I think Japon should be included.

kolpo · July 25, 2001, 16:17

Japon is a very ancient civilization, with it's own culture, history and that has had in many time areas much influence in it's region.

As special unit am I against a kamikazee plane because that is just one unit of a shorth dark despotistic time in Japon. Most of the time was Japon completely different and now are they one of the biggest pacifists on earth(just look to the size of there army in comparision with there economic power).

I suggest instead one of the types of ships(sorry don't know there names) they used in the Russian-Japon war. This was the first time that a non-european civilization completely beated a big European one(at that times was Russia a part of European culture).

But I have an even much better argument to include Japon(for Firaxis): It's a very big market for computer games! They have some national pride(like all countries) so civ3 will sell there better if Japon is included. More $, you hear me Firaxis? Just look to the succes of the movie "Pearl Habor" in Japon and you can see that Japon history(if Japon is included in civ3) sells well.

Btw, no I don't live in Japon or Asia. I just think that such an important and ancient culture and nation should be included.

Provost Harrison · July 25, 2001, 16:28

Japan should be included, it is certainly a historically important civilisation with a very distinct history and culture.

And don't mention that film 'Pearl Harbour'. A total waste of space

Oh, and Firaxis don't care about the money, they do it for the love of the games. They would all gladly live in cardboard boxes and wear sacks as long as they could program their computer games

Inverse Icarus · July 25, 2001, 17:16

i disagree.

japAn doesn't HAVE to be included at all IMHO.

the japanese were, for a lot of time, isolated, either by geography, or jingoistic ethnocentricism.

can anyone think of a major international event that included Japan pre-1900 ?

i also believe the Americans shouldn't be in the game. i have thought it through, and Americans aren't a civ. we were formed in 1776, when we declared independence and started the revolutionary war, we werent running around with sticks and stones, on chariots or elephants, we were nearing the industrial era.

but hey the americans are in civ. why bother *****ing now.

Dida · July 25, 2001, 17:26

Japan should not be includeded. It has very short history, (ancient compare to the US), it was still in the Dark Age up till Tang Dynasty. Most Japan's culture were just chinese-clone.

Mark_Lipovrovskiy · July 25, 2001, 17:28

Well, Japan (originally pronounced Japon, I'm almost sure) is certainly a civilisation with great history - not all civs have to be "on da map" to be valid. The special unit should prob. be the Samurai, a kickass (attack 10, both melee and ranged

) unit from just before the medival time right up to the middle of the Industrial Revolution.
The Americans? Well, they certainly aren't the greatest Caliber civ, but their place in the 20th Century history and in the market earn them the right from here to Andromeda and back again. Or something.

Mahdimael · July 25, 2001, 17:31

Well, if you really want to only include civs that were around from 4/3000 BC, you'll be sorely disappointed. They Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, Babylonians, Indians and Chinese may be the only civs in that case.

I think Civ tries to include civs that have either arisen to greatness, who have a cultural singularity or who have good historical relevance. Spain should be included, as should the Vikings. I think the Japanese should be included for the single reason of their culture, which is distinct from other Asian nations

Colon™ · July 25, 2001, 17:49

”can anyone think of a major international event that included Japan pre-1900 ?”

Well, what would a “major international event” constitute according to you?
Several big events I can think of is thwarting two Mongolian invasion attempts in the 13th century (with some help of nature), sending a large force to Korea in order to invade China in late 16th century and defeating the Chinese in 1894, thereby gaining control over Korea and demonstrating how weak China really was.

Al'Kimiya · July 25, 2001, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Mahdimael
Well, if you really want to only include civs that were around from 4/3000 BC, you'll be sorely disappointed. They Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, Babylonians, Indians and Chinese may be the only civs in that case.

Greek civilization started with the Minoan culture about 2000 BC. And Rome was built about 700 BC (according to legend). The Babylonians were originally Akkadians who invaded the Sumerians about 1800 BC (or something like that). So about 4000 BC we have at most Sumer, Egypt and perhaps some "Indo-European" civ.

But... it's just a game...

death_head · July 25, 2001, 17:55

I believe America should be in the game, as they have become the most influential country in the world.

I also believe that Japan is an American franchise.

Thus, they should both be in.

Yes, I have posted these thoughts before, but now they are together, and thus more understandable.

SerapisIV · July 25, 2001, 18:31

The best arguement for a Japanese civ is the game market idea. Otherwise, having Japan as a civ makes as much sense as Germany with Hitler civ. At least Germany was an international player before the the late 1800s. Japan pretty much voluntarily isolated itself. People tried to get in (Mongols) but didn't succeed and they had little interest in expanding their influence.

TechWins · July 25, 2001, 20:09

Quote:

Well, if you really want to only include civs that were around from 4/3000 BC, you'll be sorely disappointed. They Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, Babylonians, Indians and Chinese may be the only civs in that case.

Actually the ancient Egyptian empire didn't really begin until 2686. The 'Old Kingdom' kingdom lasted from 2686-2181 bc, the "Middle Kingdom' lasted drom 1991-1786 bc, and the 'New Kingdom' lasted from 1554-1070 bc.

I do think that Japan should be included as a civ. They have been a civ for a very long time and have a very unique Asian culture. Japan has basically their very own religion, Shintoism. I say this because a large part of the pop. believes in Shintoism and Shintoism has most of it's followers are Japanesse. Not many other civs now can say that they have their own religion. That is something that does show that Japan should be a civ in Civ3. Japan has very good capitalist enconomy (set up by US after WW2). The Navy is fairly good sized. They have had a large military in some points in history. They've been included in many modern day affairs. Have a great rivalry with many Asian nations (China, Korea, etc...). Japan is has been able to be a nation even with the fact that they are on a very small island (like England). Did have many scuffles with China in history. Had some great battles with Khan. I think all these reasons support why Japan should be in Civ3 and with these reasons being taken into consideration Japan might very well be a civ in Civ3.

I think Japan's specific unit should be a samurai. I don't believe that it should be this powerful though "a kickass (attack 10, both melee and ranged ) unit". That would be just as powerful as an armor from Civ2. Maybe 5 attack, 1 def, 2 move (Civ2 Knight- 4 att, 2 def, 2 move). The knight is there just to give you an idea of how power ful the samurai unit would be.

Side Note:
I happen to think to balance the specific units they shouldn't be much powerful than other regular units of their time. Example- American F15- (I think that is their specific unit) 15 att, 5 def, 14 move & a regular, Civ2 stealth bomber- 14 att, 5 def, 12 move. So my point is that to make civ-specific units be balanced with the game they shouldn't be too much more powerful than a unit (same premise though- land to land, air to air, naval to naval) of their time.

Mark_Lipovrovskiy · July 25, 2001, 20:29

I was joking about the 10/10 and all... But hey, a Jap officer DID defeat Europe's best fencer, and Samurai bows were known to sink ships (!!!)
Just a piece of trivia: The Japanese measured the strength of bows by how many strong men are needed to put the string... There were 6, 12, 16 bows, and maybe even more. The Japanese art of using the bow (the name of which escapes me), is closely linked with Zen, a meditative sect of Buddhism that evolved mostly in Japan. Those arts could (and can) give the Warrior what seems to be superhuman strength (although it is based on the most efficient utilisation of muscles blah blah and is quite above normal human strength). I just hope that some REAL expert doesen't show up...

Also, Japanese steel is real sharp and can cut through armor quite easily. I believe that the samurai should be stronget than the Knight - maybe (I prefer the CTP system, although it has been so much since I played that i don't remember it very well) 6 melee, 5 ranged, 2 defence(because their attacks are so decisive they didn't invest too much in defence), 2 move with perhaps a modified "explorer" bonus - all tiles 1. They were extremely mobile, you know. Infantry is very mobile and they're the best pre-gunpowder infantry in the world and prob. could defeat ancient gunpowder units too. Look at how martial artists kick armed ass today, and add total determination and discipline, a deadly katana and a really, really big bow. Now take a group of those, put a brilliant tactician there and see what happens.

TechWins · July 25, 2001, 22:12

Quote:

I was joking about the 10/10 and all...

Of course it was a joke... I was just using your statement as a launching ground to show how I think a civ-specifics strengths should be determined.

Quote:

prob. could defeat ancient gunpowder units too

Depends on the situation of the two units (i.e. distance, startled, etc...).

Dida · July 25, 2001, 22:13

You people really need to straighten up you knowledge about Japan. Shintoism is not pure Japanese religion, its central idea was Japanese legand combined with Taoism from China. Zen Buddhism did not started in Japan even though it bares a Japanese name. It was started in China during the 6th century. Japan basically has no culture of its own. Even its writting is borrowed from China. During the Tang Dynasty, Japan sends thousands of students to Tang to learn from the more advanced civilization. They brought back not only the literature, but also the religion, the way of life and pholishophy.

TechWins · July 25, 2001, 22:17

Quote:

Shintoism is not pure Japanese religion

Yeah, I know it isn't but it still is primarliy a Japanesse religion. The religion is practiced by many Japanesse.

Quote:

Japan basically has no culture of its own

Japan is diffently a seperate culture than that of the Chinesse.

Dida · July 25, 2001, 22:22

Japanese culture can only be considered a branch of Chinese culture.

DarkCloud · July 25, 2001, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i disagree.

japAn doesn't HAVE to be included at all IMHO.

the japanese were, for a lot of time, isolated, either by geography, or jingoistic ethnocentricism.

can anyone think of a major international event that included Japan pre-1900 ?

Japan was nearly invaded by Mongolia several times (The Khan's boats were sunk in storms).

UberKrux... can you name any thing the US did of importance (other than 1812 and 1776) of international significance before 1900... We are ignoring the civil war because you seem to have ignored Japan's civil wars.

As far as I can see the only international incident was the French and Indian war.

Japan has just as much right as America to be included... Anyways Japan is a large market for computer game manufactuers, so of course they will be included!

Quote:

an offshoot of Chinese culture

Japan colonized Korea and adopted their pictographic styles for a type of writing. They are not Chinese in any way.

If you must, you could possibly relate them to the Indians in North America.

Their culture is most certainly their own.

Mark_Lipovrovskiy · July 26, 2001, 06:04

Quote:

Zen Buddhism did not started in Japan even though it bares a Japanese name. It was started in China during the 6th century

That is innacurate, and that is why I used the word 'mostly'. The roots of Zen are indeed in China, or rather in India where one of the original streams of Buddhism was similiar to Zen. But only when it arrived to Japan and evolved there it really became distinguished.

Quote:

Depends on the situation of the two units (i.e. distance, startled, etc...).

Yes, you are right. Historically, the east-Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) were superior to the west in terms of tactical and strategical knowledge so I wouldn't worry for them greatly. Anyway, that's why there are terrain modifications and random factors in Civ...

Urban Ranger · July 26, 2001, 06:34

DarkCloud,

"Japan colonized Korea and adopted their pictographic styles for a type of writing. They are not Chinese in any way."

This is incorrect. Both Japan and Korea adopted the Chinese writing for their own use. Even in today's Japanese you can still find many Chinese characters known as Kanji. IIRC after the Minji Restoration the Japanese devised their own phoetic system known as Kana. The Koreans developed their own alphabets even later.

Mark_Lipovrovskiy,

"The roots of Zen are indeed in China, or rather in India where one of the original streams of Buddhism was similiar to Zen. But only when it arrived to Japan and evolved there it really became distinguished."

This is also incorrect. Zen is the original Buddhism. The famous Shaolin Temple is a Zen Buddhism temple.

Dida,

"Japanese culture can only be considered a branch of Chinese culture."

This seems to be unduly harsh. While originally the Japanese took a lot of the Tang culture home they did add a lot of their own unique characteristics. For example they have things such as Sumo wrestlers, Bushido, etc. The Japanese as a group respects traditions greatly. A lot of their tradecrafts, etc. are rooted deeply in their own traditions.

campmajor! · July 26, 2001, 06:55

Is there any point in discussing what civ should or should not be included in civ3? Firaxis will choose and if some mod-maker thinks a certain civ should be included as well, he'll add it via a mod!

And drop it at Apolyton of course!!

Mark_Lipovrovskiy · July 26, 2001, 07:50

Ranger: Zen is very similiar to a Buddhist stream called Theravada, which is probably most similiar to what Gautama himself taught. I would not call it the "original" buddhism since the Mahayana sects sprang so quickly after Gautama died. Meditative Buddhism existed before Zen, but Zen is a distinct sect and so different from mainstream Buddhism that in fact it is considered almost a seperate religion by some.
Campmajor!: Yeah, but just about every discussion here is lacking in pointhood. It's still fun. That's the reason I visit the forum... Mostly out of my love for a good discussion in History than out of my love to Civ.

DrFell · July 26, 2001, 16:27

If Japan shouldn't be included becuase they don't have a completely distinctive culture, one that has borrowed heavily from Chinese culture, why don't we just take out all the European civs and put in the Greeks and Germans. After all, most European cultures could be considered mere offshoots of Greek/Germanic cultures.

kolpo · July 26, 2001, 16:51

"pre Zen" orginated in India but was not really big there. Later migrated it to China, there changed it over time and was adapted to Chinese culture, they call this tradition Chan. Chan migrated to Japan, it changed there over time, this tradition is called zen.

In India means pre zen quite nothing anymore, in China has it some influence on Tibet and the Mongolian provinces(but even they are mainly influence buy other Buddistic schools) but other then that is it's influence gone. In Japan had and has it still a very big influence on the japan culture. This culuture is in fact for a big part a zen culture.

Discipline, controling ones body, controling ones emotions and being not selfcentered(but more on company they work for, nation,family...) are a big part of the Japan culture and zen is one of the big reasons they are like that.

But back to the subject: I would like Japan to be include because they are original. Not just military expansionists like most other civilizations but instead a somewhat isolasionistic nation that tries to improve what they have instead of expansion. (perfectionistic strategy except WWII but that was an exception, before WWII have they also had a good economy).

Gangerolf · July 26, 2001, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
If Japan shouldn't be included becuase they don't have a completely distinctive culture, one that has borrowed heavily from Chinese culture, why don't we just take out all the European civs and put in the Greeks and Germans. After all, most European cultures could be considered mere offshoots of Greek/Germanic cultures.

The Germans are also an offshoot of the ancient Germanic tribes. "German" is not synonymous with"Germanic". The Germans are not more Germanic than the Scandinavians or the English.
You could say most European civs (exept Finns and Hungarians) are offshoots of the Indo-European cultures. Maybe there should be a civ called the Indo-Europeans?

Mark_Lipovrovskiy · July 26, 2001, 19:38

In fact, I'd say that Japan is aggressive militaristic perfectionist. If this is possible at all... If you have "isolationist" there then militaristic isolationist perfectionist would fit them better.
And yes, I do think that non-militaristic civs should go it - the world wasn't built entirely on war, after all. But then the game would have to give more power to the pacifists - which I suspect the new trade system is doing.

Colon™ · July 26, 2001, 19:43

"The Germans are also an offshoot of the ancient Germanic tribes. "German" is not synonymous with"Germanic". The Germans are not more Germanic than the Scandinavians or the English.
You could say most European civs (exept Finns and Hungarians) are offshoots of the Indo-European cultures. Maybe there should be a civ called the Indo-Europeans?

Maybe we should just kill all old civs and replace them with one single homo sapiens civ, it would surely simplify things a helluvalot.

Gangerolf · July 26, 2001, 20:05

Quote:

Maybe we should just kill all old civs and replace them with one single homo sapiens civ, it would surely simplify things a helluvalot.

But where did homo sapiens come from?

(I'm actually quite satisfied with the civs included. But we obviously need the Vikings back.)

Colon™ · July 26, 2001, 20:24

"But where did homo sapiens come from?"

Maybe we should we ask Firaxis to junk this civilisation rubbish and create a game about bacterias instead?

DrFell · July 26, 2001, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf

The Germans are also an offshoot of the ancient Germanic tribes. "German" is not synonymous with"Germanic". The Germans are not more Germanic than the Scandinavians or the English.

Yeah I was just using the Germans as they're the closest thing to the Germanic tribes in the game (except perhaps Vikings as the tribes themselves mostly migrated from Scandinavia). Obviously, the point is that Civ3 is going to include less cultures than civs. Simply because a 'civ' borrowed certain cultural aspects off another nearby nation is not a reason not to include them.

Dida · July 26, 2001, 22:06

By saying Japanese Culture is a banch from China is not undermining the cultural achievement of the Japanese people. There are 5 main source of civilization. They are Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese. Japanese culture was a branch from the Chinese root. It should not be included, because, 1) it was not significant culturally. 2) japan did not play a role internationally until the 20th century.