Comparing Civ Lists: Civ3, AoE2, Rise of Nations, etc.

[siredgar]

As there have been a slew of Civilization-like games coming out recently, I wanted to compare their Civ lists--

Civilization 3 (16 civs):

Americans
Aztecs
Babylonians
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Japanese
Persians
Romans
Russians
Sioux
Zulu

Age of Empire 2 (w/ expansion pack, 18 civs):

Aztecs
Britons
Byzantines
Celts
Chinese
Franks
Goths
Huns
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Persians
Saracens
Spanish
Teutons
Turks
Vikings

Rise of Nations (not released yet, 18 civs):

Aztecs
Bantu
British
Chinese
Egyptians
French
Germans
Greeks
Incas
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Nubians
Romans
Russians
Spanish
Turks

Apparently, we've been ripped off by two civs. Therefore, any proposed expansion pack for Civ 3 should have two more civs than intended.

Comparing the lists, it appears that the Koreans, Mayans, Mongols, Spanish, and Turks are included in Age of Empires 2 (albeit w/ expansion pack) and Rise of Nations, but not in Civ 3. Furthermore, Empire Earth has a whopping 21 civs included in the original game.

This is outrageous! I demand two of these civs be sent to me immediately by priority mail!

[Ribannah]

But we have Barbarians!!

You might want to list Colonialism, too.

[Locutus]

Pah! 16 civs, 18 civs, child's play Compare that to my upcoming History of the World mod for CtP2:

0. Barbarians
1. Spanish
2. Portuguese
3. Romans
4. Italians
5. English
6. Celts
7. Vikings
8. French
9. Dutch
10. Germans
11. Austrians
12. Russians
13. Polish
14. Greeks
15. Arabs
16. Hebrew
17. Phoenicians
18. Turkish
19. Byzantines
20. Persians
21. Babylonians
22. Assyrians
23. Chinese
24. Indians
25. Khmer
26. Thai
27. Mongols
28. Japanese
29. Koreans
30. Australians
31. Egyptians
32. Ethiopians
33. Malians
34. Maya
35. Inca
36. Aztec
37. Americans
38. Canadians
39. Brazilians
40. Argentinians
41. Iroquois
42. Sioux
--- extra civs (can't be selected in new game screen by default but can be opponents) ---
43. Swedish
44. Magyar
45. Minoans
46. Goths?
47. Serbs
48. Sumerians?
49. Hittites
50. Tibetans?
51. Shang
52. Harappans
53. Annam
54. Indonesians/Javans
55. Polynesians
56. Aborigine
57. Nubians
58. Beninians
59. Zimbabweans
60. Inuit
61. Anasazi
62. Mexicans

(Minor changes still possible but not too many)

[Ribannah]

Bah! You left out the Tuareg.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Ribannah
But we have Barbarians!!

What do you mean by that?!!

[siredgar]

Locutus, can you play all of these civs at the same time? Also, are each of the civ's characteristics detailed?

I played CTP1 and it kind of sucked. How is CTP2?

[Beren]

The comparisation with AoK is false, because it only deals with the Middle Ages. By the way: the game concept is totally different: Vikings and Huns perfectly fit the Barbarian role they have in Civ3. In AoK they had to make a seperate civ for it.

Main goal: have Locotus's mod in Civ3. Huge map, 63 civs. That'll be cool!

Still: more civs!!!!!!!!!!

[siredgar]

???

[siredgar]

The Vikings and the Huns did have their own civilizations, albeit in looser terms compared to other civs.

Anyhow, if I want to play a Scandinavian power like Sweden or an Eastern European power like Austria Hungary, I'd like to have the option of using these civs.

As I recall you included the Mongols on your most wanted list in a another thread. So, they're not "barbarians", according to your definition???

[Beren]

Yes, Mongols are Barbarians. At least they were. However, they created an empire that stood. Though they pillaged cities, they held lands. I am somehow reluctant to put the Mongols in, but they were so important. They were so big, that you simply cannot exclude them.
In the Middle-East, for instace (the Il-Kahnate), they held a large quantity of land for a large periode of time.

OK, I'll admit: the Vikings can be included, but the Huns is a step further along the road and I don't feel like including them, though I am happy with every extra civ.

Conclusion: Mongols were not really civilized and I feel reluctant to put them in, but they were such a big power, that it is worth reconsidering.

[siredgar]

If we are taking space into consideration, then according to your personal list you'd have the Spanish, the Swedes, and the Dutch included in Western Europe ALONG with the English, the French, the Romans, and the Germans. Do you know how small Western Europe actually is or has your European mindset inflated your sense of proportion? It's about the size of Greater Manchuria, which by the way was conquered by the KOREANS (which you do not include in your list) for a long time.

And yet, only the Russians and the Greeks for Eastern Europe? If Europe is going to be that crowded, then I'd expect at least the Huns or the Poles to be included to represent that part of the world, too.

[Locutus]

Ribannah:

Originally posted by siredgar
Locutus, can you play all of these civs at the same time?

You can play with up to 32 civs at the same time in CtP2 (although I've never actually done that myself, my poor old P200 64MB can't handle that ).

Also, are each of the civ's characteristics detailed?

As far as civ-specific characteristics go, they're less detailed than Civ3, that's true. There are 9-10 city styles (i.e. Egyptian cities look a bit like Pyramids, Islamic cities like Mosques, Romans like temples, etc - I think Civ3 has 5 for 16 civs?), every civ has a male and female leader and 50 cities, and there are 7 main personality types for AIs (but I'm thinking about adding 1 or 2 more; and personalities change a bit in the game as well, depending on terrain and stuff).

Although there are 'Great Leaders', they (at present) don't have a unique name (let alone several per civ) like in Civ3 (I might add that in the future, but it's a LOT of work).

There are no CSAs, because I'm strongly opposed to the whole concept: IMHO it's a core idea of the whole civ-philosophy that all civs start out equal; most (but not all) people in the CtP2 forum seem to agree with me on this so we don't have CSAs in CtP2.

Unique units exist in modified form: instead of being tied to a single civ, they are tied to technology, terrain (civs with a lot of cities in the jungle get Elephants, civ with a lot of cities on the coast get Longship) and chance. I may add religion to that list once I have that concept worked out in more detail. So one game the Romans have Legions, a next they might have Elephants, but they *are* the only civ with that unit.

Religion is a new concept I'm introducing: at some point in the game people will have to choose a religion and this influences diplomacy, has some minor CSA-like bonuses, affects what units/buildings/wonders/etc can be built and has a bunch of other characteristics. Again, people can choose, so it's not tied into a civ like Civ3's CSAs or UUs (so the Arabs aren't necessarily always Muslims), but in the course of a game it *will* make your own civ more unique from the other civs in that same game.

Basically, Civ3's civs are more unique but CtP2 HotW will 'compensate' by having a lot of dynamic in-game features such as religion, elite units (the CtP2 version of UUs), wonders visible on the map, random events, etc. Which approach works best is a matter of personal taste, I suppose.

I played CTP1 and it kind of sucked. How is CTP2?

Well, I personally think CtP1 and 2 and the best games ever Why did you not like CtP1? Did you dislike concepts like PW, stacked combat, unconventional warfare? If so, you'll probably won't like CtP2 either. If you were annoyed by lack of balance, bugs, etc, you could well like (modded) CtP2, but in that case even modded CtP1 (try downloading MedMod 4.13 sometime if you still have the CD and feel like giving the game another shot) could well appeal to you.

[siredgar]

Thanks for the reply, Locutus. It sounds intriguing. I may look into playing your mod. I'm assuming it has the option to specify player starting locations and I can download a real world map (in standard or large size)?

Can you tell me more about CTP2? I know I can just do the research myself, but I'm sure you know the game really well. For example, how is diplomacy and trade compared to Civ3? Do they still have those futuristic units and strange game concepts (i.e. from what I remember they had lawyers)?

[Locutus]

Well, I guess that when I'm done (which might still be a while, dunno, real-life is rather demanding for me these days) I could throw in a bunch of maps as well, earth and otherwise. CtP2 players generally aren't big map/scenarios players but including it might encourage them to start doing so more...

I could fill a book with everything I know about CtP2 but I wouldn't want to go too far off topic here. Repost the question in the CtP2 forums and you'll get a much more elaborate response from me and others... I'll keep it short and say that in modded CtP2 (very little people play unmodded CtP2 so I won't even bring it up), diplomacy gives you somewhat less options that Civ3 but the AI is IMHO extremely good, almost human in it's reactions often... and we're still working on making it even better. Trade is perhaps a bit simplistic when compared to Civ3, but I've been looking in ways to make that better too (we've been looking to make something similar (but better) than Civ3's strategic resources for quite some time now, but no satisfactory system has been found yet). Yep, future units still exist and unconventional warfare (laywyers and stuff) as well, but it has been toned down a little. And of course the most important rule of CtP2: if you don't like it, change it. Disabling the future age or all unconventional units can be done in a matter of minutes.

[Giovanni August]

[size=1] Originally posted by Locutus [/size=1]
3. Romans
4. Italians
5. English
6. Celts
18. Turkish
19. Byzantines
21. Babylonians
22. Assyrians
25. Khmer
26. Thai

How did you manage to put these civs in the game without an horrible overlapping in the capitals???

Saluti

[Locutus]

Easily, one can only play with (at most) 32 civs out of 64 (or 63, some bug seems to make adding #64 very difficult). That means that at most only half of all the civs will actually play (but 99% of the time this is even less). With only part of the civs playing, the game is smart enough to not make the civs that are very close to each other start at the same time. When the player manually picks the civs he wants to play with, it's of course the responsibility of the player to make sure the map is balanced (or not - it might be fun for a change to play with 10 ME civs on a world map ).

But yes, playing on a 140x70 map with 30 civs is crowded, what do you expect?

But as I said before, CtP2 players generally don't care too much for the earth map and prefer random maps (those generally give a more fair and challenging game anyway), so so far this sort of thing has not caused any problems...

[siredgar]

I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

[Spiffor]

Siredgar :
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities.
Not every places emphisize on cities for a long time : Siberian tribes are mostly nomads, prime Africans mostly lived in unexpanding villages, North americans before the colonization didn't have big cities either (north of the Aztecs).
About the specific cultures : in Europe, because of the rich land, the continent was heating with conquests, mass migrations etc. since the fall of the Roman empire, creating a mix of cultures, which get specific over time (i.e : Spanish civ has its own culture, directly rooting from its Roman and Arabic legacy, with a bit of Wisigoth). Other places where there were many Civs was the mediterranean in ancient times, but most of these Civs (Hittites for example) have left very few historical data.
I agree there should be more extra european (esp. Asian) civs in the list... But since the "civilisations" of the game come from a european perspective, it's quite normal Europe gets more filled with Civs than other continents

[Imp. Montezuma]

Mongols were barbarians BEFORE Chingiz-khan.
Francs were barbarians BEFORE Hlodvig (Klovis)
Rus (Russians) were barbarians BEFORE Yaroslav The Wise.
et cetera

[Beren]

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma
Mongols were barbarians BEFORE Chingiz-khan.
Francs were barbarians BEFORE Hlodvig (Klovis)
Rus (Russians) were barbarians BEFORE Yaroslav The Wise.
et cetera

Maybe it could become a game concept. Barbarian tribes turning into civilization!

[Locutus]

Originally posted by siredgar
I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

It's already possible, all it takes is a Cray (= supercomputer, for you non-nerds)

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities.

It seems that you are suggesting that Europe has more distinct cultures and is more civilized than other parts of the world, like Asia. If so, I have to respectfully disagree.

There is a common perception among many Westerners that our societies are more different from each other than those in Asia. Indeed, some consider Asia as some sort of monolithic society centered around China. This is no more true than saying that Europe is just fragmentations of the Roman Empire. And yet, I can assure you that France and Italy have much more in common with each other than Korea and Japan. In fact, Asian societies are far more distinct and apart than European ones.

In terms of level of "civilized" life, I can argue that many societies in Europe would have been considered backward by some Asian standards for a long period of time. Of course, this is not the case today and the present matters most to many people.

The primary reason why there are more European civs in the game is because there are more powerful nations in Europe than other parts of the world today. Europe has dominated world affairs for the past half-milennium, eclipsing Asia. There is not a single piece of land that has not been affected by Europeans in some way. Another reason is that most of the game players are from Europe and parts of the world settled by Europeans.

These reasons make a powerful argument for including more European civs. Why do you think that the Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal can conceivably have their own civs represented in the game, while Vietnam, Burma, and Malaysia could not?

Thus, in my opinion, it is not a matter of distinction and level of civilized life, but European power and player reach.

That is not to say that I do not think that there should be more European civs in the game. In fact, I would like to play more European civs for the exact same reasons I have described.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Beren
Main goal: have Locotus's mod in Civ3. Huge map, 63 civs. That'll be cool!

Even though it would take forever, that would be heavenly! So complex, so fun, so many civs to worry about...intriguing game!

PS: what about on a tiny map ?

[civman2000]

North americans before the colonization didn't have big cities either (north of the Aztecs).

*ahem* Cahokia was the largest city in the world for a time with over 1000000 people!

[Spiffor]

Civman : Thanks for teaching me this. I never knex there were huge cities north of Mexico before the European colonization. Could you give me some details about it ?

Siredgar : in fact, my statements opposed more Europe to America or Africa than to Asia. I know there are many differences between the Asian cultures, and that many more Civs should come from Asia, such as the Nepali, the Koreans, the Khmer etc... Asia, like Europe has a long tradition of sedentary / agricultural living on large lands, and thus Asian civilisations come into the concept of "civilisation" in the game more than the Zulu or the Mongols (who were only partially sedentary).
Mea culpa, I should have been clearer I opposed Euro civs to American and African ones.

[Jer8m8]

Anyone want to list Europa Universalis 2...That's probably 100+, and it has natives, pirate and rebels...

[siredgar]

Originally posted by civman2000

*ahem* Cahokia was the largest city in the world for a time with over 1000000 people!

According to this document, Cahokia only had about 10,000-20,000 inhabitants, not 10 million as you say.

http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/up/upi.html

[Ribannah]

20,000 at its maximum (1150 AD) sounds about right. That is still a lot larger than Paris at the time, I think.

[siredgar]

Yes, according to some people, the population was up to 40,000. That is impressive for its time, but we are comparing civilizations at the height of their history. The French did not comprise much of a civilization until years later when they developed into a large empire spanning across five continents (six, if include New Caledonia and French Polynesia as part of "Oceania").

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar
I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

Yeah, it's called "Europa Universalis"