Which of the Expansion Civs do you look forward to most?

[PachaMinnie]

Life would be so much easier if they just had the base civs then did what GalCiv II did. That'd easily cut out half of all discussions on the forum.

Agreed, why haven't they done that? You could name a civilization, select the leader [this case all of the leaders from the base civs then just pick which one and name him] select their unit abilities [Given from a whole bunch of abilities etc. a total of maybe 30 not counting beginning the game with a certain promotion] select the skin for the unit, again from the base civs or already created skins, or no skin and it will just look like the vanillia unit. Bonus [Same as Unit, and I suppose building to forgot that one], color combination,etc.

Make things much smoother.

[PachaMinnie]

Personally, it would be fun to have the Zulus. But those reasons are inappropriate in a gaming context. Sure they represent an ethinicity from an unrepresented area, but I don't think representation should come at the cost of entertainment. I'm not saying the Zulu would necessarily facilitate this cost, but I'm not convinced the Zulu would add anything groundbreaking to the lineup. But I could be wrong.

I won't argue. I was mainly arguing about their civilization and not about them being in Civilization. I would enjoy them being in the game, but if they aren't I won't be crushed, just a bit disheartened. If I want to play them I'll go to the mods, however I doubt I will want to play them enough to go to the modded civilizations.

[JFD]

Agreed, why haven't they done that? You could name a civilization, select the leader [this case all of the leaders from the base civs then just pick which one and name him] select their unit abilities [Given from a whole bunch of abilities etc. a total of maybe 30 not counting beginning the game with a certain promotion] select the skin for the unit, again from the base civs or already created skins, or no skin and it will just look like the vanillia unit. Bonus [Same as Unit, and I suppose building to forgot that one], color combination,etc.

How are enemy civs in that game? Are they generated randomly, or are they preset? If they are preset, and that were implemented in a game of civ, there'd still be plenty of disagreements as to which civ should be represented in the game. It's often not just about what civ you want to play for yourself, it would seem.

[PachaMinnie]

How are enemy civs in that game? Are they generated randomly, or are they preset? If they are preset, and that were implemented in a game of civ, there'd still be plenty of disagreements as to which civ should be represented in the game. It's often not just about what civ you want to play for yourself, it would seem.

Civilizations like Rome, Persia, etc. ones no one could dispute being in there. Then add the ability to create your own nation.

Nations you don't have to create: Arabia, Ottoman, Rome, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, Ancient Greece, Persia, India, China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Someone like the Khmer or Siam, America, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, A native American Civilization, Malinese, Carthage, Byzantium, Egypt, Babylon, and Vikings. [If I am forgeting any REALLY important ones I am sorry]

Now add the ability to create your own, choose your own leader [From the models of the leaders above], Unique Units, Improvements, buildings, and abilities [All of their bonuses come from a batch of about 30 pre-selected ones, or so], the colors, symbol, and name.

Now one could just create whatever nation he feels should've been included how he wants. Then the whole, I want THIS Civilization argument would be invalid because a man could just create whoever he wants.

Also created nations can be faced in games. Reason why you pick the leader.

[JFD]

Seems like a good system. They should release a DLC exclusively for that purpose.

[wingednosering]

Leader scenes would get confusing. Mods can implement most of what you're talking about. You can already pick a pre-existing civ and rename them.

Personally, I think we have too many civs now. I like seeing who gets representation and new uniques are always fun, but it's really overwhelming for new players.

In civ 6, I'd like to see the major players only: Rome, Greece, Spain, Portugal, England, America, China, Russia, Japan, Mongolia, a Mesompatamian, Aztecs/Maya, Inca, Egypt, Polynesia, and one ofther African. They should each get a TON of unique powers, abilities, units, etc to make them all unique all the way through the game instead of for brief 50-100 turn periods.

It'd be tough to balance, but I think it would be good for the game.

Back to the thread:

The Huns and Sweden seemed like odd choices, but clearly they new what they were doing when they added them. Can't believe they're the two most popular. At first I thought the Huns looked UP, but now I think they look fun (albeit a little boring post-medieval).

Personal anticipation:

Austria>Netherlands>Huns>Celts>Carthage>Byzantines >Ethiopia>Sweden>Maya (not enough info).

Funny because in terms of interest in the nation, that list would be quite different. I'm listing those based on the gameplay their uniques encourage.

I'm really disappointed with a few of the uniques. I wish the Huns had a slightly more potent boost outside of Medieval and Maya seems to be centered around the Calendar, which is fine as long as its not a doomsday power or something. Ethiopia has no culture or faith bonuses right now, which is ridiculous. I'm assuming their last unique will be a faith building or something.

I'm actually equally interested in the changes to existing civs, which we've seen little of. Ottomans will almost definitely get a massive overhaul (new UA if nothing else) as will the Songhai. We already know England has received an espionage boost. Russia might as well.

Greece might have some minor changes for the new diplo victory.

Existing policies are bound to change as well (especially in Piety, if that tree even still exists), so culture teams could become more/less desirable.

The new scenarios should be great too . I loe all the less-combat-oriented ones.

[PachaMinnie]

Leader scenes would get confusing. Mods can implement most of what you're talking about. You can already pick a pre-existing civ and rename them.

Personally, I think we have too many civs now. I like seeing who gets representation and new uniques are always fun, but it's really overwhelming for new players.

In civ 6, I'd like to see the major players only: Rome, Greece, Spain, Portugal, England, America, China, Russia, Japan, Mongolia, a Mesompatamian, Aztecs/Maya, Inca, Egypt, Polynesia, and one ofther African. They should each get a TON of unique powers, abilities, units, etc to make them all unique all the way through the game instead of for brief 50-100 turn periods.

It'd be tough to balance, but I think it would be good for the game.

Well, I am talking about letting the person create what ever they want, these are no mods my friend. Most people [including me] don't have the skill or knowledge to make mods. Nor do I have the time to make a single mod for the Zulu. Adding the Create-A-Nation option would make the game much better. We would have so many unique combinations and have alot of fun.

Leader Scenes wouldn't change. If you where to make Australia, give them a Unique Tank and Unique Tile Improvement, then pick George Washington as the leader nothing would change. Old George would still say something along the lines of, "Hello Welcome to America" Do you have any oil.

Giving each nation a TON of Unique units and abilities would make the whole Civilization thing useless. Plus, there are alot of popular civilizations out there that you can't give a TON of stuff to. I like having one era of gold and the rest capitalizing on that era of gold. It would be very tough to give the Aztecs Unique Units that last until the Modern Era unless you where to blend them into Mexico, but then wouldn't they have to change leader and name? Same with Rome, Persia, etc. Having that one golden era makes the game challenging. If you need constant boosts then play on a easier level.

I understand your personal choice, but I do not understand why you say we already have to many civilizations, or why you think that they are overwhelming to new players. I'll be honest, Civilization 5 was my first REAL Civilization game, and I wasn't overwhelmed. [Don't worry, I went back to Civ 3 & 4.] I actually wanted more Civilizations. Plus, with the whole Create-A-Civ you could choose not to create a Civilization. Defeats the purpose I know, but you still could.

[wingednosering]

What you're suggesting would be a massive undertaking for balance if nothing else. I can understand where you're coming from though. Online this would be a nightmare. It would have to be a single player only option. There'd be no way to plan out a strategy to couter your enemy if they could be using made up units you have no way of anticipating.

When it comes to the number of civs, it's really just an issue of time. I mean, yeah, you might know every civ's uniques, but alot of the unique abilities are straight copy/paste of wonder or policy powers and actually playing every team, even just for one game each, is a HUGE time investment.

Every team in the game could easily have long term boosts. Right now, UIs, UBs, and UAs are all long-term boosts that last the entire game. More of those, or different UAs in each era or something, would be a nice improvement. I agree with UUs remaining short-term though. Also, with DLC they became a lot more bold. UAs often have several small boosts instead of one simple effect and UIs came into play. They just need to keep heading in that direction.

Civ V initially had only 18 (19 if you count Bablyon) civs, which was way too few. Now though, they're up to 25, with 9 more about to arrive, making a whopping 34 and they're still missing some major powers, like Portugal.

Let's make a very conservative estimate of five hours per game. That's 170 hours of gameplay to even play one game as each civ. More hours usually = good thing, but it'll probably be double that time to actually refine a great strategy with your favourites.

I feel I should note, my thought on more uniques is not brought abot by me being a bad player. I've beaten Deity and usually play on Emperor or Immortal. I just think it would help make the game a little more fun.

[JFD]

Civ V initially had only 18 (19 if you count Bablyon) civs, which was way too few. Now though, they're up to 25, with 9 more about to arrive, making a whopping 39 and they're still missing some major powers, like Portugal.

I have Discalculia, and even I see your math is screwy . There are 34 Civs in the game (including the expansion and DLCs). Your point is likely still just as valid though.

[JFD]

"Hello Welcome to America" Do you have any oil.

So much lols.

[chrisjwmartin]

India, China etc. where given time to advance their civilization. The Zulu weren't given this thousand year advantage.

Africa had the exact same "advantage". In fact, since sub-Saharan Africa was populated with humans before China was, the Africans had an "advantage" over China. And yet China became a great civilisation while sub-Saharan Africa remained a vast nothingness, a wasteland of barbarians, living in much the same way that the pre-hominids had lived. It took them those extra thousands of years just to make it to where real civilisations had got to millennia before. At that rate, it would be the year 20,000 before they discovered gunpowder. That would make for a very slow, boring game!

You ask if I would be happy with Zulu cathedrals. Honestly, I'd have been at least a little happier with not even a cathedral, but a brick. Just a little brick to show that they had some inkling of what it was like to aspire to civilisation.

Incidentally, I think it's silly that the Iroquois are in. They're only included because of US political correctness. If the game had been made elsewhere they wouldn't be included.

[istry555]

Africa had the exact same "advantage". In fact, since sub-Saharan Africa was populated with humans before China was, the Africans had an "advantage" over China. And yet China became a great civilisation while sub-Saharan Africa remained a vast nothingness, a wasteland of barbarians, living in much the same way that the pre-hominids had lived. It took them those extra thousands of years just to make it to where real civilisations had got to millennia before

You're confusing chronology with the factors needed to start large urbanized societies (what you consider a "civilization"). Africa, compared to Eurasia, has a significant absence of large domesticatable animals (both for food and burden) as well as large areas of flood-plains/fertile land. The second part is also coupled with a lack of native, easy-to-harvest grains as well as drastic climate shifts in Africa throughout much of its early history. These factors helped to prevent the development of specialized societies. So no, Africa didn't have an "advantage" over the Near East, or China, in terms of developing large urban scocitites (except in very specific areas like the Nile River flood-plain, or with maritime powers like Aksum). Being first isn't much of an advantage, unless you use that advantage to migrate to areas with more food. Which actually, they did.

[istry555]

Civ V initially had only 18 (19 if you count Bablyon) civs, which was way too few. Now though, they're up to 25, with 9 more about to arrive, making a whopping 39 and they're still missing some major powers, like Portugal.

Let's make a very conservative estimate of five hours per game. That's 195 hours of gameplay to even play one game as each civ. More hours usually = good thing, but it'll probably be doule that time to actually refine a great strategy with your favourites.

Well, 18 was the same number of civs in Civ IV Vanilla, so that was the expected amount to include in the first offering.

It's also not about playing as every civ. Most people will not, and have no desire to, play as every civ. However, they enjoy more civs added to the game to face as opponents. I bought one of the DLCs not to ever play with, but to simply give me more variety to go up against in my games. So calculating how much time it takes to play every civ isn't really important. Plus, once you learn the mechanics of the game, you don't really need to spend time playing as a civ to learn their uniques. Reading their advantages in the civlopedia and facing them once or twice is usually more than enough to get a basic to moderate grasp of how they function/are used.

[chrisjwmartin]

Being first isn't much of an advantage, unless you use that advantage to migrate to areas with more food. Which actually, they did.

I didn't say being first was an "advantage", PachaMinnie did. Observe my cunning use of inverted commas, in both that post and this, to lay devastating satirical waste to the word. Really, if you're going to accuse me of something, do check that I am guilty of it.

[zephyrtr]

To get to real sciences, you need to have farmers producing far more food than they themselves can eat. If Pythagoras can't just BUY food, he's hunting game and planting crops along with everyone else, and then we'd never know how to measure the sides of a triangle. Africa, like people have said, didn't have the grains or domestic animals. They didn't have fertile gray soil like you find in Europe. They had less predictable seasons, larger apex predators that were a real worry... They were there a long time, but it doesn't matter how long you've been there til you have conditions where the few can feed the many.

[PachaMinnie]

What you're suggesting would be a massive undertaking for balance if nothing else. I can understand where you're coming from though. Online this would be a nightmare. It would have to be a single player only option. There'd be no way to plan out a strategy to couter your enemy if they could be using made up units you have no way of anticipating.

When it comes to the number of civs, it's really just an issue of time. I mean, yeah, you might know every civ's uniques, but alot of the unique abilities are straight copy/paste of wonder or policy powers and actually playing every team, even just for one game each, is a HUGE time investment.

Every team in the game could easily have long term boosts. Right now, UIs, UBs, and UAs are all long-term boosts that last the entire game. More of those, or different UAs in each era or something, would be a nice improvement. I agree with UUs remaining short-term though. Also, with DLC they became a lot more bold. UAs often have several small boosts instead of one simple effect and UIs came into play. They just need to keep heading in that direction.

Civ V initially had only 18 (19 if you count Bablyon) civs, which was way too few. Now though, they're up to 25, with 9 more about to arrive, making a whopping 39 and they're still missing some major powers, like Portugal.

Let's make a very conservative estimate of five hours per game. That's 195 hours of gameplay to even play one game as each civ. More hours usually = good thing, but it'll probably be doule that time to actually refine a great strategy with your favourites.

I feel I should note, my thought on more uniques is not brought abot by me being a bad player. I've beaten Deity and usually play on Emperor or Immortal. I just think it would help make the game a little more fun.

Never said Multiplayer did I? Nope.

Never said you where a bad player either, I said if you where having problems then you should lower your difficulty, of course now that I know the difficulty you play on, comment withdrawn.

Most of the Abilities for each Unique would be selected by the makers themselves, therefore you could really only mix and match with all of these abilities. This means endless possiblilites for making Civilizations. If you don't like the Number of Civilizations already in the game then you can simply not use it.

What I am suggesting is adding a Create-A-Civ option to merely expand the game. You want Canada, but you think they will never be added? Go to Create-A-Civ and make them with whatever you want. I have played as about 11 of the Civilization currently in the game, but sometimes I want a Unique Infantry Unit. Therefore I go to Create-A-Civ, make Macedonia, give them P.L.A.M. as a special Infantry Unit and then bam! I am happy. Perhaps I do not ike that there are only like 3 civilizations that cater to my play style and I have already played them enough, go to Create-A-Civ and create a new unit.

That is what I am suggesting.

[PachaMinnie]

I didn't say being first was an "advantage", PachaMinnie did. Observe my cunning use of inverted commas, in both that post and this, to lay devastating satirical waste to the word. Really, if you're going to accuse me of something, do check that I am guilty of it.

I said the Zulu never had an advantage in placement because they where founded in the 17th century in South Africa surrounded by enemies and enemies far ahead in Tech. I am not going to argue for all of Africa, I am merely arguing for the Zulu and Zulu only. Perhaps their ancestors had time to capitalize, but they never did. So, when the Zulu where founded they had a horrible time. Their only way out was war.

[istry555]

I didn't say being first was an "advantage", PachaMinnie did. Observe my cunning use of inverted commas, in both that post and this, to lay devastating satirical waste to the word. Really, if you're going to accuse me of something, do check that I am guilty of it.

Yes, you used scare quotes to try to discredit PachaMinnie's point despite the fact that he was correct. I explained why he was correct and why your "devastating satirical waste to the word" was misguided. Notice the only time I used scare quotes around advantage was when I was directly countering your usage of the word...

[Kukulcán]

Again as the others have said there are a multitude of factors for why Sub-Saharan Africa never truly advanced.

Lack of domesticatable animals, lack of large grains, lack of p.a. fertile land, etc. Again there are formulas which show and explain almost to a T the rate of growth in areas of the world and how they would have continued if there was no/little outer societal connections.

And to consider potential domesticatable crops and animals you have to check the chemical content and seasonal growth of them. Sub-Saharan Africa was evolving though once certain grains and cattle finally ended up being transferred. But in fact the crazy amount of time it took for the North-South connection to develop became a much larger hindrance than anything you could call "barbarism".

It really isn't surprising once you look at these factors to see where civilization advanced. (Large Herbivores, High produce to seed ratio grains, rivers, and climate all for example would suggest that civilization was most suited to growing out of Mesopotamia and the Middle East first. Turkey specifically. And well to be honest just see history to see what happened. Science and the natural progression of ecology)

[PachaMinnie]

You ask if I would be happy with Zulu cathedrals. Honestly, I'd have been at least a little happier with not even a cathedral, but a brick. Just a little brick to show that they had some inkling of what it was like to aspire to civilisation.

Incidentally, I think it's silly that the Iroquois are in. They're only included because of US political correctness. If the game had been made elsewhere they wouldn't be included.

I could assure you the Iroquois are not in because of the US's Political correctness. They are one of the more impressing "Barbarian" Native American nations.

civ·i·li·za·tion (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.

So no, Ants could not be considered a Civilization. Nor is it really fair that you seem to have a personal Vendetta against Tribal nations. Some peoples seem to value Cultural progress over Scientific. Others, however have a different opinion.

Edit: Also, I thought I would throw this out for the fish in the sea.

The term Barbarian was invented by the Greeks, who when they heard other Civilizations talking, all they heard was "BAR BAR BAR BAR" so they called them Barbarians which means "Anyone who isn't Greek" Therefore, We are all Barbarians. Not me though, born in F.Y.R.O.M. and they are considered Greek so I WIN! I know there will be some of you nit picky people out there, so it only refers to Classical Greeks, happy? I mean modern day Greeks are barbarians really. A dirty, smelly, peoples. Jokes, I joke I joke.

[ddesart]

I didn't say being first was an "advantage", PachaMinnie did. Observe my cunning use of inverted commas, in both that post and this, to lay devastating satirical waste to the word. Really, if you're going to accuse me of something, do check that I am guilty of it.

Wow...I didn't know that parenthesis were referred to as "inverted commas" (cunning)...maybe it's the english way of referring to things? Kinda like referring to the windshield as a windscreen or the trunk as the boot? Interesting stuff...

[Shiav]

Hm. Losing respect for Brits. Hey chris, have you ever been to the British Museum? Fun place. Full of "Barbarians" stuff. You should check it out. Or read a few books, that might help.

Quick questions for you, (because let's face it, trollers be trolling because they want to) which "Civilization" or "Culture" is best at dealing with food scarcity in the Sahara?

If you answered anything besides the Tuareg and their Berber ancestors, I'm sorry, better luck next time! For thousands of years they have survived in the single worst environment on the six continents we live on.

Which culture has best adapted itself for high altitudes?

Well this is a toss up between the ever magnificent Inca, Nepalese and Tibetans. Funnily enough, no Europeans on the list. Hm.

Which cultures can survive in frozen wastelands without having to migrate for year after year? Well the Inuit have been doing exactly this in the Canadian high Arctic for an estimated thirteen THOUSAND years. Long before the founding of Rome, Egypt, China or Indus valley cultures.

The fact (and point) that cultures in Europe, the Fertile Crescent, China and India can develop magnificent civilzations is not impressive. How can you fail when you are in the perfect environment, with the perfect conditions, and the perfect set up for the propagation of human civilization.

What is impressive is that the Berber can survive in an environment that hasn't had more than ten inches of rain since the Cretaceous. Or that the Nepalese can survive at altitudes where the lack of oxygen can kill unhealthy people. Or that the Inuit can live year round in a place inhabited by polar bears, seals, and themselves.

Anybody can do great things in a great situation. How could Mitt Romney not have an easy life, coming from a rich family and having a Harvard degree? It's the people who can turn ☺☺☺☺, lead and prayers into solid gold that are truly impressive. Would anybody expect an ex-convict with no education and a brutally scarred face to make it in the world? Because one became leader of my country for thirty years. Would you expect high school drop outs who owned a failing business to become household names? Because two of them invented the airplane.

It's not the cards your dealt, it's how you play them.

Also, how does everybody forget about Great Zimbabwe? When South Africa had a temperate, European environment it was just as advanced as any other. When this climate changed, they died out. Just like any other.

Next: How could you establish

[tfordp]

Hm. Losing respect for this poster.

Fixed that for you.

[wingednosering]

I have Discalculia, and even I see your math is screwy . There are 34 Civs in the game (including the expansion and DLCs). Your point is likely still just as valid though.

Lmao, yeah sorry about that. Apparently grade school math escaped me at the time of writing. Fixed

[chrisjwmartin]

To get to real sciences, you need to have farmers producing far more food than they themselves can eat. If Pythagoras can't just BUY food, he's hunting game and planting crops along with everyone else, and then we'd never know how to measure the sides of a triangle. Africa, like people have said, didn't have the grains or domestic animals. They didn't have fertile gray soil like you find in Europe. They had less predictable seasons, larger apex predators that were a real worry... They were there a long time, but it doesn't matter how long you've been there til you have conditions where the few can feed the many.

Exactly. Which is why sub-Saharan Africa has never had a civilisation. And why PachaMinnie was such a fool for arguing that the Zulu were simply unlucky for being too "late".

[chrisjwmartin]

I said the Zulu never had an advantage in placement because they where founded in the 17th century in South Africa surrounded by enemies and enemies far ahead in Tech. I am not going to argue for all of Africa, I am merely arguing for the Zulu and Zulu only. Perhaps their ancestors had time to capitalize, but they never did. So, when the Zulu where founded they had a horrible time. Their only way out was war.

The Zulu were only "founded" in the 17th century because that was how long it took for that people to develop beyond pre-hominid social forms. If in a thousand years' time a dog developed basic speech and artistic abilities, we wouldn't say that dogs had had a disadvantage in not evolving sooner.

[chrisjwmartin]

Yes, you used scare quotes to try to discredit PachaMinnie's point despite the fact that he was correct. I explained why he was correct and why your "devastating satirical waste to the word" was misguided. Notice the only time I used scare quotes around advantage was when I was directly countering your usage of the word...

You obviously didn't read PachaMinnie's original witterings very carefully.

[chrisjwmartin]

Again as the others have said there are a multitude of factors for why Sub-Saharan Africa never truly advanced.

Indeed there are. Which is why, as I said, the Zulu were not a civilisation.

[chrisjwmartin]

Wow...I didn't know that parenthesis were referred to as "inverted commas" (cunning)...maybe it's the english way of referring to things? Kinda like referring to the windshield as a windscreen or the trunk as the boot? Interesting stuff...

Parentheses are the curved brackets (). But yeah, I think "inverted commas" are a British phrase. I agree, it's quite cute, isn't it - describes them pretty well!

[chrisjwmartin]

Hm. Losing respect for Brits.

Now who's the racist? :P

Hey chris, have you ever been to the British Museum? Fun place.

Indeed I have. I work nearby, actually. But the Natural History Museum and V&A, both in Knightsbridge, are better, in my opinion.

Full of "Barbarians" stuff. You should check it out.

It's full of all sorts of things. I believe we have some pretty chunks of marble tucked away somewhere. PachaMinnie, as an apparently proud Greek-Macedonian, do you know anything about those?

Or read a few books, that might help.

I have even done that once or twice. No more than that, though. Don't want to be seen as an intyleckerchool or nuffin.

Quick questions for you, (because let's face it, trollers be trolling because they want to)

I bow to your greater experience of what it is like to troll.

Which "Civilization" or "Culture" is best at dealing with food scarcity in the Sahara?

Camels? I'm sure you're going to say camels.

If you answered anything besides the Tuareg and their Berber ancestors, I'm sorry, better luck next time! For thousands of years they have survived in the single worst environment on the six continents we live on.

As have camels. Is eking out a barren existence in the wilderness now a sign of civilisation? Or is it simply a sign of being a successfully adapted animal species?

Which culture has best adapted itself for high altitudes?

Better get this one right, let's say ... Euophrys omnisuperstes. Yup, that must be it.

Well this is a toss up between the ever magnificent Inca, Nepalese and Tibetans.

The spider is even better adapted. So by your logic that surviving in extreme conditions = civilisation, we should all bow before out mighty octopedal overlords.

Funnily enough, no Europeans on the list. Hm.

Funnily enough, no civilisations on the list either. Only fairly primitive hominids which scrape an existence in the wilderness, like lots of animals do. Hm.

Which cultures can survive in frozen wastelands without having to migrate for year after year?

This one's gotta be rangifer tarandus pearsoni.

Well the Inuit have been doing exactly this in the Canadian high Arctic for an estimated thirteen THOUSAND years.

Wha'? You speciesist! Always picking members of the homo genus. And the Inuit haven't devloped much in all that time. Because they're not civilised.

Long before the founding of Rome, Egypt, China or Indus valley cultures.

Crocodiles were long before the Inuit. CROCODILES FTW!

The fact (and point) that cultures in Europe, the Fertile Crescent, China and India can develop magnificent civilzations is not impressive. How can you fail when you are in the perfect environment, with the perfect conditions, and the perfect set up for the propagation of human civilization.

I didn't say it was impressive. I said it was civilisation. And that things that aren't civilisation aren't civilisation. You are arguing against a completely different point. Like I said, people are entitled to prefer an ideal of pre-civilised society. Many people do. But that does not make those pre-civilised societies civilisations.

What is impressive is that the Berber can survive in an environment that hasn't had more than ten inches of rain since the Cretaceous. Or that the Nepalese can survive at altitudes where the lack of oxygen can kill unhealthy people. Or that the Inuit can live year round in a place inhabited by polar bears, seals, and themselves.

Wait, so being impressive is the criterion for civilisation now! If only I had known! Well, some bacteria are anaerobes. They don't need oxygen to survive - an environment that would kill your Berbers, Nepalis and Inuit within a minute. So those anaerobic bacteria are far more impressive, and are therefore a great civilisation.

Anybody can do great things in a great situation.

Ahh, the naivete of youth.

How could Mitt Romney not have an easy life, coming from a rich family and having a Harvard degree?

There were plenty of people who were born richer. He earned his Harvard degree (you talk as if he was given it as a present), and went on to become far richer than his family ever were. Romney helped revolutionise the American economy. He destroyed it and many people's lives in the process, but he is one of the most important figures of twentieth century capitalism.

It's the people who can turn ☺☺☺☺, lead and prayers into solid gold that are truly impressive. Would anybody expect an ex-convict with no education and a brutally scarred face to make it in the world?

Yes. I would. Your point?

Because one became leader of my country for thirty years. Would you expect high school drop outs who owned a failing business to become household names? Because two of them invented the airplane.

Yes, it happens all the time.

It's not the cards your dealt, it's how you play them.

Very inspiring. Kind of my point, too, that "the cards you're dealt" should be ignored, and you should look at absolute achievements. Living in mud huts is, in absolute terms, a failure, and does not become "civilisation" simply because of "a bad hand".

Also, how does everybody forget about Great Zimbabwe?

I don't forget Great Zimbabwe. It's very interesting. It looks like an attempt at a Sumer-style society - primitive, yes, but on the cusp of civilisation. Unfortunately, they didn't have writing, and they fairly quickly fell back into utter barbarism, so we know next to nothing about them. The fact that Sumer started around 4500BC and Great Zimbabwe started around 1000AD is a bit of an indictment, of course.

When South Africa had a temperate, European environment it was just as advanced as any other.

That's an exaggeration. There was a 5,500 year gap between Sumer and Great Zimbabwe, and then the Great Zimbabweans just gave up and became savages again. There was no point within the last 7,000 years or so when sub-Saharan African society "was just as advanced as any other".

When this climate changed, they died out. Just like any other.

And yet in the Middle East, India, China and Europe civilisation developed, in one form or another, despite individual cities dying out. Not in Africa though.

Next: How could you establish

I don't know. How could YOU establish?

[JFD]

Now who's the racist? :P

Come now. Don't contribute to the misuse of that accusation.

Ahh, the naivete of youth.

This is directed at Shiav, is it? Ho-hoh.

[ddesart]

Parentheses are the curved brackets (). But yeah, I think "inverted commas" are a British phrase. I agree, it's quite cute, isn't it - describes them pretty well!

You are right...I was mistaken...we call them quotation marks...wasn't the best in english...lol...

[fchopin]

I voted for Maya but would have also voted for Byzantium for second choice if i could.

[SamBC]

Hang on a minute, did someone just say that Tibetans couldn't be counted as civilised? Whu? Highly developed, unique and settled culture, there, y'know. I think the Inca were dismissed in the same way, despite the cities and organised government and all.

In fact, likening any group to pre-hominids seems particularly ludicrous, as the division where the hominids are differentiated relates to very primitive characteristics. Like building sturdy shelters and use of fire. The Tuaregs, IIRC, have a distinct culture with communities with differentiated responsibilities, learning and teaching of conceptually distinct skills for different roles, I even have a feeling they have literature. They just move around a lot.

[JFD]

The Incans were quite advanced amongst Native American cultures. The way in which they governed seems quite modern; divide and assimilate. Not to mention they had a welfare system - whereby the old and disabled were given a pension, and allocated jobs which specifically catered to their capacity for work. Oh yes, and they built a magnificent road network in the Andes. I don't think spiders can do that. IMO that seems pretty civilised. But the Incas are only as far as my knowledge goes of South American cultures, so...

[istry555]

Quick questions for you, (because let's face it, trollers be trolling because they want to) which "Civilization" or "Culture" is best at dealing with food scarcity in the Sahara?

If you answered anything besides the Tuareg and their Berber ancestors, I'm sorry, better luck next time! For thousands of years they have survived in the single worst environment on the six continents we live on.

What is impressive is that the Berber can survive in an environment that hasn't had more than ten inches of rain since the Cretaceous.

Actually, I've always wanted a Berber civilization in the game. Though technically, I'd want some amalgamation of the Libu/Ancient Libya, Meshwesh, Garamantes tribes as they played a significant role in (and even captured/ruled on more than one occasion) Ancient Egypt instead of a more general Berber civ, but I'd be satisfied either way.

And actually, the Sahara had a quite significant wet period between 8000 to 4000 BCE (due to something, I forget) and was relatively green and livable. One of the big things in current archeology is to satellite scan the Sahara to try and find traces of the cultures that lived there during that period.

[istry555]

I don't forget Great Zimbabwe. It's very interesting. It looks like an attempt at a Sumer-style society - primitive, yes, but on the cusp of civilisation. Unfortunately, they didn't have writing, and they fairly quickly fell back into utter barbarism,

Well, writing isn't exactly a requirement for civilization. It usually coincides with and makes things significantly easier, but it's not technically necessary. The Incas didn't have a writing system (though they did have a quipus for basic maths). The Vedic-Aryans composed the entire Vedas and kept them unchanged once codified for close to 1500 years all without writing and only utilizing oral tradition and mnemonic devices.

[Pouakai]

Quick questions for you, (because let's face it, trollers be trolling because they want to) which "Civilization" or "Culture" is best at dealing with food scarcity in the Sahara?

If you answered anything besides the Tuareg and their Berber ancestors, I'm sorry, better luck next time! For thousands of years they have survived in the single worst environment on the six continents we live on.

Garamantes built fortresses in the desert, turned desert into farmland and more.

[steveg700]

Well, writing isn't exactly a requirement for civilization. It usually coincides with and makes things significantly easier, but it's not technically necessary. The Incas didn't have a writing system (though they did have a quipus for basic maths). The Vedic-Aryans composed the entire Vedas and kept them unchanged once codified for close to 1500 years all without writing and only utilizing oral tradition and mnemonic devices.

I would say writing isn't a necessity, but some means of passing down culture and identity to future generations is. So, there you go.

[istry555]

Garamantes built fortresses in the desert, turned desert into farmland and more.

The Garamantes were an ancient Berber people.

I would say writing isn't a necessity, but some means of passing down culture and identity to future generations is. So, there you go.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

My point was that writing specifically wasn't needed (though many people claim it is) and then cited alternative means to pass down cultural identity besides writing, like how the Vedic-Aryans used oral tradition and mnemonic devices.