CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.1): hosted by LordStone1

[Mo]

Why is everyone arguing about which civ is supposed to be in the game? Since there are going to be around 30 civs there will be enought space for all of the ideas posted so far. If your civ isn't included in the game you can just put it in the text file and if the americans bother you you can just remove them in the text files.

[Eggman]

My guidelines for the choices of the names of the civilizations:
(1) big impact(s) on history
(2) come to mind first when you think about history (i.e. the cool ones)

That pretty much includes the entire batch from Civ2. America clearly falls into this definition. As do the Arabs and a bunch of others. But no Nicaraguans. The Aborrigines don't exactly thrill me either (tool age in the 1800s is not particularly impressive) but I'm flexible.

Personally, I want lots of EMPTY SLOTS that I can fill with any civs (fully modified with shield, leaders, pictures, etc.) that I want. Though the Canadians are not a major civ (though we still love them for being with us at D-Day), to play against them is a blast from an American perspective. Perhaps an auxilary list of extra civs that can be plugged in could come with the CD.

Also, remember that you need a list of fairly unique city names. While both the Babylonians and Assyrians are deserving, they owned basically the same exact cities with the same names. You have to have a joint civ that combines the two of them. Pretty much the same for Ghana/Mali/Songhai Empires in northern Africa (the group should be in this time). However, you could pull off a separate Roman and Italian civs (if you wanted) by just giving the latter the capital "Roma" instead of "Rome."

Just some random thoughts...

[Harel]

Well, By persians I ment the cultures of India, and it numerous civs. This is just the most noted one along. Chi was erected by the union of several dozen small eastren nations... Unlike now, the more culture advanced parts of China today were in the south, small nations created by the mongul, russian and indian people.
Chinese, as a state, came late into the histroy thread.
About the northen-america Indians, while invasion by now alaska went along even in 40,000 BC (!!!), those cultures came and went, and did not make a lasting footing.
It was the earlier, mysterious easter island culture, that invaded south america and then spread north.
Now, what I ment that the big lists of civ of Q cubed and transcend are ridicoulsly big... First of all, Gauls and france? Turks and bayzants? Did we forget were bayzantion was? Same civ... And did we return to the silliest of all civ, the American? You can't ask for a civ that only exist for 400 years!
BTW, Transcend, about your ideas about the aborijians. Do you know what current study call the "cradle of humanity?" Australia. By saying "Bommrang was the biggest discovery" you are making a tragic mistake, that i belive is both racists and ignorant.
The Aborjian culture is the oldest culture on Earth, tracking back to over 100,000 BC!!!! Can you imgine that? When the nethadaral ruled Europe, the Aborjians allready had a thriving culture and started to expand around the world.
Thier effect is so big that it changed Australia entire habitat: the limited-bush-fires, went to make room for more fertile growth changed the entire biology of australia till today. They HAVE to be included.

Harel,

I think the Americans have to be included if nothing else than a majority of CivIII buyers will be from there (and Canada)

Don't forget the American nation state has lasted for 200 years (1783- present) and the Hebrew/Jewish nation state has existed for about a thousand years 1000-586 BC, 140-60 BC and 1948- present and some years between 1450-1000 BC.

Also the Americans have been a dominant power for a century and contributed greatly to our current situation through inventions, industry and commerce.

and this is a Canadian talking here. (I agree Canadians would be no more than a minor civ even if those were allowed)

[CormacMacArt]

Whether or not we play the game as a replay of history (with some minor changes) or as a total rewright is our choice. In fact, all of us agree that the ability to customize the game is at least one reason that we came back for Civ II and will come back for Civ III. I think that it is more important to focus on how to make the various civs different than what labels we put on them. I don't care what you call them, I am going to make major changes within the first 15min of the game being on my computer. Am I alone in this? The ideas of minor civs sounds good, along with the idea of starting with a tribe instead of a settler. Once we can have 3000 different civs, where do we go from there?

[Harel]

VaderTwo, i DONT agree that the American should exist, it annoyes me and it's against every fiber in my body.
Beside, Eggman, I don't really think we can say the Americans are a culture anyway. They are a blend of european powers with imigrants all over the world... The final outcome is very unique and new, i agree, but they don't posses anything original of thier own!
And Imran, I don't really see why we can't play it with some accuracy.
Like Cormac said, we can't change the text files and create any civ we want. That's more then OK by me, customizing is always good and heart no one. HOWEVER, keep Firaxis original list as realistic as possible. You want to play the Americans? Fine by me, custom make them. Give them even super-powers. They SHOULDN'T however appear on Firaxis list.
And Eggman, the Aborjians have tool-age technology today, but they were once the most advanced civilazation on the world, thousand of years before even the nethadarals ruled Europe. Just like the Minoun, the assaryians, the persians, the greek and more, much more, rose and fell, so did they.
This culture deserved to be entered.

[Eggman]

Thanks, Harel. You made me do some research about the Aborigines. I learned something. Unfortunately, it doesn't help you.

First off, they trace back 60,000 years (still impressive), not 100,000. Second, from all I read, the Aborigines have never advanced beyond the Tool Age and I found no evidence that they were ever much more advanced than anybody else at the time. They never developed any form of government beyond tribal. They apparently didn't even build cities as their culture was exclusively nomadic hunters. Sorry, but civs that don't build cities ever just don't belong in a game that involves building cities.

BTW, please don't use those arguments against the Americans again. By your reasoning, the Romans shouldn't be included either. Most of the empire's citizens were assimilated non-Romans. Roman culture also borrowed the large majority of their ideas from the Greeks and other conquered and neighboring people. And I don't think that modern democracy, nuclear weapons, movies & television, the first moon landing and the first working modern computer equal "don't posses anything original of thier own". Sorry, Harel, but the Americans will be part of the list, whether you like it or not.

[Harel]

Well, Eggman, if you would have read my post carefuly, you would see that i dont belive the Roman should be entered either ( same thing with the greeks ). I mentioned the Minoun as a good candidate.
And while American DID discover many things, that is NOT the creteria to a civ. A civ is a culture, a unique culture of her own: with architecture, social methods, goverment types, laungaues and more. Simple achivments don't count, or I would have think that the canadians do deserve represnetion, as thier achivements are numerous.
HOWEVER, american drives it routes from europe, africa and the rest of the world, but IS NOT UNIQUE on her own.
BTW, you got it wrong about the Abjorians. You really do. They DID build cities: the relics of fishing villages was found around a dried up lake that date back to 125,000 B.C ( your time-date is wrong also ). Besides, the oldest Homo spenies spenies body was found in southern frozed Australia that is almost 140,000 years old, WAY before even nethadrals gained control over europe, and eon before the Ice age.
While they were almost nomadic, they possesed a culture years and years before everyone ( the second oldest civlaztion on the world are the egyptains and the easter island cultures which only track back ( the first of the tribal arrengments ) to 6,500 BC, nothing compared to the Aborjians.

[CormacMacArt]

I can't believe that I've been drawn into this argument, but here it goes.
The people of the United States do have their own culture that is much different from any other culture that has existed. For all of the problems that America has had integrating minorities, it is unique in its acceptance of immigrants into society. That blend IS our culture. The willingness of Americans to drop their differences in the face of adversity was incomprehensible to the Japanese mind in 1941, so they attacked expecting such a hetergenus culture to shatter like glass. Our form of government IS unique. I don't know of any other two-party representative democracies. As for language, try telling the citizens of the United Kingdom that Americans speak English! America has roots in all the world and thus is a culture melded out of all the cultures of the world (yes, some more than others).

As for the Aborigines, I agree that they need to be included. What are the names of some prominant Aboriginal leaders? Can you give me a list of cities? When Sid & Co. made Civ I, they had to be practical too. I see no reason why (if 27 or more civs are in Civ III) modern AND ancient civs can't be included in the game's original rules.txt. I'll say it again; it seems that it is more important to discuss what makes civs different than who is included.

...and Carthage must be destroyed.

[Kerris]

Harel:

You have a fuzzy sort of logic going on inside that head of yours. Your just a homer like everyone else who is brandishing there nations plusses and reasons for inclusion and glossing over the minuses. Weren't the Hebrews a nation of slaves to the Egyptians? Now that an accomplishment! Instead let me refer you to Diodorus Sicilus's posts, read through them, you might just learn something.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Which "civilizations" we include is completely irrevelant to the way the game plays if all the civilizations start and develop and play the same way, as they largely do in the current CivII and CtP. In all those cases, the names are just Eye Candy, and whether I'm playing as the Americans under Abe Lincoln or the Iroquois under Chingachcook makes no difference to anyone but me - it all becomes a marketing decision as to who gets included.
What would make a difference is to have civilizations that are really different, both in how they start and the best way to develop them. To my way of thinking, that means:
1. Where they start, the terrain and surrounding resources, either has to be related to their historical situation, or you have to give them Unhistorical Starting Tech and let the player develop the Civ accordingly.
2. Not all civs will start the same way.

Specifically, in 4000BC the only 'civs' that would start with Agriculture and the ability to start forming cities right away (or start with a city already) would be:
Egyptians
Sumerians
Indians

Just about everyone else will take 1000 years (20 turns) or more to get to the same point, which is why I've already suggested a Nomadic Civ as an alternative Start. Fishing villages don't count as cities: the point of a city is that it concentrates enough excess to support a decent population of folks that don't have to grub for food all the time, and so can start developing other skills like record-keeping, writing, politics, etc. "The history of civilization is the history of cities" - quote from the Penquin Atlas of Ancient History, not me.

One possible answer to all the flap about Minor versus Major Civs would be to expand the possibilities open to the Barbarians in the games now. Instead of being uniformly hostile and baseless, why shouldn't there be Barbarians willing to Trade, that have some Tech of their own, that act as Middle Men spreading or trading things from one "settled" civ to another, and that therefore develop, if left alone long enough, into another Civilization? At which point they change color/shield from Red to Something Else, and start clawing for the Top. This would be a much better recreation of the development of 'Civs" like the German, Viking, Mongol, Persian, Turkish, etc: all those that started as nomadic and through contact (and occasional conquest) with more advanced vis developed their own indigenous "civilization".

[EnochF]

"Abjorians"?

Didn't Captain Picard once rescue their planet from a big asteroid...?

[LordStone1]

All right, you guys, let's see...I'm not going to make version 1.2 until I can send in the summary to Firaxis next week, so just hold on. It'll be eaiser for me to organize over only two threads instead of three.

THIS IS GOING GREAT, keep it up!!

------------------
Apolyton Unaffiliated Party
LordStone1 for President
Giant Squid for Vice-President

[Eggman]

Harel, I stand by my comments about the Aborigines. All sources that I have found say basically the same thing: 60,000 years old, tribal government, tool age, no cities. We are talking about the natives of Australia, right? Of course, if you have sources that say differently, I am eager to review them.

Now, while your attempt at historical accuracy is noble, it isn't fun. One of the cool things about the Civ games is facing off against the 800 pound gorillas of history: Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Japanese, English, Americans, etc. Haven't you ever had the debate of whether the Roman Empire or the English Empire was the more impressive? Whether Napolean or Alexander was the better leader? Well, in a small way, Civ allows that to happen. True, most of the gorillas weren't around in 4000BC but then again the Greeks didn't rise from the ashes of the Minoans either. The Minoans are boring anyway. And if they are going to be the same civilization except in name, I don't see a good reason to start switching names on me. It adds little to the game and gets me all confused (OK, the Romans were the Minoans or was that the Babylonians...). Plus it is frustrating to see your empire split in half at some point.

Though I would like to see the Hebrews in the game. For a small people, they have had a HUGE impact on history.

[Eggman]

I don't like the idea of pigeonholing specific civs into a certain tech level. Given a different set of circumstances, it could have been the Incas and Aztecs colonizing Europe, not the other way around. Anyway, wimpy civs show up on their own in games. I have fought civs still in the Middle Ages when I am rumbling through their territory with tanks. A game that recreates the real history every time is somewhat boring IMHO. I want the possibility of things being completely different.

However, I think the concept of minor civs (civs that pop up and get 1-2 cities in unused land and don't try to win the game) would work nicely to reflect those "other" civs that just didn't make the grade.

[paraclet]

A good way to be close top history would be to be able to play from the beginning only civilisations we know survived throughout centuries until now.Others should be played by the computer only and should Not make any scientific progress by themselves.
Like the american Indians or the Incas who should stay at the archery level.That's what'shappened when europeans conquered america with guns...the other had only bows...Like that when you start to colonise the world you can find large civilisations with only bowmen to protect themselves, trade with them, give them gunpowder or any knowledge if you wish to attack other civs like the english did against the french etc...or conquered them and destroy their civilisation like america did...

[CormacMacArt]

An interesting "What if...?" to think about when talking about pigeon-holing civilizations is, What if the Aztecs had given the Spanish a disease that they had no immunity to, instead of the reverse? When the europeans had returned, the second inning might have been different.

[Kris Huysmans]

7 civs isn't enoug. The play must chose how many civs he wants. I found that you must have the choose to play with random personalities but also the choose to play with historic personalities.

[Harel]

Well, personly i belive the game will further enhance the feeling of the game is we will have specific-feeling for cultures.
Like age of empries, every group of nation had there own buildings and unit look.
Same thing with the settler series.
The civ in Firaxis should be unique, special, with there own original background.
Diodorus said the name are "eye-candy". The don't have to be. We can select the civ's which were TRUELY original, where everything started. They will have a distincy FEEL, maybe the city would look differently, maybe different units and techs ( even due i am not in-favor of that option ).
My point is, the civ's should be competly different then everyone else.
And cormac, the americans are unique, their blend is there culture, but it IS a blend. A mix of things that were there before. I am talking about the ancient ones, those who started them all.
And Kerris, the bible isn't the only form of history knowladge. The hebrew were a tribe long before the slavery to the egyptains, and even pre-date the egyptain culture.
Therefor, I once again suggest the following cultures and there starting point:

Mongul ( Mongulia )
Persian ( Iran )
Maia ( Easter Island on near shore )
Gauls ( North France )
Minoun ( Crete )
Egyptain ( Noth egypt )
Hebrew ( South Egypt or Israel )
Zulu ( Zair )
Indains ( Area of Tibet )
German ( Germeny )
Pheonicans ( Lebanon )
Babylonian ( Iraq )

I also stated my idea about the EVOLVING civ's. Along the game, by rebellion, war or just plain goverment transformation, the culture will change into a newer version.
Indias may transform into Chinaes, Koreans, Japanize.
Persians can become Ashurians.
Babylonians can cover arabs.
Pheonicans can become ottomans, turks, byzantin.
Minoun can become greek and roman.
Gauls will become celt, british, france, spanish and portoguse.
German will become norwish, viking, soviets...
Mainen into sioux, inca, aztec...

You get the idea.

[CormacMacArt]

Harel, so what do you think about the idea of having (as a comprimise) 9 "original", 9 ancient, and 9 modern civs in the list of civs?

[NotLikeTea]

Noooooo!

7, 7, and 7. We have a tradition to maintain here!

[Harel]

I still don't think we should have the option to select a "modern" civ to start playing the game, Cormac. You should choose an old civ which will transform herself along time.
Gauls into British, British into american.
You can't have the american culture, one that is founded by the merger of cultures ( requiring time, technology of travel, etc. ) into 4,000 bc beacause no such culture of blending could arrise then. Too primitive sources of transportion, and little understanding and culture devlopment to understand, respect and live with different life espects and alien cultures.

[LordStone1]

Okay. I'll be closing this thread soon - whatever is in this thread at the end of Thursday will be put into the summary which will be sent to Firaxis. So get your ideas in here or you'll have to wait until next time...

[Eggman]

While the concept of "evolving" civilizations is nice and all, but it isn't fun as far as Civ3 goes IMHO. Stick with the wide variety of civilizations.

[CormacMacArt]

I don't think that the idea of evolving civs will work either. At least not as something under the control of the game. That is like programming history into the game.

--Perhaps that quality of TOLERANCE could be looked at as a new parameter for civilizations and have some impact on DIPLOMACY and war?????

I do think that the ideas of colonization and protectorate among other diplomatic ideas should be included to facilitate this evolution.

[LordStone1]

Oh, by the way, cut out the arguments about whether Americans or Aborigines or Azerbaijians are really a civilization or not. They don't belong here. If you say the name of the civilization, it will be included in the summary. Period.

You can sumbit your arguments about whether America truly is a civilization to Firaxis/Microprose and let them decide.

I agree with you, Lordstone, the arguments over the inclusion of the Americans, Aborigines, etc. got somewhat out of control.

Regarding unique abilities of a civ, having just played AOE for a bit, I realize that some civs could end up stronger or weaker than others. For instance, AOE's designers might have not realized that the Shang's abilities left them very weak and the Yamato's abilities left them too strong.

Having experienced that now firsthand, I am a little bit more wary of unique abilities. They should perhaps be limited to unique units (eg english longbow, japanese samurai) and leaders.

I don't recall whether the discussion on leader units was here but I really like the idea of a unit representing the leader/dynasty of a civ and if it is killed or dies of old age a new dynasty would appear. I guess it could be along the lines of a capital that is a unit instead of a building.

[Cartagia the Great]

Ok, first of all I do like the idea of the evolving civilizations. However, they need to be done correctly. For instance the Celts could, eventually, turn into the Irish, Scots or the like. The Franks could turn into the French, and the Visigoths into Spain. Not a perfect representation of history, but a good one, anyway. Every so often it would give you the chance to change your civilization's name, and you could choose the one listed, or make your own.

Notice,however, that this doesn't mean no Americans in 4000 BC. Just that they wold start out as Soemthign else, and then evole. Perhapse their starting name could be the New Englander's the Colonials or something of that fashion.

I am still against the idea of giving each Civilization differant abilities. However, I would be for the idea of allowing thme ot research special technologies tha,t like Wonders of the World, could only be found by ONE Civilization, and then are taken from the list. These techs would allow for differant buildings, and units to use, and COULD be traded, but not gaiend by any more than one civiization through tech research.

The idea of Small civilziations..... you know, at first I was oppessed to this idea, but the more I think of it the more I warm to the idea. This could increase the amount of Civilziatiosn past the 8(I still think 8 or 9 would be good for a game). This would also allow us to ahve a MUCH larger civ base to choose from, each civilization with a chance of becoming a 'minor civilization'. In one game the Bulgarians coudl be a minor civ. I nthe next, due to chance, the Bulgarians could be a world class power, and domiantion them inor civilization of the Romans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let it be known that I am TOTALLY against the idea of evolving Civs! You are trying to make an already complex game WAY too complicated. If I want to start as the Americans in 4000 BC (And they will be included, no matter what the protest), I should be able to! As the Americans, not something else.

[CormacMacArt]

Cartagia the Great - correct me if I am wrong, but would it be the same thing if your large civ had a civil war and when that happened you could change the name of the one you picked as yours?