states or civs?

[lord of the mark]

civ is a game about civilization - it models technological advance, city and terrain improvement, the construction of wonders - it attempts to model the growth of civilization.

however the protagonists are STATES. They have leaders, capitals, ministers, armies. These are things that belong to states, not civilizations.

In some cases there is a one - to - one match of civ to state, but in most cases in history not. Some civs had multiple states - in the hellenistic era there were 3 major greek states, and several minor ones. At various times china has been one, two, or many states. Similarly many states have participated in more than one civilization, there own culture being a a mix and/or blend of 2 or more civilizatons - thus ptolemaic egypt was greek AND Egyptian,
medieval france was Latin AND Germanic (and maybe a little bit celtic) Byzantium was Greek AND Roman, Russia was Byzantine AND slavic. And in many cases a state had only a limited degree of cultural distinctiveness while sharing the language and religion of another. Thus Assyria was in many ways quite distinctive, yet had a language very close to babylonian, shared a religion and high culture. Similarly for the Americans and English. Japan was more distinctive from china, but shared a written language, and much high culture.

All this could be evaded in civ2 - a "civ" there was almost generic, distinctive for leader and city names, easily changed. and placement on the map on some real world maps. SO it didnt much matter. It was trivial to create a new civ oneself.

CSU's however raise the question of what is a civ. The ambiguity is forced into the open, with the debates of what "civs" or should not be included. before anything intelligble can be said on that, there must be some clarification of what is meant, a state or a civ.

LOTM

[Grumbold]

The game has always been about leading a nation, but since there have only been max 7 nations on the planet at the same time you end up inadequately representing something larger. I've always read the title civilization as being derived from the process of becoming a civilised nation rather than the player embodying a whole civilisation spanning multiple nationalities.

[campmajor!]

What is your point, besides being irritatingly accurate?

[Grumbold]

What else have we got to do except nit-pick? If we stray off-topic it ends up in a fight over nationality, economic systems or being punted into the graveyard forum.

[death_head]

L.A. should be a civ, because they've influenced the world a lot more then the Aztecs.

[Recurve]

For that comment, I will conquer LA and rename it Tenochtitlan.

[death_head]

I'll distract your soldiers with trinkets and beads...

I just realized we can make fun of the Aztecs because there aren't any to get offended.

[Mahdimael]

I would be careful, death_head. The current inhabitants of Mexico consider themselves to be the descendents of the Aztecs (which is pretty accurate). It's like my friend whose ancestors were from Tyrol, on the Italian/Austrian border. I call him a "greasy Italian meatball" and he gets irritated (he's 6'3 with blond hair and blue eyes).
Just be careful who you choose to insult.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by death_head
I just realized we can make fun of the Aztecs because there aren't any to get offended.

Just take care whom you offend! Beware the wrath of Wernazuma. I'll soon sacrifice you and LA to the higher glory of Huitzilopochtli.

Xicpipitzoa in notepol, tompoxtli!
Quinocceppa, ximahui Wernazuma Nahuixtelotzin!


Yes, there are weird people on Apolyton.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Yes, there are weird people on Apolyton.

I don't doubt it.

Whose up for a game of tlachtli?

[Wernazuma III]

Since my knees where smashed once I prefer playing Patolli only, but thanx.