the true history of Canada, and how it relates to Civilization, visit the Civ IV Multiplayer league website, and read this important thread:
Its well worth the read for some insights on Canada, and particularly, Marr.
Wow, just wow, someone who can't read. 4th by LAND area: http://www.listofcountriesoftheworld.com/area-land.html
Originally Posted by paradigmx
Originally Posted by Cashew
UB - Hockey Arena
UU - JTF2
I think it would be amusing to see the Spartans make an appearance in Civilization. When playing the greek, I always expect Leonidas to storm out of Sparta with the 300 phalanx.
Willem 3 (1650-1702) was a dutch "stadhouder"(highest generall) (very importend). He was also king of the UK from 1689 till his death in 1702.
Originally Posted by Baroni
Last edited by Weaver; 02-19-2010 at 11:07 AM.
Since when was Antarctica a country? :P
Originally Posted by Oosh
If you read my original post, once you start incl. water bodies, things get too curly. Land area is the only solid (pardon the pun) method of comparison. Using that metric Canada is 4th.
Originally Posted by Weaver
Clearly it's not and is there simply for comparison. However, Australia claims almost half of it so should we add that to their total?
Originally Posted by Bob Ilyani
But 2nd, 4th, whatever, it's not a criteria for incl. in Civ V.
Last edited by Oosh; 02-19-2010 at 01:43 PM.
The problem is, Canada would win the game in 2 turns and suck the fun out of it, giving us an unfair reputation for being boring.
Originally Posted by Qikdraw
The second turn would be just to be polite, too.
Hugo de Groot should be there, too.
Originally Posted by Ares_the_devil
Logical Canadian choices for unique units would be Voyageurs (who would be earlier-appearing, or more powerful, versions of settlers/pioneers/some similar unit) or Shock Infantry (more powerful infantry, obviously.) Depends whether you wanted Canada to get their boost in mid or late game. Either is a neat representation of a part of Canadian history - in the first case you're reflecting Canada's pioneering, expansionist beginnings, and in the latter Canada's skill in war in the 20th century. (Shock infantry refers directly to Canada's actual role in World War I.)
For unique buildings, well, why NOT a hockey arena? It's a bit funny, but it's accurate, too. Every little Canadian town has a "community centre," which is usually mostly a hockey rink. Have it give a small boost to happiness and commerce. Hockey is every bit as important to Canada as people say. Heck, it's on our money. And I say that as a Canadian whose favourite sport is baseball.
Given how much money Canadians have poured into the Civ franchise I think it'd be nice of 2K to throw us a bone here and have Canada in the game. It's as valid a choice as Korea. C'mon, guys. Just this one version, please? Please?
Hehe Canada could have mounties as special units :P