Civs in Civ3: Conquests

[ktaek]

There's no rhyme or reason to who gets included. Culturally speaking the US and Europe are the same. Remember there are/were civilizations with REAL differences like having no concept of property, no concept of nuclear family (shared spouses & children).

You can't say it's about historical impact either if the Koreans are included (and im racially Korean).

And now that the EU has its own currency, and is in the process of electing EU officials who's to say that EU isn't just 1 civ? It's far more accurate to describe Europe as 1 civ than it is to say all of North America is "Iroquois". The differences and battles and history of Native Americans is as rich as that of Europe's, and twice the landmass.

I don't think Canada/Australia will make it because it seems to be a requirement to have a rather active military history.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Chilean President
What about Chile?




No they weren't. Only North America and Central America. they capture the old territories of the Mayans but the advance to South America was stopped by the Chibchas in Colombia.

hi ,

since when is columbia only not in south america , .....

they even had training posts all they way till todays border with equador , ......

have a nice day

[Chilean President™]

I didn't get that.

What I was meaning to say is that the Aztecs didn't have control over territory in South America 'cause the Chibchas indians (from Colombia) stopped them, I think (but I'm not sure) that in a region near Panama (or in Panama).

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Nubians, it'll be the Nubians

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by bobbo008
all of the european civs, with just the exception of the Celts, to my knowledge, all fit neatly onto a world map. good luck doing that with babylon, persia, the ottoman empire, arabia, egypt, and whoever else they are going to add in (actualy, all of those except Persia are in Arabia).

What do you mean by "all fit neatly?" There's almost no room if you include all of the European civs.

The Ottomans you should probably have based out of Constantinople/Istanbul. The Egyptians are in... Egypt. Babylon is in Mesopotamia. The Arabs are from the Arabian Peninsula, and they originally came from the western parts of it. Persia is in... Persia. There's no overlap there at all. They all fit just as "neatly" as the European civs.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by ktaek
it seems to be a requirement to have a rather active military history.

Where else to get those UUs? It is rare that any civ has had a major impact on history without having a major military.

[BKWM]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Where else to get those UUs? It is rare that any civ has had a major impact on history without having a major military.

There aren't any.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by BKWM

There aren't any.

What about say Tibet for example. They were easily run over by the Chinese because of their adherence to a non-violent religion.

[BKWM]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


What about say Tibet for example. They were easily run over by the Chinese because of their adherence to a non-violent religion.

Name me one more.

[PLATO]

None come to mind right now. Truly proving my point on their rarity

[BKWM]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
None come to mind right now. Truly proving my point on their rarity

You mean practical extinction

[PLATO]

Originally posted by BKWM

You mean practical extinction

Perhaps that is why we won't see any of them in C3C

[BKWM]

what's that?

[Chilean President™]

civilization 3: conquests.. the next expansion of Civ3

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Where else to get those UUs? It is rare that any civ has had a major impact on history without having a major military.

India was never really a military superpower. At least, on its own accord.

It depends on what you view as "having a major military." Some states (like Prussia or Arabia) became significant solely because of their armies, while others like England or Greece simply used their militaries to keep from being overrun (sometimes geing less successful at times ). Part of the reason nations exist is because of their armies. If you don't have one... then someone who does will just walk in. You can't exist just because you have culture or commerce.

[Azeem]

India (or "Bharata", which was its original name) was a military power during the Mauryan Dynasty. The Mauryan Dynasty was built purely on military conquest until Ashoka turned to Buddhism to promote peace in his empire.

[Signa]

Mayans
Nubians
Incans
Hewbrews
Sioux
Khmerians
Byzantines
Bantu

I'm a RoN fan

[Sheik]

I would rather see the Hebrews called Israel with Ben Gurion as the leader.

[Panag]

Originally posted by BKWM



There aren't any.

hi ,

say again , ........

who is still left from the big civs , ...... the romans , persians , egyptians , etc , ..... they are all changed in the way they do things , language , etc , ......

except one small people who till a couple years ago had not huge military , ..... the Jews , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Trip

India was never really a military superpower. At least, on its own accord.

It depends on what you view as "having a major military." Some states (like Prussia or Arabia) became significant solely because of their armies, while others like England or Greece simply used their militaries to keep from being overrun (sometimes geing less successful at times ). Part of the reason nations exist is because of their armies. If you don't have one... then someone who does will just walk in. You can't exist just because you have culture or commerce.

hi ,

maybe they where not in the past , but they are one now , thats for sure , ......

as for england , its funny you mention it in the same post as the indians , they have managed to secure large overseas colonies and fought battles all over the owrld , including in india , ......

have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sheik
I would rather see the Hebrews called Israel with Ben Gurion as the leader.

How so? if one speaks of the Jews as a civ that inlfuenced history, then it is as the Hebrews that they did so. David or Solomon would be the most appropriate leaderheads.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap


How so? if one speaks of the Jews as a civ that inlfuenced history, then it is as the Hebrews that they did so. David or Solomon would be the most appropriate leaderheads.

hi ,

it depends , .......

if we would want a modern day or more ancient type " start " , ......

Ben G. should get it , .....

have a nice day

[Ur]

Israel has to be in.....their influence is enormous...

Australia should be in as well - after all, there is a huge chunk of world down here that isn't represented.

(Don't get me started on FIFA and the World Cup)

The Franks are the French - no question.
You might as well include the Prussians if you include them.

South East Asia could do with another - Vietnam anyone?

Ethiopia deserves a chance as well.

[Schee]

Hmm... IIRC, the United States are the younger civilization in Civ3 ?
I don't think there should be another civ like this (Brazil, Canada, Chile...), and IMO Hebrews would be better than Israël (though I don't know how their country could be called as they have been in many different countries ?).

Of course the Franks should not be included, (why not also add the Gauls, the Picts, the Scots, etc ??). There are enough western european civilizations.

Oh and about countries that used their militaries to keep from being overrun... in fact I don't know any country that has had a military and has never tried to use it to overrun a weaker neighbor.
Hmm... maybe Switzerland ? But we can't say Switzerland has really influenced the world at any time

[GePap]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

it depends , .......

if we would want a modern day or more ancient type " start " , ......

Ben G. should get it , .....

have a nice day

"we"? its the game designer'as choice. If the arguement is that the Hebrew bible is of the most important things ever, and hence the people who made it deserve to be in the game, then it should be as the people who produced the Bible, the ancient Hebrews, not the modern state of Irsael, which is based on modern, European notions of nationalism.

You can always have the UU be modern if one wants, to reflect the modern state of Israel.

[Heims]

Going back to the start of this thread, there are a crazy amount of mid east civs, and a shitload of european civs, and NO american civs because all the "civ" of any American civs were developed in europe. And didn't all civilisation start in the mid east? Of course there's gonna be a shitload of civs there, 1000's of years of human history to cover. Mid eastern civs rose and fell how many times? Even europe is young compared to the mid east. Just pointing out why there are so many civs from some areas and not others.

As for a Canadian civ, why not? Somebody's gonna tell me that each and every civ there already is distinct and made an impact? The point I want to make here tho, is what would our UU be? Maybe a warrior who gets extra movement points on the snow and ice? And decapitates enemy combatants with a funny looking sword? Or how about another melee unit in heavy armour, maybe with a movement bonus to show how it's used to combat on a field longer and wider than their higher-paid US cousins? Or better yet, a modern infantry type unit with WW2 era weaponry, with a blue helmet and a 0 (zero) for offense. Or maybe modern day helicopters that take damage on their own, while not in combat?

Maybe Canada can get a diplomacy bonus instead. Everybody is very friendly towards us because we're very peaceful, except for warmongers who think we should join them in every invasion they launch, because we're only a 51st state (oops!). They hate us and refuse to trade with us, thinking they're hurting us, when they're also ****ing over their own consumers who want our products.

****! Canada could also have spontaneous culture flippings from Canadian to . . . . . . wanna be French! Because one city or two would all of a sudden decide that having the King put all of his governmental upgrades in their city is no longer enough. This city would want to have access to all the luxuries and resources of the Canadian civ, while not sharing their own. This single city would not realise that they barely have enough food production to support their current pop levels (if that), and have very little income from commerce, leaving them crippled. No pop growth, no money for research or entertainment, and only the goodwill of the Canadian civ to keep the people from starving and rioting.

Mmm, maybe a Canadian civ isn't such a good idea. ****, we'd prolley get programmed in as a split between British and US civs anyways.

[Chilean President™]

Go Canada

Anyway I would like to see the splited country feature like in Civ2. I mean, if England get a revolution depends on how big territory they have to be splited in 2 or 3 small countries.
For example, from a revolution of the English, Australia and Canada could born. do you get my point?

[Patroklos]

Hey All,

I assure you that the designers of video games are normally a diverse crowd themselves, so we really don't have to worry about them leaning to any particully geographic region. Most consumers buy civ to do the "what if" scenario.

"What if" the English did this,

"What if" I had ruled the Chinese.

For this reason the Civs included are those that were world powers OF SIGNIFIGANCE during there day, the ones people know. (i.e. England, Egypt, China, Aztec, etc.).

I have a degree in history, amongst other things, and know of scores of civilizations and nations and sects and tribes and on and on that are infinitly interesting and have contributed to the wealth of human history.
That doesn't, however, make them movers and shakers. We all know the Hebrew/Isrealite were influential, but in all reality they never had a singley continuous reign of more than fifty years without a) bieng conquered or b ) breaking into civil war/disorder. Someone want to tell me the territory maximum they ever held? Lots of potential but they normally stunted themselves or just got rolled over by the civs that are included (Egypt, Babylon, Hitties, Greeks, Romans, Ottamans, Arabs, Persains, Mongols, etc.). You can argue about battles if you want, but Isreal was ultimatley conquered by all these empires and never held dominion over a single one of them in turn.

So, with Isreal as an example, thats how civs should be picked. By relative power at there hieght (note relative, modern Isreal is more powerful than extinct Babylon now obviously, but Babylon was for a time the jewel of the civilized world, Isreal (and I happen to like Isreal) is a second rate modern power).

Also, you need to fill in the map, and for my part I say add the Kmers, Souix, and someone to Africa. When I play huge maps with real starting locations China and India just expolde while I (I play persia) get bogged down in the Middle East.

[Sheik]

How so? if one speaks of the Jews as a civ that inlfuenced history, then it is as the Hebrews that they did so. David or Solomon would be the most appropriate leaderheads.

I agree with panag in that it is all about what we (hopefully the developer will do what we want) want, ancient or modern. I prefer modern civs and feel that even though the Hebrews have had a massive impact on history that Israel is a better choice. Israel has had a huge impact on the modern world, and I think they will continue to do so.

But either way, once the civ is there you can rename it whatever you want, download a new leaderhead, and a new UU and your set to go. It might be nice to have the Hebrews and then use David as the leader because we already have a modern Israeli UU and if GhengisFarb ever finishes his Ben-Gurion leaderhead we can have both.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap


"we"? its the game designer'as choice. If the arguement is that the Hebrew bible is of the most important things ever, and hence the people who made it deserve to be in the game, then it should be as the people who produced the Bible, the ancient Hebrews, not the modern state of Irsael, which is based on modern, European notions of nationalism.

You can always have the UU be modern if one wants, to reflect the modern state of Israel.

hi ,

we = people , gamers , ..... they actually tend to listen ( the developers when something is pointed out ) , .....


the modern day " ISRAEL " aint based on some modern " notions " of nationalism , .......

this is not about a modern uu if one wants one , that is easy , just use the editor , that aint the problem , .....

the fact is most people like a vanilla game , without changing anything at all , ..... and there the Q about modern or old uu plays a role , .....

in history we never had a great " great " army , we where most of the times on the defensive , and that combined with the fact there are plenty of ancient uu's in game should lead to a more modern day approach and a modern day Israeli uu , .......

have a nice day