Civilization

DarkCloud · October 8, 2001, 19:08

Civilization
-
I believe the reason most nations were included was because, at one time or another, they
affected the entire world.
Examples:
Germany- wwi, wwii
China- all of asia at different times, world today
England- colonies
France- colonies
America- today 1940-2001
etc.
The only civilizations that do not fit this requirement are the Zulu and the Iroquois... each of which only affected, at most a continent with their empires.
...And possibly the Aztec.

Thus, these civilizations were likely added to make the game seem more 'fun' as people seemed to like playing with the
volatile Zulu and Aztec... Location must have also been an issue.

However, Firaxis could have replaced the Zulu with Mali or Ghana or the Arab states, all of which have affected the entire world at one time or another [Saladin, etc.]

It leaves me to wonder why the 'Fun' Celts, Vikings and Mongols were kicked out if these other states were left in.
I would have been willing to wait another month for some more video-renderings of the units- Civ III fans should be like Blizzard fans, always ready for another month's delay to make a great game.

Alas, it is not so.

-Please write here if my thesis on why certain empires were included is contrary or supporting your beliefs.

Thanks

orange · October 8, 2001, 19:12

I've been waiting so long for Civ3...I want it ASAP

I just hope we have an XP with worthy civs, and no repeats! (IE Byzantines)

Odin · October 8, 2001, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
I've been waiting so long for Civ3...I want it ASAP

I just hope we have an XP with worthy civs, and no repeats! (IE Byzantines)

Same here
I WANT MY VIKINGS BACK!!!

Martinus · October 9, 2001, 04:00

No, please, not another "Why Iroquios/Zulus are in while my favourite [enter Civ name thread] are out?" thread. It became boring around 30th time somebody posted it.

DarkCloud · October 9, 2001, 20:48

So? It is a legitimate topic to increase my post count

Christantine The Great · October 9, 2001, 20:51

Does this really help any? All it is going to do is start some anti-whoever or "ADD ----" rant argument.

DarkCloud · October 10, 2001, 14:17

Yes, it is a useful and in-depth analysis of the civilizations in civ.

Mihai · October 10, 2001, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Yes, it is a useful and in-depth analysis of the civilizations in civ.

The things that you said in the opening post are correct.
Strange that you spam and torpiled your own thread.

I don't know if Zulu are more imprtant for African history than Mali of Ghana, but I think they are more known (could be because of Civ I & II ?

)

Mongols deserved to be in. They were at their time a mondial power.

Mongoloid Cow · October 11, 2001, 04:04

There are already too many civs in the Europe/Asia/North Africa region as is. If the Zulus, Iroquois and Aztecs weren't in and were replaced by the Mongols/Poles/Hungarians, or whatever people are demanding now, the Americans would be the only civ not on that big landmass.

The Commodore · October 11, 2001, 11:30

Sigh...I want my Vikings...my best games have been with them.

Provost Harrison · October 11, 2001, 16:09

From what I can tell they have been picked so there is a balance of different civs from different areas of the world, and thus, a varied balance of the different cultures. So I suppose if they add more civs at a later date, they will try and do it so the different cultures are still balanced (ie, add Spanish, Arabs, Incas and Mongols, for example)

Juggernaut · October 11, 2001, 21:32

Quote:

From what I can tell they have been picked so there is a balance of different civs from different areas of the world, and thus, a varied balance of the different cultures. So I suppose if they add more civs at a later date, they will try and do it so the different cultures are still balanced (ie, add Spanish, Arabs, Incas and Mongols, for example)

It will look silly with even more non-signifant African civs just to cover a map area, but I'm afraid you're right.

DarkCloud · October 11, 2001, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
There are already too many civs in the Europe/Asia/North Africa region as is. If the Zulus, Iroquois and Aztecs weren't in and were replaced by the Mongols/Poles/Hungarians, or whatever people are demanding now, the Americans would be the only civ not on that big landmass.

If you just add more civilizations to the mix then it will be good enough, anyways, I believe that the Zulu should be replaced with the Mali or Ghana, two more "real" trading, learned, and conquering nations. Thus, there will still be a replacement African nation.

I believe that the Aztec could be replaced with the Inca if (all of the attributes must be significant (ex. military/scientific/trading )defines a civilization

...Actually I bet the 16 civs is a scam, and that Firaxis 1. Wanted to finish production quicker and 2. Wanted everyone to buy the expansion pack with the beloved Spanish, Viking, and Mongols.

Mongoloid Cow · October 12, 2001, 01:45

If you don't like it, change it. I've said it a million times before and I'll probably say it a million times again. Firaxis said a year or so ago that there will be supporting art, so if you don't like their choices, you can make you're own. And if you want the entire game focused on Europe, then you have it like that. If you want a world-balanced game, you have it.