No Spanish Civ????

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Jay Bee



You bet!

So what that's point??? Within one week, you'll be able to download any one of many civs that any of us would create...and you don't have to wait for an expansion pack (why do folks keep bringing that up? - there will more 'expansion' type stuff here at Apolyton than anything Firaxis can put together). Did you not do exactly that for your scenarios?

[Jay Bee]

Tech, fun post I admit it, particularly the plasma rifle thing

Just one only thing. Where did you get from that the Spanish empire was short-lived? Granted, it may have been a disaster in organizative terms, but short-lived...

[Chris 62]

If you don't mind, Jay Bee, I would like to step in here and address Snappy's comments.

Originally posted by Snapcase

The game is already very Eurocentric in its inclusion of six essentially European civilizations. As this is not a historical simulation but a fun "what if..." experience, it greatly benefits from having at least one civilization from each continent.

A valid point in of itself, but this does not argue for the exclusion of a Iberian/Latino civ.

In point of fact, history in ALL western nations is HEAVILY eurocentic, so this is merely stating the obvious, not suporting the exclusion, but, in point of fact, reinforcing the inclusion of such a civilization.

The Spanish had a relatively short period of greatness and has had virtually no influence on world politics for the past 200 years. If you notice, almost all civs included were either huge ancient empires or major players in recent history. It adds to the "identification" with the leader to be able to play a power of today in the game.

You show your ignorence of history here, Snappy, as well as a poor understanding of the period we call the middle ages.

When all the rest of western and northern europe had fallen into the dark ages, the people of Iberia had created a wonderously progressive society called Al Andalus, the golden country.

Add to it that mariners from iberia, or sailing under iberian monarchs flags, opened up the rest of the world to trade and exploration, you can say they did more for human history then and civilization since the Romans, and in fact there influence far surpassed Rome, spreading across the entire planet, and is still seen on five of the seven continents of the earth.

The Spanish lack the kind of vivid high-school history-book images that the other Civs here have. I can't think straight off my head of a major Spanish hero, a major Spanish monarch a major
Spanish battle except for the destruction of the Armada. Perhaps it's because I'm of a northern/western/central-european origin, but so is most of Civ3's target groups.

You must be reading the wrong history books. Never heard of El Cid, Columbus(sailed for spain), Dias, Da Gama, Pizzao, Cortez, De Soto, Ponce De Leon, Simon Bolivar, need I say more?

For monarchs, for have the most famous couple in European history, Ferdinand and Isabella, the ambitious Charles the first and Phillip the second, Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal, and for modern rulers, Franco, in the americas, and the Mexican despot Santa Ana.

As for battles and campaigns, how about the explusion of the Moors from Iberia, the fall of Grenada, the conquest of Mexico, the conqust of the Incas, the many fights on Spanish soil in the Napoleonic wars, such as Trafalgar, Cape Finisterre, Algeciras, Baylen, and many others, the Mexican war of 1847, the many 19th century fights in South America, the Spanish American war of 1898, the Spanish civil war, and many others.

So we see, plenty of heros, monarchs, and battles to be discussed, hardly tiffling.

The key question is, as always, "are they interesting"? I do think that all the civs present in the game have unique and exciting cultural selling points. The Spanish do too, but most of the in-game civs have more exotic behaviours than the spanish. I'd probably have included the Spanish instead of the Germans, but it's largely a toss-up if you ask me.

I think the real problem was limiting the in game civs to 16. For civ-3, there should have been more, not less.

Larger empires than the Spanish have been excluded. The Mongol Empire once covered 50% of the world's population. Some cuts just had to be made, and the Spanish were not chosen as worthy. Also, larger ethnic groups than Spaniards are not here. Where is the Austronesian/South-East Asian civ, for example?

They would be insignificant to history.
A major portion of the world's population is of Spanish/Lation origin, FAR more important then the south Pacific peoples in terms of history. In fact, men from Iberia helped bring them into the then modern world.

Does size/importance matter? The Zulus were a footnote in the annals of history yet were definately an interesting such, especially in gameplay terms- they expanded the fastest of any civ ever. What's the Spanish USP (Unique Selling Point)?

The inclusion of the Zulus is a travesty, and totally politically correct notion. There short rise of 50 odd years was to lead to disaster and defeat at the hands of greatly numerically inferior European armies. There single claim to fame was Isandlwana, but the losses for this battle and Roake's Drift was so severe that the Zulu king proclaimed, upon hearing of them, that an Assagai(Short spear) had been plunged into the stomach of the Zulu nation. The Zulus didn't even bother with towns, but instead had crawls, places to heard their cattle, their way of identifing wealth.
TOTALLY UNWORTHY OF INCLUSION.

The hook for a Spanish civ could have been the finest explorers, conquistadors, perhaps the best ships after the 1400s, all better then the Zulu "Impei', that though brave and disaplined, was no match for a handful of Britons with Rifles.

Like I said, I think the spanish probably should have been it. However, I don't think it's game-killing in the least, and certainly not something to run up a fuss over.

It could be a sales killer, a whole continent got left out (South America).
The useless "Native American" tribes included were both insignificant to history.
Firaxis just offended a major portion of potenial sales, unless you think that Indians (Native americans, for the PC) will take up the sales slack.

There, a proper response. Happy?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Just one only thing. Where did you get from that the Spanish empire was short-lived? Granted, it may have been a disaster in organizative terms, but short-lived...

My knowledge of world history is limited at best, but when I think of the timespan of the Spanish Empire I place the beginning in the 15th century when the Moors were driven out (or did this happen earlier?), and the end at the point where England destroyed the Armada. The empire didn't fall at that point, not by any means, but the empire's sails were deflated to the point that it was no longer an almighty force to be reckoned with. (At least, that is how I've always learned it.)

Granted, using a measuring stick like this would drastically shorten the lifespan of pretty much any Civ, but the Spanish would lose the most by this measurement since the nation was fractured in medieval times. (The Germans were "peacefully" fractured under a powerless Emperor, but the Spanish were contentiously fractured).

[Henrik]

Tecnophile, Spain was still the superpower of the world when the thirty years war started...
And although the "title" was sort of passed on to France afterwards, Spain was still one of the biggest (the biggest?) empires around, for a long time after 1648.

[loinburger]

In what year/era would you say that the Spanish Empire more or less ended?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
no other nation has contributed as much as the people from the Iberian peninsula to shape the world the way it is today.

how about the muslims/moors?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

One might argue that Spain was a political power until broken by the US in 1898. Yes, decline led up to this final slap to the face, but even if you discard the 19th century, that leaves you with half a millenium of importance. Civ3 purports to be about culture, influence, wealth, tech - all things that Spain embodied for centuries, and today leaves as a legacy that changed the world.

Why the Germans were included puzzles me. Charlemagne was important. Skip centuries of feudal partition and ho-hum unimportance. Then we reach an epoch in which they were important scientifically (techs are important in civ, after all) - and simply the tinderbox that led to the deaths of tens of millions. Huge impact, to be sure, but come on! If their legacy is good music, machines, and mountains of corpses, there must be a better choice for the game.

I still think the Mayans should replace the Aztecs. They were more advanced, and are today more autonomous culturally.

[Wernazuma III]

You're right, leaving out the spanish was not really the best decision they could have made. I'm happy though that the last open Civ were the aztecs, otherwise I'd have posted this thread with "What, no aztec Civ??" by now.
But in terms of overall importance, leaving out the mongols was as bad as leaving out the spanish. And for the Zulus they could have followed our prayers to include Mali or Abessinians IMHO.

Though I eagerly await Civ3 I already can't wait for the expansion (and replacing Jap-->Mong; Zulu --> Mali; Iroq (WHO needs them?)--> Spanish)

[Imran Siddiqui]

If we are debating the inclusion of a 17th Civ, I wouldn't pick the Spanish, but the Arabs/Muslims, who were more important.

Why the Germans were included puzzles me. Charlemagne was important. Skip centuries of feudal partition and ho-hum unimportance. Then we reach an epoch in which they were important scientifically (techs are important in civ, after all) - and simply the tinderbox that led to the deaths of tens of millions. Huge impact, to be sure, but come on! If their legacy is good music, machines, and mountains of corpses, there must be a better choice for the game.

The inclusion of culture in the game MIGHT have something to do with it .

[kittenOFchaos]

Life is a beach...Spain is a holiday destination!

Well...800 million people ruled out...but do they have computers...

As a geology student in spain I am viewing this in an internet cafe...

...it has a 56 k connection...local kids play lan games...

THEY DON´T have friggin PCs, the hispanic empire is a shanty towns, cheap housing, dodgy electrics and latin america and central america IS the 3rd world.

THEY don´t matter in terms of sales and their empire was so decadent that it collapsed VERY quickly...

So ****´em is what I´ll say UNTIL I get the editor to do civ3 with MORE civs!

[Waku]

Obviously Yankees didn't want to rewrite History including their main rival in the conquest of America: Spanish (u can read here what you prefer latin/hispanic/spaniard).

[jsw363]

kittenOFchaos-

That post was completely uncalled for and misinformed. You perpetuate sterotypes and while most educated people would disregard your argument instantly, I fear that there are many who might beleive some of your statements. Your arrogance is infuriating.

You say that you are in Spain right now. Do you classify Spain or Portugal as underdeveloped? I don't want to offend you, but I think that there are many cities in Latin America and the Iberian peninsula that would rival Halifax (your home town I'm assuming) in terms of culture.

Latin America is not as devloped as England. No point in arguing that. Sorry Latin America doesn't have as many DSL connections as I'm sure you're used to. But there are countries that are developed where they do have computers. What countries in Latin America have you visited? I have traveled to every country in South America and many Central American countries. I currently live in Argentina. Buenos Aires is not the hick-town you'd have us believe. Santiago, Chile; Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; Mexico, D.F.; and a host of other cities are "connected". If you'd ever been to any of these cities you would know that they are not "shanty towns."

Sorry to destroy your world view, but there IS NO THIRD WORLD! The Cold War is over. Deal with it! Latin America is NOT the Third World.

I assume that you are classifying multiple centuries as the "very quick" decline of a decadent civilization. It's interesting that your perception of decadence include conquering and occupying all of the South American continent as well as half the North American continent.

Having a Persian and Bablyonian civ are redundant and those are the cuts that could be made. I don't know how many people could be crying over the loss of one of them if they still had the other to fall back on.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Chris 62
In point of fact, history in ALL western nations is HEAVILY eurocentic, so this is merely stating the obvious, not suporting the exclusion, but, in point of fact, reinforcing the inclusion of such a civilization.

That's what I was arguing against. Civ3 is not a historical simulation but a series of "what if..." scenarios. Please read my posts, sweetie.

You show your ignorence of history here, Snappy, as well as a poor understanding of the period we call the middle ages.

I'm talking about the period we call "The Modern Era". Not indirect cultural differences, which the Spaniards did contribute a lot of, but actual political involvement from the Spanish state. That's something at least wo people have misunderstood so far and I guess I should have made clearer. Basically, it's nice to be able to identify with powers strong during your lifetime or just before your lifetime.

Never heard of [...]

El Cid - Yes, but I have no idea what he did. Columbus was an Italian. Dias I've not heard of. Da Gama was portugese and a rotten genocidal murderer. De Soto I've not heard of either. Pizzao, Cortez and Ponce de Leon where scum. Simon Bolivar would be a great choice, but hardly a hero of the spanish empire, non?

Again, I was thinking purely of the Spanish with this post. Ferdinand and Isabella I admit, but they're hardly as vivid in my memory as other european monarchs. Personal experience, remember?

Battles - The only ones I would consider great are The battles with the Moors. The rest either were one-sided affairs or did not have heavy spanish involvement. And yet a few more I've not heard of. As I said, that part was from personal experience only.

I think the real problem was limiting the in game civs to 16. For civ-3, there should have been more, not less.

Totally disagree. But that is not a question for this thread.

They would be insignificant to history.

Hardly insignificant, but certainly less so. It was not the point I was responding to, however. Anyway, like I said, "what if..."

The inclusion of the Zulus is a travesty, and totally politically correct notion. There short rise of 50 odd years was to lead to disaster and defeat at the hands of greatly numerically inferior European armies. There single claim to fame was Isandlwana, but the losses for this battle and Roake's Drift was so severe that the Zulu king proclaimed, upon hearing of them, that an Assagai(Short spear) had been plunged into the stomach of the Zulu nation. The Zulus didn't even bother with towns, but instead had crawls, places to heard their cattle, their way of identifing wealth.

Who is betraying their complete ignorance of History? Of course they were doomed once the European settlers arrived with their vastly superior technology. They never had time to develop into a blossoming empire. However, the pre-european period is the interesting one for the Zulus, and also where most of their great victories were.

The Zulu People were originally a tiny tribe among hundreds of similar ones in what today is the KwaZulu/Natal province of South Africa. Most tribes were much larger then them, some enveloping hundreds of villages. Then a young man named Shaka Zulu inherited the chiefdom and got to decide over his three villages. He quickly personally invented a number of technical military innovations previously unheard of in this relatively backward area of the world; The Assagai was a huge improvement on previous spears, for instance. Also, he began militarising society in a near-Spartan fashion, with Age-regiments and improved training. He also separately invented battle techniques like Flanking. Using his superior strength, he invaded several neighbouring tribes and integrated them into his empire. Over the next twelve years he would subjugate an area the size of Western Europe, with a population of millions. It is estimated that one million people alone were killed in the aftermath of the original Zulu war or expansion, most of them at the hands of tribes fleeing Shaka's armies.

Of course, then he went mad and had a lot of people killed in unpleasant ways. But this was still a good few decades before the real European settlers (he did meet a few europeans in the last few years of his life) with their guns and cannons arrived. The Zulu Empire disintegrated quite quickly after Shaka's death, at the hands of corrupt relatives and eventually the Europeans, but so did Alexander the Great's- and he had a kingdom to start with!

But again I'm saying it's a "what if..." Situation. You don't imagine that european nations started out any less humbly? What if France was next to the zulu kingdom and was overrun by Impis while they were still messing with Iron Age swords? I definately think Strong, Early expansionism is a huge Unique Selling Point.

It could be a sales killer, a whole continent got left out (South America). The useless "Native American" tribes included were both insignificant to history. Firaxis just offended a major portion of potenial sales, unless you think that Indians (Native americans, for the PC) will take up the sales slack.

Insignificant to History... Insignificant to History... You don't have any other arguments, do you? And I would hardly call the Latin American market a success-defining one. Anyway, I'm sure most people, unlike you, will be able to see past this ommission.

ditto.

[Chris 62]

Always fun talking history with you, Snappy.

The Zulu People were originally a tiny tribe among hundreds of similar ones in what today is the KwaZulu/Natal province of South Africa. Most tribes were much larger then them, some enveloping hundreds of villages. Then a young man named Shaka Zulu inherited the chiefdom and got to decide over his three villages. He quickly personally invented a number of technical military innovations previously unheard of in this relatively backward area of the world; The Assagai was a huge improvement on previous spears, for instance. Also, he began militarising society in a near-Spartan fashion, with Age-regiments and improved training. He also separately invented battle techniques like Flanking. Using his superior strength, he invaded several neighbouring tribes and integrated them into his empire. Over the next twelve years he would subjugate an area the size of Western Europe, with a population of millions. It is estimated that one million people alone were killed in the aftermath of the original Zulu war or expansion, most of them at the hands of tribes fleeing Shaka's armies.

The numbers here are a GROSS exaggeration.
Firstly, the Zulu rise comes relativly late in history (19th century, what was Spain and it's decendents up to at this time? )
The only "tactic" introduced by this cluture was double envelpoment, a concept known to the Sumerians, 6,000 years earlier. The Assagai was a short stabbing spear, hardly an innovation. Roman armies fought with a short sword based on the "Falcata" called the "Gladius", a sword type they copied form Iberia in the days of the republic, circa 2,100 years ago. A Zulu Impei against wolud have stood no chance against a Legion. Roman Armies were also equiped with another Iberian weapon, the Pilum, a throwing javelin.
A second point is that the Zulu were not even the dominent native tribe in this area, that honor belongs to the Xhosa, a society that sucessfully resisted the Zulus, untill they made a rather foolish error (They killed there own cattle, and burned their own crops on the word of a 13 year old girl, who said she had a vision that the Xhosa ancestors would come and destroy the whites if this was done).
Zulus had been fighting a steadily losing war with the Boers, Europeans of Dutch decent, for some years.
They are not the "Glorious tribe" you think they are.
They were a small, backward people who were consumed in European colonialism, just like all the rest, and NOT WORTHY of inclusion in the game, even as a what if.

course, then he went mad and had a lot of people killed in unpleasant ways. But this was still a good few decades before the real European settlers (he did meet a few europeans in the last few years of his life) with their guns and cannons arrived. The Zulu Empire disintegrated quite quickly after Shaka's death, at the hands of corrupt relatives and eventually the Europeans, but so did Alexander the Great's- and he had a kingdom to start with!

Alexander inherited an army, not an empire, from his father, Phillip the second He built his empire 2,000 years before the Zulus arrive on the world's stage.

The Zulus may make some interesting light reading, but they are significant only as far as to give Britain one of it's most glorious stands, Roake's Drift, and it's most humiliating colonial defaet since the american revolution, at Isandlawana, but the facts remain that Britain was in Cetawheyo's (The Zulu King) Crawl of Ulundi in only a few months.
They are a footnote to history, and don't belong in the civ series.

[Buck Birdseed]

I don't see the significance of time periods, I really don't. Just because farming was developed at different times in different parts of the world doesn't make each and every discovery of it equally worthy.

[yaroslav]

First of all, I beg your pardon because my english is rather bad (I am Spanish), and this is my first post!. I can be wrong but I think that we must be in Civ. Al-Andalus is very important in the European history. Also, the colonization of America is other good point. I think that Spain's Supremacy run from the late 15th to medium 17th. From 10th to 14th and in 18th, Spain was a powerful country, but not the most powerful.

Only from the 19th to the late 20th Spain is not very important...

Also I think that Portuguese must be in too... Iberians powers lead to the Discovery Age.

Again, I beg your pardon because my english is rather bad. I know that others put it with more wisdom and poetry than I, but I need to do. And I agree with Jay Bee, this is not nationalism.

PS: Example of Spain's importants war and battles are Lepanto (the defeat of a powerful Turk fleet), Bailen (The first battle that saw a Napolenoic army defeat), San Quitin (perhaps the most important victory, and are many, of Spain's army in France), The war in Morocco (If I don't remember it wrong, the Allies study a naval invasion in this war for Normandia in WWII).

[lord of the mark]

this is great - one person cites famous conqistadores as Spanish heroes, another calls them "scum". Spain is pitted against teh Zulus. Charges of unimportance, historical backwardness and decline fly. Charges of political correctness fly.


Why not have Zulus AND Spaniards AND Arabs and so forth?
Why not have 60 or more civs available?
Because they all have to be BALANCED cause of the CSU's and special abilities.

Is it worth it?

LOTM

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by technophile
I lost my interest as soon as Firaxis took out the plasma rifles!!!

I agree

But getting back on topic why doesn't Firaxis put a ton of Civs in Civ3 like CTP had? Sure lots of nations will have the same special abilities but at least it'll stop all the "Why wasn't [insert nation here] included in Civ3" complaints.

[Eddin]

NO SPANISH???????? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's horrible!

*above post contains a mild amount of sarcasm*

Oh well... just a little more work for our great Jesús Balsinde. Consider that to be his first mod

And anyway... Spanish weren't THAT big. Might as well add the Dutch or Portuguese. Especially the Dutch were more important for a longer time.

Anyway, I think they've done well. The number of civs pro continent has been balanced (instead of slaughtering eachother in Europe)

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Eddin
And anyway... Spanish weren't THAT big. Might as well add the Dutch or Portuguese. Especially the Dutch were more important for a longer time.

Anyway, I think they've done well. The number of civs pro continent has been balanced (instead of slaughtering eachother in Europe)

I see the thread has continued to serve as a beacon for Spano-philes mildly moaning that their greatness has not been recognized. That's a shame really, because there is more to this.

The true issue here is that:

1) the number of full-blown, firaxis-approved, fully-animated civs is extremely limited, probably for the sole reason that "animations in pre-rendered 3D are so much work".

2) the history of the world is being 'adjusted' by the Firaxis team for various reasons including ignorance (maybe), bias and gameplay considerations.

Instead of 'requesting' that Civ X or Y be included, it would be wise to ask for the tools necessary to really make your own Civ --including animations and all, and the ability to make this into a handy mod pack for easy distribution. Lastly, Civ creation efforts from Firaxis would be a nice add-on! Or perhaps they can sanction some mods like was done with Half-Life.

[Jay Bee]

I see the thread has continued to serve as a beacon for Spano-philes mildly moaning that their greatness has not been recognized. That's a shame really, because there is more to this.

No. What's a shame is that some people have decided that the above was the thread message and ruined it accordingly with their moronic posts.

You hit the center of the nail in #2. That's exactly what I would have liked the firaxis people explain to us. It's somehow relieving to see that at least someone got the message right.

About #1.... well, that to me is laughable. If I understood correctly you are saying that they will not present a fully finished product because it's so much work. Wouldn't have been more logical to keep the 21 civs appearing in Civ2? If for some technical reason that couldn't be done, they could have posted a 2-liner explanatory note on the FAQ of their flamboyant new site.

Finally, this was not a thread requesting any inclusion/exclusion (at least that was not the intention of the poster who started it). It was a thread complaining about the apparent lack of objective reasons for the exclusion. A bit different. What you're saying about them providing us with the tools sounds good, but is totally unrealistic imho.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Jay Bee


No. What's a shame is that some people have decided that the above was the thread message and ruined it accordingly with their moronic posts.

You hit the center of the nail in #2. That's exactly what I would have liked the firaxis people explain to us. It's somehow relieving to see that at least someone got the message right.

About #1.... well, that to me is laughable. If I understood correctly you are saying that they will not present a fully finished product because it's so much work. Wouldn't have been more logical to keep the 21 civs appearing in Civ2? If for some technical reason that couldn't be done, they could have posted a 2-liner explanatory note on the FAQ of their flamboyant new site.

Finally, this was not a thread requesting any inclusion/exclusion (at least that was not the intention of the poster who started it). It was a thread complaining about the apparent lack of objective reasons for the exclusion. A bit different. What you're saying about them providing us with the tools sounds good, but is totally unrealistic imho.

Re: point1 - I'm saying exactly that. Why should they remove civs that were already serving well in Civ2? Were there any gameplay problems? No.
What is a problem though, is to make elaborate leader, hero and other animated 3D artwork for so many civs. I see no other reason to limit the choice of civs.
Apparently, this is a laughable thought to you. In that case, I'm very much interested in your take on the reasons why.

Regarding the tools I spoke of - I too think that is probably too much to ask. Why? Again because the fancy 3d booha graphics prohibit customizability and versatility. The good looks come at a steep price.

[Buck Birdseed]

Aww, served well in Civ2, eh? As faceless, pointless, samey carbon copies of each other, that's how. I know! Let's double the number of species in StarCraft, I mean, sure it's perfectly balanced for three species, but six would give people more options so it doesn't matter if all the individuality and personality dissapears. Let's just change a jpg here and there and people probably will think they're completely different, tee hee.

Guys, it's a Design Decision. If you don't like it, this is really not the place to complain, because it's already in.

[Jay Bee]

Grim, what is laughable to me is to blandish a "it's so much work" excuse not to do something. If there are technical problems then that's an entirely different matter. Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough on this particular point. I was not attacking your take on this at all.


Snap, okay, thanks for stating the obvious. What we are questioning is just the reasons for that design decision: why 16 and not 21? What difference does this make (apart from being 'so much work')? Call it casual, useless talk if you wish, but inquiring minds always want to know

[Buck Birdseed]

*shrug* You have to have a cutoff somewhere. I probably would have put it at 14 myself. However, I'm sure they've laboured with every possible number while writing the design docs. I don't think its pure coincidence. Anyway, that was vaguely adressed at LOTM and the rest of the "64 civs!" crowd.

Now, back to the real issue- is Firaxis willfully distorting history? Hell Yeah! I'd personally be pretty bored with a game that only contained a select number or Eurasian civs and measured them exactly upon how much impact they had in real history. This isn't real history. It's a game where there needs to be a place for history's great rivals, it's underdogs, it's exotic quirks, it's ancient remains. It's my firm belief that Firaxis has carefully measured out each civ and asked- is this a fun civ? Will it appeal to our target market? Does it present enough unique features to have a lot of personality? Is it, ultimately, essential for the feel of a Civ game? Did the doubling of the amount of civs in Civ2 really change things for the better, and was the inclusion of this civ really a good thing? I think firaxis has done a decent (though not perfect) job of picking civs with a lot of gameplay appeal.

[Waku]

BTW, What's the point of including English and Americans, everyone knows they are the SAME culture, everyone knows that the 13 colonies were England, and everyone knows Britain is today another State of the USA.

[Tingkai]

A major problem with not including a Spanish civ is that it seems like a stupid marketing move. It alienates a gigantic market. For us Civ fans, that means fewer games sold and less profit to finance Civ 4.

Including the Zulus is not about being politically correct. I would think that it is a wise marketing move targeting black people.

Similarly, Japan is likely included as a culture for marketing reasons even though its impact on world history is relatively minor - just over 100 years.

I'm not saying that the design of Civ 3 is driven just by marketing considerations. I'm just saying that marketing is a consideration.

[Jay Bee]

Tingkai:

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Aww, served well in Civ2, eh? As faceless, pointless, samey carbon copies of each other, that's how. I know! Let's double the number of species in StarCraft, I mean, sure it's perfectly balanced for three species, but six would give people more options so it doesn't matter if all the individuality and personality dissapears. Let's just change a jpg here and there and people probably will think they're completely different, tee hee.

Guys, it's a Design Decision. If you don't like it, this is really not the place to complain, because it's already in.

Aaah, yes! Let's have TWO civs. BLACK AND WHITE. How's that for tasteful opposites?

I *like* abstract civs. I don't want a civ to become a sort of puppet with a clown's nose or a witch's frown. I want civs to be unpredictable (not that they were in civ2), not marionettes to some ill-chosen doctrine. I don't like thinking "oh, there are the germans...they are not expansively inclined, thus I can safely trash their frontiers." -I want to be able to test my opponents out, to observe them, and *then* act accordingly.

Of course, you're also massively wrong on the notion that there is a mgic number 14 or 16 that somehow allows 'colorful play'. I do not see why there can't be any interesting characteristics for a few more civs. Also, it's not just the number. It's the choice too.