civ3 to include a full set of nationalities

AustralianJeremy · January 24, 2000, 20:17

Australia was left out of civ2, and ctp made a hash of it (misspelling leader's names, and making some really odd choices). Be nice to see us in Civ3.

For leaders: it's a tough one, but i guess Gough Whitlam or robert menzies, and ... i'll try to think of who the female one could be. Natasha?

MidKnight Lament · January 24, 2000, 22:53

A female choice for Australia's a pretty tough one to make because we haven't really got any stand outs. Natasha would be good for a laugh because she's a popular lady at the moment, but despite what she may end up doing in the future, I think she'd be a bit of a lesser name beside some that come from other civs.

I'm not saying it couldn't be her, because to be honest I haven't got a better suggestion, and Carmen Lawrence always sounded a bit wrong in CTP. It'd be amusing if Natasha got it, but I could understand some people might not feel the same way

djdhy · January 25, 2000, 08:15

To add to that, can you please add korea? We've got 5000 years of history you know. Longer than the japanese and they were included.....(No disrespect to the japanese)

Patriqvium · January 25, 2000, 09:51

Sorry all Australians, but...

I hated CTP for many reasons, and on of them was the dummied-out civilizations. They included "civs" that were "created" in the 18th century, with the cost of the historical ones. For me, a unified (for example) Polynesian civilization would fit much better.

djdhy, you're right about Korea. Hopefully, the Korean civilization will be included.

Pythagoras · January 25, 2000, 10:33

I hear you Pat. Aztecs are a lot more fun to play than "Mexicans." And if you really start out as a "tribe" then we should see Civs like in Age of Kings. For example Goths, Celts, Scots, Picts, Romans (was there really a Roman tribe?), Chinese, Huns, Slavs, Russians, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Sioux, Iroqoius, Anglos, Saxons, Welsh, Vikings, Zulus, Watoozies, Pigmies.. just to name a few.

January 25, 2000, 15:04

I agree AustraliaJeremy, I loved the way I could play as my own country in CTP. The idea of amalgamating Scotland, Ireland and Wales as the Celts is not historically sound.

Who is to say that if things had been different Canada would be a superpower?

Seeker · January 25, 2000, 23:57

Yayy!! Someone else wants Polynesians!

Ethiopians are good too. Khmers.

Canada: in 1900, PM Laurier predicted that Canada would have a population of 400 million "if the current immigration rate continues".......

Jimmy Liu · January 26, 2000, 07:38

What about the Americans? They were in all three games and they've only been around for about 200 years. I don't see what's wrong with including Ausrtalia.

Patriqvium · January 26, 2000, 09:11

This makes even more people angry, but...

I disliked the including of the Americans in the previous Civs. They were added just because of popularity questions, as many people want to play their "own Civ".

I personally think the Firaxis could make a "name evolution" system- the Teutons "evolve" into Germans, the Anglo-Saxons into the British etc. Some civilizations, like the Chinese, would not evolve at all.

CivAddict #1 · January 26, 2000, 10:14

I've seen one of this discussions before and I read a real good solution. The creates could include an option to create your own civilizations. You'll be able to give them a list of 40/50 city names, a tribe color, leader names, tribe name, and maybe the choice of different faces. I believe the last one is possible in multiplayer.
And as for the Australians, I don't think they've got a right to be in the game as long as the Dutch are not in.
The Dutch were the strongest economic power during the 17th century and they exist for a much longer time than the Australians. Wasn't Australia discovered bij Dutchman Abel Tasman.
Even know, despite having only 35000 squared kilometers of land, they are a very strong economic power. I think very underestimated in the rest of the world.
The Dutch were in in CtP, and it was quite realistic. The leaders names were obvious but I must some big cities and had to look op several towns in the atlas to know where to find them.
That's all for now...
Wilhelmus van Nassouwe!!!!!

NoviceCEO · January 26, 2000, 10:29

Isn't Canada an enconomical superpower?? I think you're forgeting that Canada is one of the top 10 economies (I don't know the exact position) and it has only 30million inhabitants. It (canada´s economy) is about the same time as Brazil's, but Brazil has over 150million inhabitants!

About the thing build your own civ and give city names and stuff, it is perfectly possible doing that in SMAC.

The Joker · January 26, 2000, 10:32

I like S. Kroeze's idea to include only "original" civs at first. These could be like the Babylonians, the Chinese and the Incas. Then, with the numerous internal conflicts that should be included in Civ3 (check the "Civil wars in Civ3" or my "How to portray the rise and fall of great powers in Civ3" threads for details on how this could be done) breakoffs of the different civs should have realistic names, so if some Teuton cities got independance they could be called the English or the Vikings, an English splitoff could be called the Americans or the Australians, a Viking splitoff could be called the Danes of the Swedish. Numerous of these could be included for each civ, adding a fun element when experiencing these civil wars. I do agree, though, that each civ should be changeable to the player, and it should also be possible to add as many civs as wanted, making it possible to play eccactly the civ you want against exactly the civs you want.

NoviceCEO · January 26, 2000, 10:40

btw, the Roman Empire was 'born' when the tribes that lived in Roma conquered the other tribes that inhabitated the place that is now known as Italy. It continued conquering more lands with the important defeat of the people from what's the France now (we call that empire as Gália, in portuguese) and continued aquiring land in Europe. It defeated Carthagia and dominated the commerce in the Mediterran. It also dominated a part of Asia and Africa (dominating the Cleopatras' Egypt), including the former colony that is now know as Istambul. The Roman Empire lasted for many years, but several crisis came to it. In its final period, it lacked of good emperors and it had too little slaves, because it couldn't conquer enough regions in the pace it did before. The Western part of the Roman Empire was invaded by Barbarians and it was created the Eastern Roman Empire, which capitol was Istambul (renamed Constantinopla, as it was known by Byzancium those days). The Eastern Roman Empire (also know as the the Byzantiums) lasted for many years, until it was taken (in 1453 if I'm not wrong) by the Turks.

novice

January 26, 2000, 16:02

Of course you should have the optiion to make your own civs, but what about leader pics, start positions, and do you really want to have to give the game 40 cities? I don't see the problem with having real nationalities. If you don't like 'em blow 'em up. Or turn them off.

By the way, some of the civs you mentioned never actually existed as civs on there own, in fact there aren't very many examples of a large ethnic group being one civ. There was never a Celtic Empire, nor a Teuton empire. But Indonesia and Scotland have been separate entities, and thus have empire potential
[This message has been edited by stodlum (edited January 26, 2000).]

MidKnight Lament · January 26, 2000, 18:45

quote:

Originally posted by Patriqvium on 01-26-2000 08:11 AM
This makes even more people angry, but...

I disliked the including of the Americans in the previous Civs. They were added just because of popularity questions, as many people want to play their "own Civ".

Damn straight. I know that Australia has never been a civ in this sense of the word. Sure, the U.S. is a super-power now, but let's face it... they're in there so people can play as their own civ. I agree whole-heartedly.

Fact is, I'm Australian, and I won't be really fussed if we're not included. But it is funny to see everyone get fired up.
Perhaps a wide range of civs should be included with a check box for a particular game to include only historically accurate civs. And I'm talking about the ancient ones here, not the Americans.

Nothing personal of course

S. Kroeze · January 26, 2000, 18:53

The essential point in this eternal discussion is that half of the posters don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state/empire. Is this really so difficult to grasp?!?

Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!!
As a rule its religion and cultural identity that ultimately defines a civilization.

The game CivII acknowledges this difference; its makes clear that a Republic should be understood as a federation of city states all belonging to the same culture.
One cause of the existing confusion is that the makers of CivII haven't been consistent (for example including both French and Spanish, both being Roman Catholic and Latin nations), while at the same time totally neglecting the isssue of domestic policies, which in my opinion is a true shame! I hope CivIII will at least correct that.

I want to thank the Joker for his declaration of approval, though its partly his own idea.

Its true that not all "original" civilizations existed in 4000BC, but some of them did: the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus and Chinese. Then some more creative posters came with the idea of introducing the rise AND fall of civilizations: today the only civilization clearly still there, is the Chinese, which is an achievement in itself. Hurrah for the Chinese!!
And why should all civilizations start at the same date? I think the game could be made much more interesting for the advanced player if he could choose a late-starting civilization. A player could earn points for every year his civilization existed. Nor should military defeat necessarily spell the end of a civilization! Normally a civilization will absorb the conqueror through assimilition.

By the way, the German empire is older than some posters seem to know: in 962AD Otto I the Great founded the Holy Roman Empire Deutscher Nation, which was not a nation based state in the modern sense, but the German element was certainly dominant in it; this first "Reich" lasted until 1806. I would date the birth of the English kingdom at 1066 at least, of the French kingdom at 987 (Hugo Capet), possibly even earlier (Clovis). Someone like Jeanne d'Arc proves that some sense of national identity did exist in the later Middle Ages, in Europe at least.

To those intelligent readers really interested in the concept of a civilization I would like to recommend W.H.McNeill: "The rise of the West(1963)"

If a small nation (14 million inhabitants??)like the Australians would be included, the Indian civilization alone could be divided in about hundred different nations who were politically important during the last 3000 years; Aryans, Dravidians, Magadhans, Guptas, Shakas, Kushanas, Tamils, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas, Rajputs, just to name some. Nice idea!

MidKnight Lament · January 27, 2000, 01:39

quote:

Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 01-26-2000 05:53 PM

If a small nation (14 million inhabitants??)like the Australians would be included, the Indian civilization alone...

Well, if we're going to be accurate about everything, I should point out Australia's hit 20 million, but your point's taken.
Although, somewhere we've got to draw the line between historical accuracy and wanting to play your favourite civs. I'm sure Firaxis want to get everything reasonably accurate, but I think there's other things (ie. balanced gameplay, tough AI, implementation of some of these great forum ideas

) that they'll be putting more time into.

Fact is, no matter who they put in and leave out, there's going to be a lot of complaints anyway. They're in a bit of a no win situation here, so I'm not going to be too fussy. But then, I haven't studied much history...

JamesJKirk · January 27, 2000, 01:51

So what if the US has only been around for about 2 and a quarter centuries? A unified Germany's only existed since 1871, so why don't you just call them Prussians, and the current incarnation of the English has exist since about the 15th century or so. The UK only has existed since 1707. In fact the idea of a nation-state has only existed for about 350 years, before then, rulers sought to conquer where they could, and the peasants didn't care who ruled them usually. So lay off all this because none of the "orignial" civs in Civ1 or 2 really existed in 4000BC

- Also, if things had been different, maybe you Canucks could've maybe rebelled with us? Crown-hugging Tories!

tanis · January 27, 2000, 05:12

I don't care which civs/nations/whatever Firaxis will include as long as you can easily edit/create your own civ, along with city names etc. I guess there are a lot of civ-ers like me who have no real chance of getting their own favourite civ included (the Flemish in my case), so if they include this option in the game setup, everyone will be happy.

Besides, the idea of only including the so-called 'original civs' would generate a lot(!) of editing. This would be to much of historical accuracy. For the people however who wish such a game, Firaxis could simply include the option to choose your adversaries (like in civ 2).

Patriqvium · January 27, 2000, 08:59

Except that the adversary-choosing system of Civ2 was broken because of the flag color system they had invented. Hopefully, stupid errors like this will not be made this time...

Patriqvium · January 27, 2000, 08:59

Except that the adversary-choosing system of Civ2 was broken because of the flag color system they had invented. Hopefully, stupid errors like this will not be made this time...

tanis · January 27, 2000, 11:55

I understood you the first time, Patriqvium...

Point taken, I forgot about that, it's been a while.

Atahualpa · January 27, 2000, 12:22

when Australia will be included, Austria has even more right to be included!

Btw, what do you think of the idea, that every nationality should have a flag. Maybe you could draw your own flag. Instead of the color thing: blue, red, orange, there are flags!

ATa

tanis · January 27, 2000, 14:02

The idea is nice, but I think it's rather impractical. You'd still need a color for the units on the map, and as a result, there would be nearly no use for the flag...
Thus it would be a lot of trouble with very little to show for it...
...or did you have something else in mind ?

Old Bear · January 27, 2000, 14:26

S.K has some valid points, historically. The suggestion to allow you to name your own civilization, pick a face, color etc. is valid. Already done in MOO II and Pax Imperialism. Customize your civilization. Be given points, and pick the characteristics off a menu. Skip the entire naming civilizations: by the way, NO "Civilization" existed in 4000 B.C.. Sumer about 3100, MojenDaro about 2500, and Chinese along the Yellow River about 2500. Cities of sorts existend on the Anatolian plain and in the fertile crescent area as early as 7000 b.c., but they were not "Civilizations". Also the point was accurately made that civilizations are not nation or even city state based.

------------------
The secret to life is-
there isn't any.

MidKnight Lament · January 27, 2000, 21:22

I don't know that anyone was implying there were civs around 4000BC. Remember the old starting sequence for the original Civilization? The idea was that you were building a civ from humble beginnings, not starting off with one already developed.

January 28, 2000, 12:22

quote:

Originally posted by tanis on 01-27-2000 01:02 PM
There would be nearly no use for the flag...

There would be a use, on occupied cities, in diplomatic antechambers, and in the status bar. I think there woulb be many options for flag rasing. You could have a sequence when a city was taken over.

I agree with the check box idea, MidKnight Lament

Atahualpa · January 28, 2000, 12:33

What are US-Americans proud of? - their flag
What are British proud of? - their flag
What is everyone proud of? - their flag

Flags are just about everywhere, they are a sign of unionism, of people that belong to the same group. Giving you a more nationalistic feeling. You are not batteling blue ones, e.g.: you are batteling the union jack. I think that involves you more with the game.
Of course, I know this is not easy to include with the game, but it would be nice.

Or one thing I liked about some Civ2 Scenarios was that you had right the same unit as your opponent, but the look was different. So, that the french musketeers for example had their blue-white-red uniform, while the english had red-blue-black and austrians had green-white. I quite liked that. Because it showed that these units belong to this nation and they were my units and nobody else could recruit them....

Comments?

Ata

NoviceCEO · January 28, 2000, 14:58

No matter how big is the Firaxis effort to give some accuracy, in this case, to put in the game a respectable set of nationalities, Firaxis will (for sure) focus sometimes on the commercial aspect. "Why should we include the Pandyas, the Cholas and the Aryans? It might screw the gameplay and we will need lots of time to find historical reference (that are less common in those cases) and to edit civs, but who will buy the game only beause it includes Cholas or who will not buy the game because it doesn't include the Pàndyas???"

S. Kroeze · January 28, 2000, 16:13

One of the reasons I didn't buy Call to Power (apart from the fact that it is boring)
is that in the first and only game I played my opponents included Nicaraguans and Jamaicans; it included Phoenicians too which was nice, but the names of the default king or queen sounded very strange.

If commercial reasons are considered they should for sure include the Bahamians, the Bahrainis, the Monacoans, the sultan of Brunei, the Quwaiti's and of course the great civilizations of the New Yorkers, the Californians, the Texans and make the ultimate goal to be transformed into Bill Gates!!