{The List-} Civilizations

[Panzeh]

I think that Barbarian 'civs' entering the industrial age should be given status as a regular civilization.

[DarkCloud]

Well, I'll add your list to the section, wernazuma, however, just as an editorial comment- I might as well add that Firaxis really shouldn't add a civ unless it could put up at least 2 Kings/Queens/Rulers for each of the nation (2 rulers that are VERY GREAT) and well known

You know, like Stefan I of the Serbs... etc.

And possibly each civ should only be allowed in if it couldhave some unique trait or attribute that no other civ on the face of the planet possesses.

...I'm just stating that as a small comment. Perhaps all the civs you listed do qualify under those characteristics- but can we really expect Firaxis to make the civs good enough for retail if they don't have both of the aspects that I listed above?

-
I'm all for the same# of civs in civ II... but I would also like to see a civilization editor where I can add my own civs- I would appreciate that more than 100 pre-generated civs

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Brent
Do we need a Number of Civs poll? I wouldn't be surprised if fewer civs wins, and I'll still enjoy the game, it won't bother me much. I get enough fun with C3C. Sky, how many nonplayable Minor Tribes do you think there should be?

If it's plausible, I want there to me no set number of slots for civs, and the original game can start with 60 and add more in expansions. Will expansions and new civs be as closely linked as in Civ 3? Would new civs in scenarios be as big a thing? I liked Civ 2 scenarios, where new civs weren't such a big thing.

There isn't a set number of slots for civs in C3 either

The only limit is that you can't have more than 31 civs in a game, which is for speed reasons.

[Brent]

Well W's list about convinces me my desire for 200 was misguided, for main civs at least. Maybe civs without uniqueness can be predesigned in the editor and available for editing in, uniqueness added or no. Seeing the separate Scandinavians listed looks wrong. Maybe it would look better to have them listed as Norsemen, Jutes, Danes and Swedes. I don't think the Polynesians should be in unless they are well adapted to islands and a real world map has the pacific islands larger and/ or more plentiful than in real life. Maybe a setup option for random maps should be whether to place civs in their home terrain alongside whether to place them near their kin. I look forward to seeing any corrections W makes.

Does anyone have any political correctness problems with a hierarchy of different levels of civs? Like Germans getting three rulers to choose from and Lithuanians only getting one? I want some different rulers available to represent some different governments.

One reason for including more than one civ with the same Traits may be to see what happens with more than one of them in one game. I want a lot of civs available so it will be more likely to have ones that more people want.

Panzeh's idea has some merit. I disagree with DC about rulers. Maybe every civ can have a special ability for all its units, and maybe that would be all the difference for some or all civs. Being able to add civs in the editor is more important to me than pregenerated civs, but pregenerated civs are important to me too.

Some diplomacy should be available for nonplayer civs. You should be able to choose whether to form an alliance.

[Wernazuma III]

Don't get me wrong, DarkCloud, the list was never meant as a list of 100% worthy fully developped civs. Most of them wouldn't make good large civs. However, it should be possible to find one personality for most of them, and at least two cities/sites for each, thus being ideal for "minor civs".
The more I thin of it, the more "minor civs" seem to be a good idea. Imagine having them start with two settlers, but without the possibility to build new ones. They still could conquer foreign ones however. Thus most of them would die over time, but in some occasions they might develop into good foes.
Those minor civs, as I said, would require little work, as there'd be no UUs and no need for time-robbing leader graphics. Firaxis definitely should focus more on gameplay than on such details. It's very lamentable however, that they were deaf on both ears and did not care about the work done by fans who corrected city lists (no stupid Heidelburg anymore...) etc. It would be no extra work for them to gather information, they'd surely have people (like me) doing that work for free...

[hexagonian]

My concern for minor civs, especially if they cannot grow via peaceful settlement, is that they will end up being easy pickings once you get past the Ancient Age. Granted, they will also be able to use diplo-alliances to protect themselves, but they could be picked off quickly - a one or two-turn blitz, and the civ will be absorbed...

[Brent]

Themed Expansions

How about each expansion has a theme for the civs it includes, such as minor ancient civs, minor modern civs, ficticious/ mythological civs. Maybe let there be a small amount of content in each expansion that doesn't fit the theme.

Belated Response to Skywalker:

Would I play all of them? If more are available, maybe I will play more of them than otherwise. There are bound to be ones I'm not particularly interested in, the point is to have more options so I can find a few that I like.

Critiquing of Lists

Would anyone object to the critiquing of the posted lists?

Settler Restrictions and the Industrial Age

Perhaps until the industrial age, nonplayer civs cannot build settlers, but if they survive to that point, they can. But by that time, will they have any space to expand?

List Format

Would there be any good reason to separate civs in lists only by commas and not having each on its own line?

Rulers

Perhaps obscure rulers when there are none more famous to choose are acceptable to make the game a little more educational.

[Panzeh]

On a huge map, if a minor civ is either ignored for long enough or used as a pawn between major powers, it might just make it to the Industrial age and get technology/settlers at a normal rate and a no-anarchy change to monarchy.

I'd pump up a minor civ with techs if it could hurt my enemy.

[Wernazuma III]

I edited my list

[Brent]

More thoughts on why so many civs

To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues.

Themes Expansions

Would there be any point in specifying middle east for an expansion of minor ancient civs?

America

I would change Hopewell/ Mississippi to Mound Builders. Is Aruac a more correct term for Araucanians?

Europe

I would leave out the Cordobese.

W's changes

I would change Bosnians back to Basques and Ojibwa back to Latin Americans. Who are the Sri Vijaya? If the Maori are specifically in, I don't want generic Polynesians, but maybe Hawaiians.

Number of Civs

With W's revised list, maybe having more than 100 seems not as bad.

Uniqueness

Maybe the civs don't have to all be different in the same way. They should all have at least one ruler but if a civ has 2 rulers it doesn't neccessarily need a UU or otherwise. Some civs could be more alike than others, perhaps much more.

Rulers

Should well known civs have many more available rulers? like 6 or 7?

[Plotinus]

Civ splitting

It would be good if it were possible for a far-flung outpost of your empire to "declare independence". If the player agrees to this, they get serious diplomatic kudos; if they disagree, it's a war of independence. This would be a nice variation to the "civil war" idea.

And minor civs I'd like to play - Armenia; Burgundy/Lotharingia; and the Papacy (now that would be fun!).

[Kuciwalker]

Would I play all of them? If more are available, maybe I will play more of them than otherwise. There are bound to be ones I'm not particularly interested in, the point is to have more options so I can find a few that I like.

How would you judge your "interest"? The citynames? If each civ is essentially the same in-game, there'd be no real reason to choose one civ over another except for aesthetics.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
If each civ is essentially the same in-game, there'd be no real reason to choose one civ over another except for aesthetics.

What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Brent
To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues.

I wouldn't dare to say that. Game designers are game designers and no historians. However, they have fan historians, even graduated historians, who'd do the work for them for free...

I would change Hopewell/ Mississippi to Mound Builders. Is Aruac a more correct term for Araucanians?

The problem with Adena/Hopewell/Mississippicultures is that we don't know their real names, how they called themselves. IIRC, Adena is a modern village and Hopewell was a farm on whose ground archaeologist found remains of the culture... "Mound Builders" is a name that gives no flair.
Naming the Anasazi "Ansazi" isn't correct either as it is actually a Navajo word meaning "alien old ones"... We just don't know how they called themselves, but an English name takes away the taste of uniqueness...
Aruac is another form for Arawak, the Indians who inhabited the Caribbean and parts of northern South America.

I would leave out the Cordobese.

The Cordobese were a tough choice anyway, but an intriguing one, if thinking closely. The medieval Spanish Caliphate of Cordoba was a very interesting mixed culture with Arab, Berber, Sahara-African, Roman, Jewish, Gothic and Iberian influences. This mix was very innovative and unique (think of architecture). The muslim regions of Iberia were definitely neither "Arab" nor "Spanish".

I would change Bosnians back to Basques

I guess this is more a matter of taste than of arguments. I finally shifted to the Bosnians because of the Bogomil faith which was very influential on other European Dualistic movements like the "Albigense" or "Catharans" and because of their later special role as muslim stronghold in Europe. The Basque on the other hand are probably the oldest autochthon ethnicity in Europe...

and Ojibwa back to Latin Americans.

I thought about the diversity within Latin America and decided no. There are no "Latin Americans" and a Latin American civilization is pure manufacture. It's like lumping the former English colonies Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Belize into a single civ! There's a very European LA like Argentina and Chile, the Andean naitons with large native populations of 70% up like Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, the largely mulato Caribbean and the special case Mexico - worlds between those nations. Frankly, I was not the biggest friend even of having the "American" civilization in, but I guess that is justified by the extreme historical singularity of "America" aka USA.

Who are the Sri Vijaya?

Sri Vijaya was a Malayan kingdom on Borneo and modern continental Malaysia. I simply changed them to Malayan...

If the Maori are specifically in, I don't want generic Polynesians, but maybe Hawaiians.

I just seperated the Maori from other Polynesians because they completely lost contact to the rest of the Polynesian world and developped a quite different warrior culture. The Hawaiians were always somehow losely part of the larger Polynesian network. But then again, this corner of the world isn't my strongest field...
I just think that Oceania doesn't deserve more than 2 spots (they only deserve a half spot for the football world cup )

[Wernazuma III]

Anybody thought about "Civgineering"?

This would work similar to Civs "traits", but could include more
A player could distribute a numer of points on special abilities of his civ.

Like:
Scientific 5
Industrial 6
Religious 6
Expansionist 4
.
.
.
Obdient 3 --> less riots, war weariness
Diplomatic 6 --> improved AI negotiations
Isolationist -3 --> worse trade negotiations
Repulsive -5 --> bad AI relations
Unique Unit 10 --> chose name, which unit to replace, which graphics, then distribute a bonus point on A, D or Movement
Slavers 2 --> all units can turn enemy units into slave workers
Peaceful -10 --> no barracks, high war weariness
etc. etc.

In the same screen you'd be able to set how your people stands towards certain governments which, in turn, could determine chances of civil war at govt. changes

What else?

[Agathon]

I argued about this in the old "Civilization" forum.

In no way should Israel be a Civ. Nor should any proposed Civ that was not at some time for want of a better term "Imperial". If this isn't the criterion, then we might as well have everyone and I don't believe the programmers want that.

By that I mean a civ which was militarily and culturally dominant over a large amount of territory at some time in the past.

As far as this criterion goes, the Hebrews/Israelis were historical nobodies.

However, the contribution to history of peoples like the Jews and the Scots should be recognized with the addition of "cultural figures". Civilizations that are high on culture have a better chance of obtaining one of these every so often and getting one adds a small culture bonus.

This in my view is the best way of recognizing ethnic groups who never dominated, but have nevertheless exercised a profound influence on history.

Einstein is perhaps the top candidate for one of these as is Karl Marx and so are figures of the Scottish Enlightenment like Adam Smith.

[POTUS]

Judea was powerful. Under David and Solomn, they controlled all the land from Gaza to Northern Lebonon. Sure, relatively small, but the Iroquis controlled about as much, and they were in Civ III.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?

Nothing, unless it comes at the expense of strategy.

[Kuciwalker]

To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues.

And this is the heart of the debate. I'd rather play a game than read a list of historical city names over and over again.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by POTUS
Judea was powerful. Under David and Solomn, they controlled all the land from Gaza to Northern Lebonon. Sure, relatively small, but the Iroquis controlled about as much, and they were in Civ III.

No they did not. That is religious mythmaking, not historical fact. Whatever these people did (if they actually existed) did not make them a dominant imperial power. We might as well have some of the other minor ancient Civs, but there would be too many.

The Iroquois were the dominant power in their region at the time - the Hebrews never were.

The Jewish contribution to world history does not fit well with the kind of game civilization is. Yet, given their contributions to culture and history, it would be churlish to leave them out (same goes for the Scots) - hence a "great figures" feature would recognize their achievements and fittingly so.

[Brent]

Nonplayable tribes

How many of these should there be? Possibly include Israel and Judah separately in nonplayable form. If there's a huge number, maybe each of the 12 tribes separately. Moab, Ammon, Midian. Go to some effort to cater to upgrading these to playable status in the editor.

Traits

What if the designers include civs with name lists and we provide the traits for the civs we want to use?

Israel

I wouldn't be upset if Israel is left out for PC reasons. It may even be better to leave them out entirely than to give them minor status. I'd like to have them in with full status, but I'm okay with whatever they do on the subject.

Cultural Figures

We could have Cultural Figures that historically belong to an unincluded tribre, either assigned to a closely related civ, or given to civs regardless of any connection.

[Kirastos]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III



The muslim regions of Iberia were definitely neither "Arab" nor "Spanish".

But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab.

In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kirastos
But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab.

But only very few inhabitants were proper Arabs. The conquerors were largely Berber. Arabic is the language of Quran, thus it was adapted as a dominant language.

In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World.

That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...

However, sure I admit that my list is debattable and your arguments are as good as mine, it's always a personal view, which factors one considers more important in picking a civ or lumping it together with another one etc. It's just that I've discussed civ-lists for so long now, that my list is quite polished by arguments and counter arguments, though they obviously and hopefully never will cease.

[Kirastos]

I like pretty much the idea of ethnic influence. But I see two issues:

-- first how are you going to divide the influence of a minority that contributed to two or more civilizations? The Jews for instance have contributed in both Arab and Western cultures. Should we separate the Jews as Ashkenazis and Sephardic? The former mostly contributed to the West in terms of scientific and western issues (Einstein, Marx, Freud) while the latter got involved with the Arabs in medicines, art and philosophy (the most famous is Maimonide, who was also Saladin's personal medic).

--second, what about 'major' ethic influence? Europe has and is influencing (and it's a euphemism) the entire world in our days in every culture. How are you going to implement that without having to automatically capture a city if it falls under your cultural influence like in Civ 3. Could we have in a same civ two cities, with a general cultural background, but each has been influenced by two other different culture, wich in turn have their own cities influenced by the culture with the two cities (are you still following?).
Actually this could happen in border areas, and if the mixture is so tight, well border cities of each neighboring culture would secede from their mother nation and form a new one by themselves (a bit like Cyprus but I'm not sure if it is a good example).

Another thing is, could we have genocides or ethnic cleansing to get rid of the influence of a minor ethnic culture? (that supposes that two influences might not be compatible, or include negative effects in an influence). If we do that with the influence of a major ethnic culture, that should create tensions if not a war between the two civilizations (eg, Greece and Turkey).

[Kirastos]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...

I don't think the Berbers could really be considered a civ because they were mostly nomads or agrarians (they never had one common language nor a writing). The thing is, in Morocco, I think the only areas where you can find "pure" blood would be in the rural areas. Whereas in the cities, even if people might claim a Berber (which is divided in incredebly numerous tribes) or Arab descent, everybody is mixed and the tendancy is to more and more mixture.

Actually I think we could make an exception for Morocco and add it as a civilization of its own (with a mixture of Western, Roman, Phoenician, Arab-Muslim, Andalucian, Berber and Jewish influence) separate to the Arabs (which is true in the real world). Now do we make Morocco and Andalucia the same civilization? That's another debate...

[Brent]

Latin America

Maybe the Aztec civ can change its name during the game to Mexico. Maybe the Incas could become the Peruvians. Would this require European immigration?

Cordobese

The Cordobese are growing on me.

noncivs

Groups that can't justifiably be called Civilizations should have a chance to become such, such as the Berbers and many Native American tribes, the Fremont would be nice.

Lists and Consensus

Do we want to continue with separate lists from individuals? Do we want a core list of the civs that the most people agree upon, and maybe other lists that some but fewer agree upon? Does anyone think there should be fewer than 20 civs?

Varying Detail of Civs

Should the civs from Civ1 be more important than all the others? Should they automatically have more leaders to choose from? Several UUs? Should the civs from Colonization be especially detailed in the important aspects of that game? Including the native tribes? Should the Civ2 civs have higher status than civs introduced in Civ3, and the Civ3 civs higher than ones that haven't been in any main Civ game?

Importance versus Uniqueness

Should some small, weak, unpowerful civs be included because they are more interesting? Maybe have an expansion devoted to them?

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse

What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?

Expensiveness relative to the return on gameplay.

[ok]

[polypheus]

In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.

This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.

Obviously it would be no fun to actually be one of these Civs so any Civ you chose would automatically be a "Major" Civ. Of course perhaps for fun or challenge you could operate a Late Starting Civ if you want (maybe tie that in with Diff Level so in Diety, you are automatically put in the position of our RL Aztecs).

For this to work, you'd need to make some fundamental changes. You'd need a very large map and you'd need to put in place "barriers" (distance to friendly territory, attrtition in hostile terrain, oceans, etc) so that you wouldn't be able to make contact with the "Africa" and "N/S America" backwards Civs. You'd also need to have a large number of Civs, mi nimum of 32 with maybe 6 of these playing the role of backwards Civs.

Then you'd be able to simulate exploration, colonization, exploitation and conquest of the New World, scramble for brand new resources and luxuries, etc.These far flung colonies would also make good use of concepts such as "rremote" culture that might rebel against you thus starting brand new Civs just like in real history.

[Kuciwalker]

Varying Detail of Civs
Should the civs from Civ1 be more important than all the others? Should they automatically have more leaders to choose from? Several UUs? Should the civs from Colonization be especially detailed in the important aspects of that game? Including the native tribes? Should the Civ2 civs have higher status than civs introduced in Civ3, and the Civ3 civs higher than ones that haven't been in any main Civ game?

No, all civs should be (relatively) equal, though I can see how it would be difficult to get as many Iroquois citynames as German or English, and they should DEFINATELY be equal in terms of the actual game (don't make some civs better than others).

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by polypheus
In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.

This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.

I disagree strongly with this idea. Yes, the Aztecs and Incans were latecomers, but latecomers compared to other civs in their regions, like the Olmecs or Moche etc., similar to how Mongols were latecomers in the Old World.
The "backwardness" of civs came from their isolation and thus lack of exchange. This is already implemented in the Civ concept, as players in remote parts have less contacts.