Civilizations

[danielc]

Theses are the Civilizations that should be represented in Civ III:

Algonquin (Need another Native Civ)
American
Arab
Austrian
Aztec
Assyrian
Babylonian
Carthaginian
Celt
Chinese
Dutch
Egyptian
English
French
German
Greek
Hebrew (or Israeli)
Inca
Indian
Japanese
Javanese
Mali (Another African)
Mayan
Mongol
Persian
Portugese
Roman
Russian
Sioux
Spanish
Turk
Viking
Zulu

Actually I'd do a little more research before making those statements. Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, etc. are Indian CIV cities. They are simply located in Pakistan. India was once a territory consisting of present day India, Pakistan, a part of China, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. The nations broke in the mid 1900s (1950s) When Muslims created Pakistan to the west and India was created in the south east. The other nations later splintered off. If you are looking at the Indians as a Civilization then those city names are correct. I think Ghandi is more widley recognized as the Indian political leader even though he is not neccessarily the first or most important.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

P.S. We're going 2 need a bigass map!

Add, perhaps,:-

Teutons
Byzantines (if Romans are absent)
Minoans
Hitittes
Polynesians (?)

Also, at the beginning of the game, we should be able to choose which epoch to start in.. There should be one HUGE pool of civs and the program decides which civs should be included in which epoch..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

Oh, I almost forgot..

For the male leader of the Indians, it should be Jawaharlal Nehru, not Mahatma Gandhi..

Gandhi was not a political leader.. Nehru was India's first Prime Minister and was PM for a long time..

Also, the city names for the Indians are all wrong.. Ganges is a river, Bengal and punjab are states, Karachi, Lahore and Dacca (Dhaka) are not in India..

Firaxis could mail me and I can send them an accurate list of Indian cities, in proper order of importance..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[djdhy]

i hope they include the koreans...... they precede many of the civilization on the list(5000 years of history)

When we start a new game, we should be allowed to choose which epoch we want to start in.. Prehistoric (default), Ancient, Medieval, Industrial, Modern..

The units/techs and civs should all reflect this choice...
Perhaps there should be this HUGE database of about 50 civs, with leaders for all these epochs.. I also feel that the leaders should change with time.. It's funny negotiating with Lenin in 1500 BC.
Maybe the leaders could also change with different govt. types.. We could negotiate with Lenin and communist Russia, or Ivan and despotic Russia, and Yeltsin and democratic Russia.

Also, there should be a third term given to describe Civs, apart from just Russians and Russian, for example, there should also be a country name.. Then when we negotiate, we would negotiate with Russia, not the Russians. We could ally to fight with Russia, not the Russians. Similarly for the other civs..

PS. Russia was the first civ that came to minds, nothing special for choosing it...

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[ottok]

Yes of course, but Ukranian/Finish are also
then if these then scandinavians?

ur!
If Byzantines at when Rome Split, We need North and South Egypt!

[bogi]

Add the Polish to that list

[Sirotnikov]

you can add the:
hitties
kush (you know, the nation mentioned in the bible, now is ethiopia or something)
pleshet (i'm not sure how to translate them to english, maybe harel can help me with that? the people that were always fighting with the hebrews? invading from the sea?)
Medians
Amalek

what indians do you mean? from america or hindus?

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm afraid this is a topic of debate where people are never going to be appeased. History is enough of a mess as it is without us trying to re-create it in the process. The answer is simply to let people name as many civs as they like in their game, be they your civ, or your enemy's. The rest is going to come down to who they least want to offend, and geographical limitations.

- MKL

Like I said, we should have this huge database, and with the ability to (with some program supplied with the game) be able to delete/modify civs and also download, complete with sound/music/graphics, new civs from the net... There could be a civ creation tool or something available..

But what do you'll think about the leaders changing with time and with governments?

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[MidKnight Lament]

It could work ok in modern times, but what about before then? How much influence are the 'leaders' going to have when the turns are still 5 or 20 years each? Perhaps before then the leaders could represent dynasties rather than individuals.

- What do you see the influences of the leaders being?
- In what ways do we have control over what effect the leaders will have when they're in power?
- In what ways can we shape who might next rise to power?
- Are you thinking of linking leaders to civs or governments or neither?

A lot of questions, I know, but the topic is rather open at the moment.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 04, 2000).]

What I originally thought was that the changing leaders would be just superficial, to add a little more realism.. It's just a minor detail, but the minor details MUST be taken into account, not just the major stuff..

But we could perhaps have leader personalities, but that might get a little complex.. Specially thinking about personalities for each leader for all civs!

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

How about this:
Each civ has 6 leaders, 3 for ancient and 3 for modern.
Each of the 3 leaders in each time period represent 3 different ideals and personalities, eg. Communist, Democratic and Fascist. Obviously these leaders would be based on ones from history.
In a democratic government, these change with people's views. But in a dictatorship, the leader stays the same until the time period changes or there is some kind of revolution.
These leaders influence everything within that civilization, and represent the civs views at that time.
Of course you don't have leaders in the civ you're playing as.
btw, Sir Shiva, I reckon downloading civs would be great.

[Zulu Elephant]

Add Aboriginies (sp?) or Australians to fill up the often un-used Austrailia on the world maps
[This message has been edited by Zulu Elephant (edited April 05, 2000).]

And when you're negotiating with a civ, a specific background midi 'anthem' or even video could be playing - which also changes thru time...

And I think there should be about 20 leaders, like this:-

1. Ancient Despot
2. Ancient Monarch
3. Ancient Fundamentalist
4. Ancient Republican/Democrat
5. Medieval Despot
6. Medieval Monarch
7. Medieval Fundamentalist
8. Medieval Republican/Democrat
9. Industrial Dicatator
10. Industrial communist
11. Industrial Fundamentalist
12. Industrial Monarch
13. Industrial Republican/Democrat
14. Modern Dictator/Army General
15. Modern Communist
16. Modern Fundamentalist
17. Modern Republican
18. Modern Democrat
19. Future (?)


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

Surely that would be too many.
20 leaders x 50 civs = 1000 different leaders.

You'd have to limit the graphics to one picture to each leader to avoid using up memory. Anyway, if you did it with historical names, I probably wouldn't have heard of half of them. I could think of only about 6 Roman leaders off the top of my head.

Maybe each civ would only have a few leaders off the list you proposed?

I'm an Aussie but I was never fussed about the existence of an Australian civ in CTP, but the point above about having Aborigines/Australians so they could fill in the continent sounds like a smart idea.

As for civilizations, I was of the opinion CTP went too far with its number of civs, prferring Civ 2's number. Perhaps there should be an extra folder or something where people can store special civs they download/create if they want to play a specific race. Of course the game should provide the user with the ability to create their own civs easily this way.

Okay, 20 / civ maybe too much..

But I think we get the message that leaders should change with time AND government..
And of course, the names should be historical..
And the leaders don't change for YOU..


PS. How do we get ideas (like this one) onto the EC3 list? Do we just rely on korn and Theben and co. reading it and liking it?


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

As to the number of civs, since people(including me) want lots of civs at a time, the current 1 colour per civ thing obviously isn't going to work.
I was thinking you could give the major nations (maybe 12 of them) one colour each, and the minor nations two colours, put on top of each other on some kind of flag.
When one of the minor nations becomes a major one, they use whichever one of their colours which isn't already used.
e.g. French - Red and Darkblue
English - White and Darkblue
Mongols - Purple and Black
Americans - Lightblue and Red
Australians - Yellow and Darkblue
Indians - Purple and Darkgreen etc,etc..
I'd like to see heaps of civs, maybe 60-70, but only perhaps 36 at a time.
[This message has been edited by Yuvo (edited April 07, 2000).]

[tniem]

I still believe that Firaxis should only release maybe 30 civs. Then about once a month release a new civ for us all to play. Each civ could have strenghts and weaknesses (slight changes in S.E., will not be that big but will be historical). The releases that they make once a month would be a perfect way to keep fans interested in the game and keep SMCIII from becoming like so many other forgotten good games.

[bogi]

1st make the Polish Civ avaible in CIV III


2nd Realease as many civs as possible everyone wants their nationality included. Nobody wants to be mixed with a diffrent Nationality that they never belonged in the first place Like Poland and Russia Two diffrent Cultures.Dont Realese updates with civs not every one has the internet in Europe and that is what many of you americans are forgeting.75 Civs should be Fine.

[tniem]

Shiva,

Not sure how you can have an ancient Democratic/Republican, leader. Or Medieval Communist, Democratic leaders.

That would save one more leader. But it still maybe is to many if there are a lot of civs. But the idea should be included however maybe not every civ can have a certain leader? or is just not historically based because not every civ had some of those type of leaders.

[Yuvo]

I think only some civs should have all of those leaders, like the Chinese. But in the case of the Americans, they wouldn't have ancient or medieval leaders.

IMO a good compromise would be 9 leaders per civ: 3 ancient, 3 medieval, 3 modern
but instead of being based on time period, it would be based on the order of the civ's leaders. Like for example the American's "ancient" leaders would include George Washinton, and their "medieval" leaders would include Abe Lincoln, while their modern leaders would include Kennedy etc.

Only civs like China would have leaders that really correspond to the time period.

[tniem]

Yuvo,

Like the idea. But how would you split the three for each time period?

Possibility:
Ancient and Medieval like Shiva's
Modern-
1. Republic/Democracy
2. Communist/Dictator/Despot
3. Fundamentalist/Monarch

I don't know how this will work with S.E. though.

[Yuvo]

Actually, Tniem, I thought each civ could have different types of leaders, since a civ like Australia never had communist or fundamentalist leaders.
By the way, I think firaxis should release as many civs as they can with the game, but if people want to download new ones aswell, that would be pretty cool

[Biddles]

tniem: There are a few ancient Athenian leaders who were staunch democrats(republicans?), just do a little research and you'll be surprised to find that they all weren't trying to make themselves king.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

Whether or not civs are released should make no difference to people without internet access.. They could live with the 30-50-60 civs that come with the game.. Perhaps when they log on to Apolyton, they could download civs in the background..

And Indians should be orange/dark green..

I think I figure out the leaders thing:-

1. Ancient Despot/Fundamentalist
2. Ancient Monarch
3. Ancient Republican/Democracy
4. Medieval Despot/Fundamentalist/Communist
5. Medieval Monarch
6. Medieval Republican/Democrat
7. Industrial Dictator
8. " Monarch
9. " Fundamentalist
10. " Communist
11. " Republican/Democrat
12. Modern Dictator/General
13. " Communist
14. " Fundamentalist
15. " Republican
16. " Democrat.
17. Future (?)


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[MidKnight Lament]

Yes, but are the leaders going to do anything? We could argue 'til we're blue in the face about how many leaders each civ should have (let alone the arguments about who should be included and which type of leader they should be), but is it all that necessary for the amount of effort it would take? If they have an impact on the game, well then there's an argument for going to the trouble. But otherwise I'm unconvinced.

- MKL