The Perfect Civ List - Page 5

The Mad Monk · February 12, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
I'm 29, I'm married and I'm school history teacher.

What about accepting this? : Your civs shouldn't be in a game that starts at 4000 BC.

That was my reason for taking the Americans out of Civ II, and it will be my reason for taking us out of Civ III (when I get around to it).

Master Zen · February 12, 2003, 01:55

I don't think thats a good idea, I mean, this game is not supposed to be a historical "what if". It'd be no fun if every country acted the exact way it did in history.

If I took your approch then I'd voluntarily retire every game after 1520 (I play as the Aztecs usually)

Cyclotron · February 12, 2003, 02:09

The civs thrown in are put in because of two things: Importance, and geographical need. That is, civs important in history and those civs which are needed to fill certain parts of the map are included. According to these criteria, the Americans are more deserving than most to be on the civ list. Our presence as the only world superpower gives us importance.

Civ was meant to cover all eras of history. Why are the Americans, who are powerful in the modern era (but didn't exist in the ancient) less important than a civ that was powerful in the ancient age, but does not exist now?

Panag · February 12, 2003, 06:37

hi ,

, .....

, Zaire , now know as congo kinshasa should be in the game , one of the biggest countries in the world , ..... with a new type of government , dictorship , .....

have a nice day

edit ; typo

Chilean President™ · February 12, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Civ was meant to cover all eras of history. Why are the Americans, who are powerful in the modern era (but didn't exist in the ancient) less important than a civ that was powerful in the ancient age, but does not exist now?

I totally agree with you. In modern era we couldn't play with Egypt or Persia. Of course is weird to attack Paris with carthage's stealth plane

but, that's the way the game it is. Who cares about complete history accuracy, is more fun like that.

XarXo · February 12, 2003, 11:06

Well, is pretty difficult accept truths. Zero latinoamerican countries were in Civ1, Civ 2 and Civ 3 .

Remember Ctp series? What happened when they included Jamaica?

Is useless wrote anything more, you are the ones that should accept your own reality (for do something called "social evolution", something very rare in south america in exception of Brasil).

Bye, from this thread.

Good luck with "Civilization 2403".

Chilean President™ · February 12, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
Well, is pretty difficult accept truths.

Yeah. You're a proof of that

Quote:

you are the ones that should accept your own reality

we do, the sad thing is that you are an ignorant that doesn't know the reality of the world out from your tiny island.

Quote:

Bye, from this thread. Good luck with "Civilization 2403".

Bye XarXo! is nice meet new people, specially when their proof to be intelligent, but is priceless meet people like you in this day and age. Good luck with growning up

Ivellios · February 12, 2003, 12:46

Someone should really put the Dutch in and give them Hedonistic and Eudaimonic properties

. They should be able to build coffeeshops at all of their bases that increase the number of happy faces. Incense should also create additional happy faces.

Or maybe not.

Traelin · February 12, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

Yes. They influenced history way more than the Polynesians.

My civs woud be:
Inca
Isreal
Ethiopia
Maybe the Dutch

I agree wholeheartedly with your list. But I'd say definitely the Dutch.

1. Dutch
2. Israel
3. Incas

Traelin · February 12, 2003, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ivellios
Someone should really put the Dutch in and give them Hedonistic and Eudaimonic properties

. They should be able to build coffeeshops at all of their bases that increase the number of happy faces. Incense should also create additional happy faces.

Or maybe not.

Yes, include the Dutch!

I'll be seriously perturbed if they aren't included in another XP. I want all my Colonial powers in the game, if for no other reason than to relive my nostalgia for Colonization.

Ivellios · February 12, 2003, 15:02

Well, yes but it's not like we had a major part in history or something... Sure we had enough colonies (Indonesia, Surinam, South Africa, New Amsterdam), but we're far from being as influential as the Greek or Romans were.

Not that I wouldn't welcome them with open arms though

brianshapiro · February 12, 2003, 15:35

do you really think israel was a competitive empire
cultural influence isnt the only criteria
having israel in against france, US, and rome, will just feel silly

Cyclotron · February 12, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin
I agree wholeheartedly with your list. But I'd say definitely the Dutch.

1. Dutch
2. Israel
3. Incas

Why would Israel be above the Incas? Israel is not necessary for geographical balance, while the Incas are critical.

The Mad Monk · February 12, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
do you really think israel was a competitive empire
cultural influence isnt the only criteria
having israel in against france, US, and rome, will just feel silly

Israel may not have been a 'competitive empire', but its cultural significance far exceeds any single nation in existance today.

statusperfect · February 12, 2003, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Chilean President

Bye XarXo! is nice meet new people, specially when their proof to be intelligent, but is priceless meet people like you in this day and age. Good luck with growning up

The irony...

Quintrala · February 12, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
The irony...

Grandioso & Chilean Pres, U really make

with your answering posts, nice job guys

I send U a PM, Presi

Well I do believe that Israel and the Dutch should be included because, their are people interested in that. Our discussion should be, how we can make some preasure to Firaxis or the "X" comapany that would create Civ IV to have really huge maps where all posible civs could be playable (

"playable", is that a word?

)... anyway, if not every civ or nation, the most of it's... ¿right?

Master Zen · February 12, 2003, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Israel may not have been a 'competitive empire', but its cultural significance far exceeds any single nation in existance today.

Oh yes, I forgot it was Israel which invented Diet Coke, Hollywood, Electronic music, and Versace Coiture...

pedrojedi · February 12, 2003, 19:51

The poor little person, now he's gone. Even with every one giving more and more arguments, trying to enlighten his thought; even with help of non-latinoamericans friends; none could really save his poor little mind out of juvenile trolling, meaningless provocation, lies and deceit, and so on and on and on. We were nice. We were NOT so nice. Well, let the poor one grow and get some knowledge. This thread has far gone off-topic long ago.

The Dutch would be a nice touch (wow, rimes!).

I don't agree that should exist Israel, though: judaic culture far exceeds the rather small frontiers of Israel, as Judaic faith exists pretty much the "same" way for almost 6000 years; influencing much of the history of the world in one way or the other. Taking their ancestors, Hebrews or Caanites would fit better, I think.

My "personal" position about this is that the true judaic nation lies in no land, but in the people's hearts and traditional knowledge. And thousands of years of wisdom, passed forth with each generation.

And to fill the Oceania, I think I would adopt the Aborigines as a good representant of their lands: very known, very important for australians. At least I think so.

Cyclotron · February 12, 2003, 20:30

I would choose Polynesians over the aboriginies. You could actually give the polynesians a (somewhat) recognizable UU and certainly recognizable leaders; the aboriginies also never seemed to have been centrailized or even settled. One wonders whether they even qualify as a "civilization" in the sense of the term.

pedrojedi · February 12, 2003, 21:11

Well, I don't know them, can't really say anything. But, from documentaries, their oral culture seems to be pretty impressive about storytelling. Some books also made intriguing descriptions of their customs. If only I could remember their names...

But I agree with your statement about settling. Putting them on Civ3 would be like putting the Huns. Lots of people walking by. But non-violent at first impretion, unlike the Huns.

South killer · February 12, 2003, 21:14

Hello, I'm back from my 3 day trip:
About that little kid who calls himself xarxo:

The pourpose of my 1st post was to show my dissagreement and that all most important cultures of ALL the parts of the world should be included. I mean, a game like civ 3 should represent every culture of every part of the world. I'm not saying we should include every latinamerican country of the world but to say we should at least include ONE to represent all latin america.Also, 1 post colonial african country should be there and 1 (or more) native africans and americans(continent). About that you said that latinamerican countries didn't do anything in world history i dissagree: First of all, you don't know that much of LA to criticize and second argentina, for example, has invented a lot of things that are common today for example: The bus (or colectivo), the ballpen(o birome), we did the first bypass heart surgery and more, and i'm sure other LA countries made their mark also.
so, get back home little kid, and LEARN before you talk.
Now, getting back on topic:

Quote:

I would choose Polynesians over the aboriginies. You could actually give the polynesians a (somewhat) recognizable UU and certainly recognizable leaders; the aboriginies also never seemed to have been centrailized or even settled. One wonders whether they even qualify as a "civilization" in the sense of the term.

I totally agree.
I think polinesyans and israel are important to add but i'm not sure about the dutch or the poles. They weren't THAT important and europe is already very crowded with germany, england, france, etc.
I agree about Zaire and i also want..... TIBET

come on, that would be really cool.

Chilean President™ · February 12, 2003, 21:28

Actually if we look back, polynesian culture and the tribes from the islands in Oceania were one culture. As the migration from the southern oceanic islands went to the north, maybe some of them went to the south, to Australia. I do not know the reality of the migration process in that region, but is a fact that they do have lots of similarities. Even the Rapanuis from Easter Island have tribal characteristics like the tribes from New Zealand.

Cyclotron · February 12, 2003, 22:54

When you start a civilization in Civ1/2/3, you start off with the capability of forming towns, irrigation, roads, and mines. Aboriginal culture, while unique and interesting in many regards, had not mastered these vital components of civilization (as defined here) by the time other cultures arrived in Australia.

Polynesians, on the other hand, were more widespread, had centralized government, in many cases practiced farming, and generally lived a sedentary lifestyle. They are a real civilization in the true sense of the term, and if we are to include a civ in Oceania it should be them.

Traelin · February 12, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Why would Israel be above the Incas? Israel is not necessary for geographical balance, while the Incas are critical.

Well if you want to include Civs for gameplay reasons, the Incas should be included over Israel. But if you want to include Civs based on overall influence, I'd say Israel. It really is up to the developers to determine which one is the objective. But both should be included.

Traelin · February 12, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ivellios
Well, yes but it's not like we had a major part in history or something... Sure we had enough colonies (Indonesia, Surinam, South Africa, New Amsterdam), but we're far from being as influential as the Greek or Romans were.

Not that I wouldn't welcome them with open arms though

No way dude, I disagree. They helped shape the colonial world, given that they had the strongest economy for much of that time. The Anglo-Dutch (third, I think) Wars helped reshape the balance of power though. And many people argue that if it weren't for the Dutch, English, French, etc. colonial ambitions, the Western world would be a whole lot different.

Comparing them to the Greeks and Romans is unfair, admittedly. But comparing the Zulus to the Greeks and Romans is also unfair, yet they were included in the original 16 Civs.

Traelin · February 12, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
do you really think israel was a competitive empire
cultural influence isnt the only criteria
having israel in against france, US, and rome, will just feel silly

Well obviously culture isn't the only criterion, else the Zulus wouldn't be in the game.

IMO it wouldn't be any sillier to have Israel up against the Civs you name when the Mongols and Zulus are as well.

The Mad Monk · February 13, 2003, 03:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Oh yes, I forgot it was Israel which invented Diet Coke, Hollywood, Electronic music, and Versace Coiture...

Whenever, wherever you see a cross or a crescent, you see the influence of ancient Israel.

Underseer · February 13, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321

Looks nice but, what about Egypt, and Canada?

Excellent idea! The leader would of course be Mel Blanc (Canada's greatest gift to the world).

Not sure about the UU though. (Anyone who suggests mounties gets slapped for unoriginality.)

Maybe give them a modified King unit with a +1 attack value? (e.g. Chretien)

Ok, that was a mean joke.

Why the heck did they make Cleopatra the Egyptian leader? For cryin' out loud, she was Greek and she ruled long after Egypt delined from greatness.

The Mad Monk · February 13, 2003, 04:38

...and what the hell is Versace Coiture?

Yanghead · February 14, 2003, 05:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Underseer

Excellent idea! The leader would of course be Mel Blanc (Canada's greatest gift to the world).

Not sure about the UU though. (Anyone who suggests mounties gets slapped for unoriginality.)

Maybe give them a modified King unit with a +1 attack value? (e.g. Chretien)

What only +1? Did you see him throw a choke hold on that unruly protester. Man, that Chretien could kick @$$ in a regicide game.