civ3 to include a full set of nationalities - Page 2

Caesar the Great · January 28, 2000, 17:14

I think there should be one for indonesia, possibly Colombia, and a few from Africa.

Just to be fair Luxemborg

------------------
Its normal to be weird here and weird to be normal~ Brain

___
CtG

NoviceCEO · January 28, 2000, 19:19

Are you kidding Caesar? Colombia??

JamesJKirk · January 28, 2000, 23:49

I understand that the Holy Roman Empire was essentially Germany, and I'll even say that it was, since the nation-state hadn't come into thought or being as of yet. But, to use the old cliche, it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire. It was a weak confederation that after a while just became a place the Hapsburgs tried to exert more influence over. So that's why I said 1871 as the Germany date.
But, I do totally agree that not all civs should start at the same time. By the time European colonialism had reach these areas, parts of the Americas and the Pacific hadn't reached the minimum technological level that one of our "civs" start off with nearly 6000 years prior. so there definitely should be more of a randomness to that.

Atahualpa · January 29, 2000, 06:25

JamesKirk: Then again, you will need a lot more civs!
About Germany: Germany had history before 1871 though. They were united once, I believen Heinrich II or something like that. Fact is, that Germans exist a lot longer than other so-called civs.

Ata

January 29, 2000, 09:41

S. Kroeze, what's wrong with playing Nicaraguans and Jamaicans?

There's probably a parallel universe where they rule the world, and this game is all about rewriting history.

JamesJKirk · January 29, 2000, 10:50

Colombia was the country freed from Spanish rule by Simon Bolivar. It included present-day Colombia, Panama, Venezuela and Ecuador. they broke up into their respective countries fairly quickly, except Panama, which didn't become "independent" until the US wanted to build a canal there, and the Colombians wouldn't let them. Anyway, I have the Gran Colombians as a civ in CTP, and I don't mind them being there, if you play on a world map, there needs to be weight away from Europe anyway

Cadorna · January 29, 2000, 15:03

How about a somewhat different aproach: In the beginning each player simply chooses a "race", lets say Asians, Indians, Red Indians, South- Central- North-Europeans, Aborigine, Pygmae (sorry for the spelling), Indios, Africans, Arabians, etc.
Each could have slightly different advantages/disadvantages. For example arabians/africans could be adapted to the desert, pygmae could build irrogations in the jungle, north-europeans could have something similar for tundra... Then the civilization itself would get its own 'face' while playing, for the player makes certain choices... It should also be possible that every player is european, all the others would be minor civs that have been suggested by numerous people elsewhere. The minors, in my example even european minors should still exist, would "provide" cities to conquer, or allies that finally could be "integrated" into the players civ. Thereby the game would be much more interesting, IMHO that is.

NoviceCEO · January 29, 2000, 15:39

JamesJKirk, I know what you're talking about, believe me, I'm a South American.

But Colombia never reached anything. It was a Spanish colony, that never reached a big status. It had a great leader - Simon Bolivar - which dreamed about a united and free Spanish America, but died without seeing his dream come true. After that, it never reached any status to be acclaimed as a great civ.

By the way, the Colombian era you refer to happened after American Independence and Colombia's history is kinda brief.

If you were talking about Incas, and their home was Perú, if I'm not wrong, then I would totally agree with you. As they were one of the few original inhabitants of the Americas, along with the Aztecs and the Mayas. One last thing about Incas, have you heard of Machu Pichu?

About the topic, I think the game should be a little bit accurate with your opponents, but that doesn't mean your own civ should be accurate. Why not the world's largest 18th century superpower living in the Saara?

S. Kroeze · January 29, 2000, 18:25

Dear JamesJKirk,

From 962AD until about 1250 the German Empire was a formidable one, no doubt about it- taking stock of the fact that all power was very limited in those days, absolutely nothing in comparison with the modern nation-state. The emperor was considered the highest authority in western christianity, having great power in Germany, Italy, Burgundy and considerable influence in surrounding countries like France, Bohemia and Poland.
The dynasty of the Ottones saved this part of Europe from the onslaught of the Hungarians. The empire expanded rapidly eastwards during this period, subjecting many Slav people. Temporarily they even controlled the church, selecting the pope and acting in all respects like the equal of that other emperor, ruling the eastern part of the Roman world from Constantinople.

Their very success brought about a reversal, because it created many enemies, who all allied against them: the papacy, the German aristocracy, in Italy the city states. The decline set in with the Investiture Controversy, the central issue being the appointment of bishops. Because the kings/emperors ruled through those bishops, control of the investiture was the very cornerstone of their power. The Papacy, beginning with Gregory VII (the other power claiming universal authority), and empire were at one another's throats for centuries and went down together. The French Capetians were the one who's sitting pretty: in the end the pope ended as their hostage in Avignon.

Because papacy and empire with their universal claims balanced one another, the future belonged in Europe to the national monarchies; an essential point in the development of Western christianity, a "true" civilization, becoming in this way a dominant feature as is aptly proved by this page. Greater personal freedom is an other result of this unresolved battle between church and state.

But until 1250, when Frederick II of Hohenstaufen died the outcome of the battle wasn't clear. For the emperors it was unfortunate that the emergence of the German cities, their natural allies against the aristocracy, was relatively late and less spectacular than in Italy.

A remark about the use of flags. Though the flag of my country is less ugly than most, I cant become wild because of it. And it is very anachonistic! Only with the French revolution and Romanticism became people emotional about flags.
In my country only hooligans and fascists will run after it.

If something like it has to be used I would prefer a coat of arms or a symbol, like the 'fleur de lis' for France, a dragon for China and so on.
And what will happen when a country turns communist? Will they adopt the flag of the former Sowjet Union? What would happen if a nation/civilization, like the Americans or Austrians -it could happen after all in a Civgame- became fascist? Would they unfurl the swastika?

AustralianJeremy · January 30, 2000, 08:42

I think the point about playing as Australia is being able to start on the Australian mainland. At present, in Civ2, I can pick a custom tribe and call them the Australians, but I can't start anywhere near Australia on the world map. (I note the Austrians arguing that if *we're* included, then they should be: well, at least the Germans are a nearby civ: you can just rename them if you really want to). It seems silly that there's such a huge expanse of map (a whole continent) wasted.

If being a stone-age civilization were important (which seems odd since America's included), then how about including the Australian Aborigines instead? They lasted just as long as the Zulus... until European colonization.

It may not be practical to include every historical civilization and every current country recognised in the UN, but at least have a reasonable spread across the globe. For land mass reasons alone I think Australia should be included.

Patriqvium · January 30, 2000, 14:49

But that was just what we've been demanding. More "ancient" Civs. Thank you for joining our call, A.J.

Youngsun · February 1, 2000, 02:17

I believe that the game should only include ancient civilisations(or tribes)strictly to begin with. Americans should leave America to the Indian tribes and their civilisations for the beginnig of the game just like Australia is for the Aborigines.

Then, how to satisfy for the mopdern nations players?

Well, How about adding the option to choose which civ you will belong or play when the civ get splited to two or more?

So when we play the British Empire and have overseas colonies like America or Australia, and the colonies want independence due to whatever the reasons, then we can choose which side we are in. Assuming that we chose America to control,not only we lose our control over the Mother country but also have to raise a war against her for independece. After some decisive victory,we might negotiate with our mother country for the recognition as an independent state.
If we chose the mother country to keep playing, our job will be putting down the rebellion.

Atahualpa · February 1, 2000, 06:29

YoungSun: You really have to lengthen the game then, cause I dont think 400 or 500 turns will be enough to deal with your opponents and/or rebellions.
But, that should be no problem, I too think the game should be lengthen, 800-1000 turns would be much nicer. Even more, because when they will expand the tech-tree you will need a hell lot more time to actually play all the techs out! Unlike CtP were you get pushed from one tech to another and when you have those "pikemen" 5 turns later you already have musketeers. But in 5 turns you could just build one or maybe 2 pikemen, but you had no time to saw them in action.

What I am asking myself is: How can engineers develop newer and better weapons, when they havent seen the older ones in action?

Ata

NoviceCEO · February 1, 2000, 10:44

Youngsun, the best example for that is the Roman Empire. I miss the name of the Emperor who did it, but when Roma was falling apart 'cause of the barbarians, the Roman Empire was divided into two: the easter one, and the western one. And the Emperor actually decided to live in the new side (the Eastern), that's how the Byzantium Empire was initiated.

Ata, you actually can develop new units, but you miss the feedback from the units in action. Think it as patching a game that hasn't been released yet.

MidKnight Lament · February 1, 2000, 21:05

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-01-2000 01:17 AM

Well, How about adding the option to choose which civ you will belong or play when the civ get splited to two or more?

So when we play the British Empire and have overseas colonies like America or Australia, and the colonies want independence due to whatever the reasons, then we can choose which side we are in.

i may be misinterpreting you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting events that are almost pre-ordained to occur. (and if not, what's the likelihood of a split occuring if an aussie like myself wants to play their own civ? are we supposed to sit and hope?)

some people seem to have raised similar ideas based on historical accuracy, but i'd be much happier to leave the player free to shape their world, rather than being tied down to a storyline of how _our_ world turned out.

if you want to give birth to nations in such a way, then the player should be free to name the civ themselves, rather than things being pre-set. Well, that's what i think anyway

Youngsun · February 2, 2000, 01:00

Atahualpa: Gooten Tag! Ata.
Yea! I had same problem from the tech advance goes too quickly and the production could not catch up(only in lower play level) As we know, historically, pikemen and musketeers had coexisted until the invention of BAYONET then pikemen became obsolete. What I'm trying to say is that pikemen shouldn't be obsolete when GUNPOWDER is discovered.(hopely in Civ3)

NoviceCEO: Hello!(I don't know in Portugese->hello. Pardon me for my ignorance)novice!
What a nice example you gave to us.

Midknight Lament: Gee'Daay MATE! How's it going! Haha, I just made the suggestion for the case if the game won't include Australia when it still have countries like America.

If there will be some modern nations to begin with in Civ3, of couse, Australia has every right to be included in it. It's simply not fair to have some modern nations along with great ancient civilisations because they are simply well-known or powerful while most of modern nations are left out in the game.

However, when the game starts to include all the modern nations like CTP, we might have to change to game name itself to "the World" or Nations,etc. Since the game's very purpose is to play ancient civilisations and watch them grow(at least that's what I thought), there shouldn't be any modern nations to begin with.

The point is that if the game goes with the Ancient civs, go strictly ancient! or all modern nations have to be included for fairness!

Atahualpa · February 2, 2000, 07:31

YoungSun: Its Guten Tag and not Gooten Tag.

Ata

Biddles · February 2, 2000, 08:05

YoungSun: Its G'Day and not Gee'Daay.

Sorry, just had to do it.

Biddles · February 2, 2000, 08:05

Sorry, double post.
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited February 02, 2000).]

Hanuman · February 2, 2000, 16:44

I agree with S. Kroeze [quote: "One of the reasons I didn't buy Call to Power (apart from the fact that it is boring) is that in the first and only game I played my opponents included Nicaraguans and Jamaicans"] and with Sir Lament [quote: "some people seem to have raised similar ideas based on historical accuracy, but i'd be much happier to leave the player free to shape their world, rather than being tied down to a storyline of how _our_ world turned out."], and several others. Of course I disagree on some counts, too, or why bother to post?

I don't want to see a civ (using the term broadly) included only because it's ancient or excluded only because it's modern. There's no way you could have a game called Civilization and exclude the Americans, for example, as some seem to want to do. The historical importance of the US and its impact on the whole world just cannot be denied--the US has a unique culture which is emulated, envied, or reviled the world over. It is a major civilization. History is not a union shop where you get promoted just for being around a long time. It's a meritocracy. If you can develop a unique style of civilization and become great and a world power in 200 years (or less, really), good for you; the history books won't devote any fewer chapters to your civ because it all happened so late in the game.

The Australian aborigines should not be included. Sure they've been around, but what have they done? The modern nation of Australia is far more deserving of inclusion. Same with the Picts, Pygmies, etc.--keep them out. To prefer the Pygmies to the Australians is really only a kind of prejudice against moderns. On the other hand, there's really no reason to include Nicaraguans and Jamaicans. No disrespect intended to those nations and their people, but Australia is more significant than those.

Anyway, gameplay should ultimately decide, imho. Australia should be included if for no other reason (not to say there aren't others) than that it occupies a significant land mass which would be a great place to start a civ. Other civs I'd like to see: the Mali (or Songhai, but I prefer the Mali), the Canadians, the Khmer, and the Turks, maybe Ethiopians (Axumites) and a few more Europeans (Poles, Portuguese, Swedes, Dutch). And that's about it. But as long as you have the option of playing with only those civs you want to play with (not just one out of the three that happen to have the same color), I won't complain if others are included as well. I think that's really important: that you can play with any or all civs, and that you have complete control in deciding which ones.

And if you're going to get upset about historical accuracy you ought to get upset about geographical accuracy as well. Why be bothered about time and not place? It bugs me to find New York on the Mississippi or St. Petersburg in Siberia or, God forbid, Shanghai on the steppes. But how can you have a game where cities can only go where you find them in the world as we know it now? Can't. How can you have a game where everything turns out just as it did today? Can't. Or you could, if you wanted a Sim instead of a Civ. So let's just deal with a little inaccuracy all around.

MidKnight Lament · February 2, 2000, 19:50

the more i ponder it, the more i think there should be an option to have only ancient civs included, (for those who like some historical accuracy), or alternatively, any and all civs available included, (for those of us who are happy to go open slather and ally/trade with/pester/nuke/decimate all of our favourite foreign civs.)

hell, you could even have it so the game would pick civs from certain eras if you wanted to go the whole hog. only ancient, or only modern, or only whatever's-in-between. or mix and match. tick the box and nominate who'd you'd like it to choose from. you could have the default being all of them (to be inclusive), but those who are more discerning can pick and choose what eras they like without losing the randomness that comes from letting the computer choose which civs you'll face in your game.

either that, or you could have it so that you can nominate all the civs that you'd be happy to play against (so you can disclude your pet hates or you can stick to an era), and then enter the number of those you'd like to face. that way you don't lose the randomness either. and if you want to face all of them, just enter the number of civs you've nominated...

i don't know, i'm rambling. but right now it's sounding like a reasonable idea at this end.

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited February 02, 2000).]

Youngsun · February 3, 2000, 02:23

Midknight Lament: Hey! That's really nice idea to have a such an option to choose which specific era we wanna play.

Biddle: Haha. Of course, I know that it is "G'day". I used "Gee'Day" for other nationalities to show how it is pronounced.

To all Americans: Sure, USA is the greatest civilisation ever in human history(no doubt about that)and her impact on other nations are enormous so she deserves the attention. I used America as an example simply because she can represent all modern nations which are recently created(Anyone has better example?). If my statement sounded disrespect to you guys,I apolosise. Haha, no hard feelings Okay?

The point I tried to make was that the starting point of the game is BC4000 and we have some modern nationalities available to play(Isn't it weird?). Anyway,I totally agree with Midnight Lament's idea to have an option to choose historic or customised(full set of nationalities)game at the beginning. That shouldn't be too dificult to do and satisfies everyone.

Ata: Haha, I noticed few minutes later that I mispelled(silly me).Thanks for adjusting that. Danke.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 03, 2000).]

Youngsun · February 3, 2000, 02:25

Ooops! Sorry
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 03, 2000).]

Youngsun · February 3, 2000, 02:26

Oops! Sorry
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 03, 2000).]

NoviceCEO · February 3, 2000, 14:13

Youngsun, hello is "Olá" in portuguese and hi is "Oi", but I don't think you'll be able to pronounce "olá" correctly.

[This message has been edited by NoviceCEO (edited February 03, 2000).]

AustralianJeremy · February 13, 2000, 04:19

quote:

To all Americans: Sure, USA is the greatest civilisation ever in human history(no doubt about that)and her impact on other nations are enormous so she deserves the attention.

Good god man, think about what you're saying! They'll get even bigger heads than they have already!

Actually, I don't think it is the greatest civilization 'ever'. The Greeks and Romans were pretty impressive, and so were the Brits.. China's larger. I'm pretty sure another country's wealthier. Many other civs have lasted for longer. etc. Sure, none of them had Stealth Bombers, but I'm not sure that's the criterion on which greatness is judged.

Thanks Hanuman

- that was my point: we need a Civ on the Australian land mass. However, I think you're being a bit harsh on the Australian aborigines: their civilization did last for over 40,000 years, which is pretty impressive by any standard. Anyway, the Zulus were included in Civ2: it's not like they've done a lot recently!

cheers...

Ubergeek · February 13, 2000, 14:53

Oh fer Chrissakes.

It's a game, and everybody who pays their hard-earned money for it should have the right to enjoy it the way they choose. You want to play Australia? Knock yourself out. You want to play Pygmies? Go to it. You want to play Andorra, Bhutan, Flanders or the western two-thirds of Mombasa? Fine by me. Personally I enjoy customizing my Civ so that all city names come from the USA state of Minnesota, so bully for me. One thing the Civ code has always had going for it is cutomizability, and that should be carried on and expanded in the next iteration. I think the finest idea is to allow for truly customizable civs, with user-provided lists of cities, leader names and civ traits (if that's an option, a la SMAC, and I hope it will be) and let the player pick the civs he wants to play against without regard to a particular color. After all, why to the French always have to be blue, or the Egyptians yellow? I would think they could come up with a way to randomly assign colors each game, so that you wouldn't be locked into always having to have either the Indians, the Sioux or the Mongols, for example, or could have all three on the board at once if that's what suited your fancy.

All of the above is not to say that the player should HAVE to go to all that work before jumping into a game -- the old option of letting the computer pick your opponents, grabbing the Romans or the Chinese or the Easter Islanders and then kicking the world's a$$ should still be an option -- I just want all the other options, too.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

Sarxis · February 17, 2000, 06:14

Has anyone considered multi-cultured nations? What I mean is that each nationality has certain attributes that are developed (not inherit; must be developed through education and such) and when two nationalities (or really even just different cultures within each nation) cross they gain and lose certain characteristics from each other over time. That way when Alexander the great conquers Egypt there arises a whole new culture of Ptolemaic people over the course of the next century.

Another thing is allowing 'Revolutions' and 'Secessions' for the purpose of forming new and more advanced nations. Though the United States has become a great nation in just a short period of time, it's founders where originally part of already established nations. Thus, were it not for a select few individuals wanting to separate from a conflicting ideology and way of life (form of government) the U.S.A. would not exist as it does now. And besides, every great nation that ever has been has owed it's greatness at least in part to other nations or a 'motherland'.
Here's my idea: You start your game as the British. Things go well for you until the Roman empire comes in and starts forcing it's imperialism on you (cross culturalism- Celts start to benefit from Rome's advances somewhat). But then after a few centuries Rome has fallen. Now the British rise as a mighty empire, but you want a change; you want one of those spiffy new democracies that every body else has, but the King of England doesn't agree with that. So you have to go start a new nation today. After the ensuing revolt, and George Washington is elected President, you have just started a pioneering nation with some new abilites and options at your disposal that were not possible with the English (no offense). But here's the cool part: you get to play as the Americans, but still get to play as the British too! More cross-culturism/multi-nationalism? Perhaps. Australia, many Asian nations, Mexico, most of South America would be founded quite the same.
I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see the rise and fall of great empires, not only by enemy conquest, but also through great leadership, national unity, cultural dissension, irrepairable missmangament and others. I would like to see the Jews carried off to Babylon but still remain culturally distinct; and East and West Germany devided between two sides of the cold war, and yet people on both sides of the Berlin Wall speaking German. But I would also like to see new nations formed by peoples who desire to break away from tyranny and injustice.

Can you see it? Can you see the vision?!

Dr Strangelove · February 19, 2000, 00:59

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of including as many of the world's current and past civs as choices for player/civs. I don't see why it would be too difficult to design the game so that players can make their own civs. Skip the leader pictures, they don't do that much for the game. Personally I liked the 3D animated messangers in Civ II. You could provide a menu of animated characters to choose from, perhaps allowing choices of colour and costumes. For the background include a menu of flags and/or coats of arms.
Please lay off the "America doesn't deserve to be a civ" schtick. We just finished our first century as the world's dominant power, and it looks like we're easily headed for a second. For the love of Pete! People on every continent are complaining about the Americanization of their cultures! Doesn't that imply that we are a seperate culture in our own right?

February 19, 2000, 01:44

I didn't have time to read everyones post.

I think instead of whining which civilizations should be in and which shouldn't, I think a useful thing to do is to come up with ideas suitable for both views.

This is my solution

1. Two Modes: Realistic Mode and Unrealistic (I can't think of a word, lol) Mode.

In Realistic Mode, you start off with all the tribes that started in the very beginning.
And under realistic mode, you could choose to have civilization name changes, where the saxons MAY one day have a conflict and become the British. Or you could have this turned off.

In Unrealistic mode, you can choose to be any civilization that exists today that is a 1st or 2nd world civilization. And you can also have the civ-name-change thingo on or off in that mode too. (or maybe not).

This way you get the better of both, without having to do any heavy work.