Egyptians followed by Greeks next civs of the week

Martinus · August 14, 2001, 02:58

About the next civ:

Yesterday I have entered the Civ3 site but through slow modem connection, not my usual LAN. When you enter there is a white on blue animation with Civ of the Week, which then goes to show grinning Hammurabi.

Well, not on a slow connection. Apparently the animation with Hammurabi did not dowload at first and I got the following white on blue:

Civ of the Week
*next screen*
Babylonians
*next screen*
Egyptians
*next screen*
Greeks

and then Hammurabi popped up.
It seems the Egyptians are next followed by Greeks.

Martinus · August 14, 2001, 02:59

And IMHO this is coherent with the idea of showing all civilisations, starting from the oldest, rather than alphabetical order, which would be ridiculous.

red_jon · August 14, 2001, 06:14

Which would mean the Germans should be last?

Martinus · August 14, 2001, 07:02

Or maybe Americans? I think it may be based on the unit (and therefore potential golden age) - what was later (I am lousy on 20th century military history) - F-15 or the German special tank (what is it?)

JellyDonut · August 14, 2001, 17:11

It seems to me if the civs are coming in chronological order, the Indians should be last (independent in 1947), unless it is by the unit animation, in which case it should be the Americans or Russians. However, it may very well be that they are coming in the order of their leaders, which should make Gandhi (Indians) or maybe Mao (Chinese) last. It would not be difficult to create a list of the orders of the civs this way.

Edit: spelling

Alexander I · August 14, 2001, 19:06

It is most likely not by leader animations. Then the Persians would come before the Greeks (unless they use Scheherazade instead of Xerxes, ugh!) and the Egyptians would come after the Greeks (Cleopatra was 300 years after Alexander). I think it is either by unique unit or golden age. Since we don't know Persia's we don't know what they'll do.

I would propose:

Babylon (last week)
Egypt? (this week)
Greece (presuming the theory is correct)
Persia
China
India
Rome
Japan
Britain
Germany
France
Russia
Aztecs
Iroquois or Americans
Americans or Iroquois
Zulus (if at Shaka, it would be late 1700s, if at golden age, it would be late 1800s)

Hope we can figure it out. Also, Babylon's "golden age" at the time of Nebuchadnezzar (Hanging Gardens, Ishtar Gate, etc.) was until AFTER Egypt was past its prime. Perhaps they are going by the start of the civilization. Since post-diluvian civilization began in Mesopotamia, it is logical to start with Babylon and then go to Egypt.

Edit - Just checked out CivIII.com. I got the animation thing too. First it said Babylon, then it said Egypt, then it glitched and moved on to Hammurabi. They're definitely working on it, and Egypt is probably next.

PS: if it went by leaders, it would be:

Babylon (Hammurabi)
Persia (Xerxes?)
Greece (Alexander)
Rome! (Julius Caesar?)
Egypt (Cleopatra)
Germany (Frederick?)
France (Joan of Arc)
Aztecs (Montezuma)
Britain (Elizabeth I)
Japan (Tokugawa Ieyasu?)
Iroquois (Hiawatha)
Russia (Catherine II)
Zulus (Shaka Zulu?)
America (Abraham Lincoln)
Indians (Mohandas Gandhi)
Chinese (Mao Tse-Tung)

Later!

Martinus · August 15, 2001, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by JellyDonut
It seems to me if the civs are coming in chronological order, the Indians should be last (independent in 1947)

But Indians have been independent for ages, since the ancient times, and formed a great empire. The fact they lost their independence to British for some time does not change this. It would be equally ridiculous to say Hebrew civ (and state) was formed after WWII.

KrazyHorse · August 15, 2001, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Which would mean the Germans should be last?

Red_jon, you don't need a unified nation to be a unified civilisation. Think it through.

red_jon · August 15, 2001, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Red_jon, you don't need a unified nation to be a unified civilisation. Think it through.

Umm, I guess so, but they weren't even called 'Germans' before they were united anyway.

But in that sense, you could be a united nation but not a united civilisation?

Alexander I · August 15, 2001, 19:14

They WERE called Germans. It's just that there were a lot of groups of them. The Germans themselves were just one of many "Germanic" tribes at first. The Romans fought them (i.e. even named after them -- Germanicus Caesar). Then as early as the 900s AD, Heinrich I held the title "King of Germany" before his son Otto I restored the title "Holy Roman Emperor." The people spoke German and lived in a large area known as Germany (though there was no official nation-state called German yet). And citizens of the Holy Roman Empire were colectively called Germans, not Romans, though they would often identify themselves by provinces - Bavarian, Bohemian, Badenser, Prussian, Austrian, you know...

Just because the 2nd Reich didn't create a unifed Germany until 1871 doesn't mean there weren't Germans. The time period when Prussia and Austria were rival German states vying for control is called the period of GERMAN DUALISM. Prussians and Austrians were the same people in everything but name and nationality.