What the civ list should be

[dunk]

That's what I meant. I want to have an endless list of civs to choose from, not just 31.

I don't want to play a game with 200 civs, but just a big long list to choose from at the start of the game.

[Panag]

Originally posted by dunk999
That's what I meant. I want to have an endless list of civs to choose from, not just 31.

I don't want to play a game with 200 civs, but just a big long list to choose from at the start of the game.

hi ,

but that is not the problem , tha max you can play is 31 , to chose from , well , one can make as many has he or she wants , ...

have a nice day

[dunk]

I would like to see no hard-coded limits on how many civs can be selectable at one time. I know I'll be able to create a custom civ and place it one of 31 slots. I want more than 31 slots. I want to play a random game 15 times and not have the Romans in more than one of them. Without having to switch them in and out.

Just a wish.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Indignator
-Polish, Ukrainians or Hungarians (European)
The level with which Eastern Europe is being ignored is not even funny. Hey, we got Russia, so the rest doesn't matter. Well, we got China and Japan, so why should we add Korea?

I don't think Poland has been any more powerful than say, Sweden or Serbia have been. Its neighbour Lithuania, on the other hand, once ruled most of eastern Europe.
Ukraine is too tightly connected to Russia, hell, the Russian nation was founded in Kiev (by the Rus Vikings). And they were ruled by Russia for a long time.
Hungary on the peak of its power was no more than the lesser half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[Gangerolf]

-Celts
Yay, another European civ. No, I think the Vikings and Eastern Europe are much better candidates. Besides, the English are already here, so if the Celts make it, so should the Scottish and the Irish.

(Are you saying the English are Celtic? They're not.)
"Celts" are IMO to vague a name for a civ. It's like having a "Slav" or "Latin" civ. Eg. what should be the Celts' capital?

[Indignator]

I don't think Poland has been any more powerful than say, Sweden or Serbia have been.

Sweden was quite powerful in it's times, in fact the Swedes almost conquered Poland. And Serbia - I don't know much about them, but I think that it never was as strong as Poland or Sweden (I could be wrong though).

Its neighbour Lithuania, on the other hand, once ruled most of eastern Europe.

The Polish and Lithuanian nations have always been VERY close throughout history, both being ruled by the same monarch since the late 15th century. When 'Poland' was partitioned by the Russians, Prussians and Austrians, they in fact partictioned a Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. In fact if the partitions didn't take place, today there would probably be no Poland or Lithuania, only a Polish-Lithuanian nation.

Ukraine is too tightly connected to Russia, hell, the Russian nation was founded in Kiev (by the Rus Vikings). And they were ruled by Russia for a long time.

Agree.

Hungary on the peak of its power was no more than the lesser half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

It is interesting that the Austro-Hungarians are also never mentioned as possible candidates for a civ.

Anyway, I decided that there are to many European Civs, and it wouldn't kill me if Firaxis skipped Eastern Europe. I was just pissed that CTP skipped it, even though it had like 50 civs.

[GeneralTacticus]

It is interesting that the Austro-Hungarians are also never mentioned as possible candidates for a civ.

That's because they were never really a people per se, they were just a collection of different areas ruled by the same dynasty.

[notyoueither]

GeneralTacticus.

Incorrect. They were the last heirs to the Roman Empire.

Mighty apt that they were just a collection of different areas ruled by the same dynasty

[GeneralTacticus]

Mighty apt that they were just a collection of different areas ruled by the same dynasty

Perhaps I should amend that to different peoples. Their empire consisted of (off the top of my head) Germans, Magyars, Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, very few of whom were particularly assimilated.

They were the last heirs to the Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire, which AFAIK had very little if any to the original Roman Empire. You would have been closer if you said the Byzantines.

[dunk]

I hope some creative folks are working on creating new civs. I know about the "Extra Civ Pack", but I want more. Whoever you make, I'll download them and play as them at some point.

[civman2000]

Hebrews from the Euphrates to the Nile??????!!! WTF???????? When did they conquer Egypt, when did they conquer ANY of Mesopotamia? Tribes related to them may have done so collectively, but the Hebrew kingdom never got close!

[GeneralTacticus]

I was just stating what I had read somewhere, I wasn't sure if it was correct.

[Christantine The Great]

I'm sorry to disappoint all of you Byzantine enthusiasts here but:

The Byzantines were simply a continuation of Greco-Roman culture.

Althought the Romans of 1453 were VERY different from the Romans of 453, the fact remains:

They were Romans.

[Mikhail]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
I'm sorry to disappoint all of you Byzantine enthusiasts here but:

The Byzantines were simply a continuation of Greco-Roman culture.

Althought the Romans of 1453 were VERY different from the Romans of 453, the fact remains:

They were Romans.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Would you say that Americans are the same as English?

The Americans are a helluva a lot culturally similar to the English than the Byzantines are to the Romans 1000 years before.

The Byzantines and the Romans weren't even members of the same race. and if included in Civ 3, it'd be more realistic to put them in the Mid East culture group than the Mediterranean.

i'm sorry Chris, but that's the most rediculous comment I've heard yet about the Byzantines (and frankly, it's the only argument I've heard against them. No one can deny that Byzantium was one of the most powerful and influential civilizations in the Middle Ages).

Yes, their empire was part of Rome at one time. That's where the similarity ends, both in culture, and ethnicity. But if we were going strictly by ancestors, we'd have about 4 civs: Romans, Chinese, Babylonians, and Aztecs.

Anyway, It's a shame that even Ensemble Studios, the most historically inept company to ever make historical games, knew enough to inlcude the Byzantines. I realize that Firaxis is an American company, and that their basic thought is how Western Europe is so 'diverse', while Eastern Europe is suitable to be ignored.

Let's see here. Econonomic and Militaristic Powerhouse, probably more so than any other country in Europe in the middle ages. Single-handedly responsible for the propagandha and spreading of Christianity throughout Europe, leading to the some 1 billion followers today. Held their empire for over 1000 years, even after Rome was destroyed. Developed their own unique culture, a mix of European, Meditteranean, and Middle Eastern. Responsible for a great wonder called the Hagia Sophia, which I'm sure you civ fans heard of. And then of course, Constantinople, which remained the most populated city in the world well into the Industrial Age, and is still in the top 15 today as Istanbul.

But of course, all of this pales in comparison to the ground-breaking accomplishments of say, the Celts or Iroquis, or the all important Japanese civil wars and the Mongol Empire that lasted for a bit before destroying itself.

Anyway, it really infuriates me. Not that Byzantium isn't included, but the fact that western love-affairs take priority over civs that actually changed the world. And accomplished things. Which is why we have the aforementioned 4 civs, and a grossly over-represented Europe, while Byzantium, Thailand/Sium (SE Asia in general), and the Hebrews are ignored completely as they don't have movies being made about them, and aren't sending video games and cartoons to america.

GRR!

[Panag]

Originally posted by civman2000
Hebrews from the Euphrates to the Nile??????!!! WTF???????? When did they conquer Egypt, when did they conquer ANY of Mesopotamia? Tribes related to them may have done so collectively, but the Hebrew kingdom never got close!

hi ,

maybe not in terms of a military giant , but , definatly on terms of education , political systems and reforms , commerce and trade , ......

even today you can find jews in the entire middle east and north africa , .....

have a nice day

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by Mikhail


That makes absolutely no sense at all. Would you say that Americans are the same as English?

The Americans are a helluva a lot culturally similar to the English than the Byzantines are to the Romans 1000 years before.

The Byzantines and the Romans weren't even members of the same race. and if included in Civ 3, it'd be more realistic to put them in the Mid East culture group than the Mediterranean.

i'm sorry Chris, but that's the most rediculous comment I've heard yet about the Byzantines (and frankly, it's the only argument I've heard against them. No one can deny that Byzantium was one of the most powerful and influential civilizations in the Middle Ages).

Yes, their empire was part of Rome at one time. That's where the similarity ends, both in culture, and ethnicity. But if we were going strictly by ancestors, we'd have about 4 civs: Romans, Chinese, Babylonians, and Aztecs.

Anyway, It's a shame that even Ensemble Studios, the most historically inept company to ever make historical games, knew enough to inlcude the Byzantines. I realize that Firaxis is an American company, and that their basic thought is how Western Europe is so 'diverse', while Eastern Europe is suitable to be ignored.

Let's see here. Econonomic and Militaristic Powerhouse, probably more so than any other country in Europe in the middle ages. Single-handedly responsible for the propagandha and spreading of Christianity throughout Europe, leading to the some 1 billion followers today. Held their empire for over 1000 years, even after Rome was destroyed. Developed their own unique culture, a mix of European, Meditteranean, and Middle Eastern. Responsible for a great wonder called the Hagia Sophia, which I'm sure you civ fans heard of. And then of course, Constantinople, which remained the most populated city in the world well into the Industrial Age, and is still in the top 15 today as Istanbul.

But of course, all of this pales in comparison to the ground-breaking accomplishments of say, the Celts or Iroquis, or the all important Japanese civil wars and the Mongol Empire that lasted for a bit before destroying itself.

Anyway, it really infuriates me. Not that Byzantium isn't included, but the fact that western love-affairs take priority over civs that actually changed the world. And accomplished things. Which is why we have the aforementioned 4 civs, and a grossly over-represented Europe, while Byzantium, Thailand/Sium (SE Asia in general), and the Hebrews are ignored completely as they don't have movies being made about them, and aren't sending video games and cartoons to america.

GRR!

1) That's comparing apples to oranges. Please show me when these "Byzantines" stopped calling themselves Romans.

2) We are?

3) Byzantines, at best, were Romanized Greeks. Towards 1000, they were a multinational empire, of sorts, containing Serbs, some Arabs, and Bulgars among others.

4) If you want to go by most influential government, I can STILL say it was Roman because, simply, it was. Roman basis on everything.

5) It WAS the Roman empire! The Roman government did not die in the 400s, it died on a day in May in 1453.

6) Um...they kinda had to call Byzantines because it's the conventional name for the Roman empire of the period. Did you also know that their European neighbors called it the Greek Empire?

7) The culture didn't evolve slowly, it was changed by the various barbarian invasions the empire withstood. You do the Romans an injustice by taking a thousand years away from their durable government.

Were the Romans who adopted Greek gods not as Roman as the ancient city dwellers?

8) You're doing the Romans injustice when you claim that these accomplishments weren't their's. Roman knowhow, not Greek, built the Haiga Sophia.

9) The Byzantine powerbase was located in Europe...does that mean they shouldn't be included because of my supposed love affair? The mythical Byzantines, better known as the Romans to themselves and the Greeks to Europe, are simply a continuation of the Roman state and the dominant Greco-Roman culture of the Mideast until the Arab invasions.

[Andreiguy]

Though they're closely tied to the Romans, I think that the Byzantines simply had enough of their own individual influence and power on the world to warrant their own civ. after all, the more the merrier

[Panag]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great


1) That's comparing apples to oranges. Please show me when these "Byzantines" stopped calling themselves Romans.

2) We are?

3) Byzantines, at best, were Romanized Greeks. Towards 1000, they were a multinational empire, of sorts, containing Serbs, some Arabs, and Bulgars among others.

4) If you want to go by most influential government, I can STILL say it was Roman because, simply, it was. Roman basis on everything.

5) It WAS the Roman empire! The Roman government did not die in the 400s, it died on a day in May in 1453.

6) Um...they kinda had to call Byzantines because it's the conventional name for the Roman empire of the period. Did you also know that their European neighbors called it the Greek Empire?

7) The culture didn't evolve slowly, it was changed by the various barbarian invasions the empire withstood. You do the Romans an injustice by taking a thousand years away from their durable government.

Were the Romans who adopted Greek gods not as Roman as the ancient city dwellers?

8) You're doing the Romans injustice when you claim that these accomplishments weren't their's. Roman knowhow, not Greek, built the Haiga Sophia.

9) The Byzantine powerbase was located in Europe...does that mean they shouldn't be included because of my supposed love affair? The mythical Byzantines, better known as the Romans to themselves and the Greeks to Europe, are simply a continuation of the Roman state and the dominant Greco-Roman culture of the Mideast until the Arab invasions.

hi ,

,

, maybe at one point the Romans and Greeks should lose some terrain , and instantly a new civ is born , ....

in civ2 you could split the country in two , ....

in this case it should just happen , at a given point in time , ...

BANG

there they are , .... that would be cool , ...
and it would have countless options for the game , and for other civ's , ....

have a nice day

[SABRA]

the hebrew's should be in
but would Jew or Israeli not be a smarter way

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

,

, maybe at one point the Romans and Greeks should lose some terrain , and instantly a new civ is born , ....

in civ2 you could split the country in two , ....

in this case it should just happen , at a given point in time , ...

BANG

there they are , .... that would be cool , ...
and it would have countless options for the game , and for other civ's , ....

have a nice day

That's not how the Byzantines came about. There never was a major event that meant they ceased being Romans.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great


That's not how the Byzantines came about. There never was a major event that meant they ceased being Romans.

hi ,

that is not the point the point is that somewhere in the game a new civ should be born out of one , two or more civ's , .....

have a nice day

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

that is not the point the point is that somewhere in the game a new civ should be born out of one , two or more civ's , .....

have a nice day

That is the point. You can't pin a date on the "transition" between Roman and "Byzantine", therefore, there was no event that marked the change between the two. Why would this apply to any others?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great


That is the point. You can't pin a date on the "transition" between Roman and "Byzantine", therefore, there was no event that marked the change between the two. Why would this apply to any others?

hi ,

it should not apply to dates , well a bit , the idea is to get a civ born out of an other civ or a couple civ's , ....

that would be great , and we should have some form of control over it in the editor , ...

example ; chose this and that , this and that civ shall be born out of it , ...

have a nice day

[Christantine The Great]

You're still missing the point. Not all civs gave birth to a different civ. I'd like to know who came out of the Chinese and French.

Sorry, I'm just curious, but why do you type with that weird grammar?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
You're still missing the point. Not all civs gave birth to a different civ. I'd like to know who came out of the Chinese and French.

Sorry, I'm just curious, but why do you type with that weird grammar?

hi ,

okay , this is something of how it should go ;

lets say the Romans and the Greeks gave birth to a new civ ; the Byzantine's , .....

you ought to chose this from a small menu in the editor , with lets say a maximum of 6 such "triggers" , ...
and maybe there should be an option ; in the year this or that , this civ is born , ...

grammar , ....

have a nice day

[sprucemoose3311]

three things:

First: the Hyksos dynasty ruled over egypt. they were most likely Jewish. If they were another group they would have ignored Joseph and the Great wonder the Pyramids would not give each city a grainary. its hard to find credible sites on this. egypt destroyed theyre records of Hyksos dynasty not only because they were foriegn rulers, but also because they were jew. they also destroyed much archeological evidence proving their existance. In an Egyptian school, students have probably never heard of the dynasty. A good religiuos professor at a college can give you info on them. or you could learn latin,greek, and hebrew and translate the old texts for yourselves.

these are crap sites but info still resides there:
http://home.online.no/~shammas/hyksos.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/montgochron.html

Second: Alexander the Great populated Alexandria with 10,000 Jews. Alexandria became the the theological capitol of the world. One of the main reasons for this was the contributions by the jews

Third: when the Jews were exiled to babylon, they werent truly enslaved. many of them set up shops there. there is evidence of hundreds of jewish temples there (archeological evidence usually= pottery). When the babylonians allowed the Jews to go back, many of them did not leave. They remained jewish, but altered their culture to fit their surroundings

future contribution: when I buy my scanner, i will scan a map of the lands controlled by isreal at their some of their greatest times under solomon, herod, and david

[Panag]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
three things:

First: the Hyksos dynasty ruled over egypt. they were most likely Jewish. If they were another group they would have ignored Joseph and the Great wonder the Pyramids would not give each city a grainary. its hard to find credible sites on this. egypt destroyed theyre records of Hyksos dynasty not only because they were foriegn rulers, but also because they were jew. they also destroyed much archeological evidence proving their existance. In an Egyptian school, students have probably never heard of the dynasty. A good religiuos professor at a college can give you info on them. or you could learn latin,greek, and hebrew and translate the old texts for yourselves.

these are crap sites but info still resides there:
http://home.online.no/~shammas/hyksos.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/montgochron.html

Second: Alexander the Great populated Alexandria with 10,000 Jews. Alexandria became the the theological capitol of the world. One of the main reasons for this was the contributions by the jews

Third: when the Jews were exiled to babylon, they werent truly enslaved. many of them set up shops there. there is evidence of hundreds of jewish temples there (archeological evidence usually= pottery). When the babylonians allowed the Jews to go back, many of them did not leave. They remained jewish, but altered their culture to fit their surroundings

future contribution: when I buy my scanner, i will scan a map of the lands controlled by isreal at their some of their greatest times under solomon, herod, and david

hi ,

, intresting , ....

one thing a Jew does when he is in an other country is to comply with the local rules , .....

however can all these historical facts be worked out in the game , ....

normally not , so it would be best to give thme a starting location , ....

as for any other civ that some feel is to small at one point , ....

have a nice day

[SABRA]

How can we chose from somany great civ's ?

Maybe it would be helpfull if some people post a list of the civ's they feel should be in ?

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
That is the point. You can't pin a date on the "transition" between Roman and "Byzantine", therefore, there was no event that marked the change between the two. Why would this apply to any others?

Wouldn't a good transition date be the foundation of Constantinople in 330?

I would like to see the civil war feature brought back as well.

Not too sure about the whole Hyskos thing. That doesn't have much to do with the establishment of a Jewish/ Isreali civ though. I am still unsure if the Hebrews were really influential enough to have a civ. I understand that they had a large influence on the course of Western civilization through the Bible, but this is independent from their physical presence as a nation.

I personally would also like to see the inclusion of the Holy Roman Empire/Hapsburg Empire/ Austrians. I feel that they have played a HUGE role in European history and world history. They were a major factor in every war fought in Europe from the Renaissance to WWI. My only question is why haven't they been included thus far?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Mikhail
Yes, their empire was part of Rome at one time. That's where the similarity ends, both in culture, and ethnicity. But if we were going strictly by ancestors, we'd have about 4 civs: Romans, Chinese, Babylonians, and Aztecs.

i get your point, but don't agree with the named civs.

a big area of the world might have been controlled by these four, but in that case you'd be forgetting. north and south america (aztecs were middle america), africa (without mediterranian), the area of the former soviet union, australia&oceania... and and and. in fact you even forgot the germans and english... both never controlled by the romans.

if you want to reduce all (still existing) civs to just a few "civ-sources", try:
germanic, latin, slavic, uralic, sino-tibetian, semitic, and others... information based on dervish's great thread:
ethnic trees

btw: proto-indo-european, aka. indo-germanic would reduce it even more... but now it's going waaaaaayy too far back in time