Which Civs should be added after PTW? - Page 5

Sparkle · January 24, 2003, 22:12

sabrewolf

Oh, yes I´ve just noticed your note about the maps being of the languages. I didn´t see it before.

sabrewolf · January 25, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparkle
sabrewolf
Well, I don´t think there are many slavic Bosnians left after the Bosnian war :-(

how do you define "slavic bosnians"?

since the war actually the serbian population has gained a lot, because many croats were "ethnicly cleansed" out of BiH and many bosnians were killed.

Sparkle · January 25, 2003, 10:51

sabrewolf

I found this on the web

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ethnic groups:
Serb 31%, Bosniak 44%, Croat 17%, Yugoslav 5.5%, other 2.5% (1991)
note: Bosniak has replaced Muslim as an ethnic term in part to avoid confusion with the religious term Muslim - an adherent of Islam

Religions:
Muslim 40%, Orthodox 31%, Roman Catholic 15%, Protestant 4%, other 10%

So it seems that the "slavic bosnians" either don´t exist, or they have moslim religion, strange but everything is possible :-)

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 27, 2003, 12:40

The "Bosniaks" are slavic. They are, genetically, little different from Serbs. They converted to Islam around the time of the 14th century, and have been slaughtered by the Serbs and Croats ever since.

To be fair, they've done a little slaughtering of their own.

BTW, as a side note, to be a Muslim means to be One Who Submits... to Al-Lah, The God. Hence, anyone who submits to the God can be a muslim. Muslim is not an ethnic term, though it's used as one by a good many of the idiots in the current State Department, and their friends in the media.

Sparkle · January 27, 2003, 13:42

Yahweh Sabaoth

well I think that Muslims are now mostly used as a term for a social group, with some common attitude, tradition, religion, lifestyle... thanks to globalization, the tendency to sort people by their ethnical origin slowly changes into tendency of sorting people by their social groups...

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 27, 2003, 14:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparkle
Yahweh Sabaoth

well I think that Muslims are now mostly used as a term for a social group, with some common attitude, tradition, religion, lifestyle... thanks to globalization, the tendency to sort people by their ethnical origin slowly changes into tendency of sorting people by their social groups...

well, you know, "muslim" is a religious term. It means, literally translated, "one who submits", in this case, to al-Lah (the-God).

I guess this is sort of off-topic, but I've noticed a lot of strange perceptions of Islam around here... propositions for "Islamic" as a government choice... which I find a little offensive, not because >I'M< a muslim, but because I'm an amateur historian. That's why I like Civ, after all!

Sparkle · January 27, 2003, 14:37

Yahweh Sabaoth

I know what "muslim" means, people just see it differently, it´s the same as with the "gypsy genocide" in Central Europe... there´s no such thing as racism against gypsies, since this is about hostility to a social group of "urbanized" gypsies who abuse certain rule of social law system...

but ur right it´s offtopic :-)

Panag · January 27, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparkle
Yahweh Sabaoth

I know what "muslim" means, people just see it differently, it´s the same as with the "gypsy genocide" in Central Europe... there´s no such thing as racism against gypsies, since this is about hostility to a social group of "urbanized" gypsies who abuse certain rule of social law system...

but ur right it´s offtopic :-)

hi ,

ahem , can we keep this on topic please , ....

and there is rasicm against them (!)

have a nice day

Ming · January 27, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparkle
but ur right it´s offtopic :-)

So let's stay ON TOPIC...

Centauri18 · January 27, 2003, 17:11

What's the fun in that?

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 30, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
What's the fun in that?

I must agree. I love the ranting that does on around here.

But back on topic... Which Civs should be added after PTW? I notice from the poll that the Netherlands are very high up there... my question is... WHY? What is so notable about the Netherlands that it would justify adding YET ANOTHER European Civ?

Centauri18 · January 30, 2003, 20:09

Well, the Dutch did build New York...

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 31, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Well, the Dutch did build New York...

Sure, they had an overseas empire, they contributed a bit culturally to the world, but overall, I'd much rather see a non-European civ represented. Maybe the Khmer?

Panag · January 31, 2003, 11:43

hi ,

lets hope there is going to be a chat with firaxis in the near future , ......

its been ages , who knows we can then get something on new civilizations , ...

so there is at least place for seven more , ....

take a look at a map , civ's like the Khmer could get in

europe and amerika are getting full ,

, Australia has room , so does Africa and Asia , ....

so that is more then likely where we shall see new civ's

, the pacific ocean is a bit empty , ....

and last but not least we need a bigger map to put them all on (!)

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 31, 2003, 11:53

What? Gotta differ with you there, Panag... America could use a LOT of new civs... hopefully latin american civs (they've all been mentioned, and the favorites seem to be Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina, although I think Columbia, Chile, and Cuba all deserve a shot)

I think the "five global civilizations" or whatever it's called should be reworked entirely. After all, the "Americans" have more in common with the Europeans than they do with the Aztecs or Iroquois... perhaps the Aborigones of Australia could be added and linked to the Zulu, along with the Songhai, Abysinnians... there are so many possibilities, but let's fill those continents!!!

And enough damn Europeans!!!

Panag · January 31, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
What? Gotta differ with you there, Panag... America could use a LOT of new civs... hopefully latin american civs (they've all been mentioned, and the favorites seem to be Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina, although I think Columbia, Chile, and Cuba all deserve a shot)

I think the "five global civilizations" or whatever it's called should be reworked entirely. After all, the "Americans" have more in common with the Europeans than they do with the Aztecs or Iroquois... perhaps the Aborigones of Australia could be added and linked to the Zulu, along with the Songhai, Abysinnians... there are so many possibilities, but let's fill those continents!!!

And enough damn Europeans!!!

hi ,

seconded one the last line

but we have to leave some room open to "colonise" here and there , ......

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 31, 2003, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
but we have to leave some room open to "colonise" here and there , ......

True, actually... that ALWAYS bothers me about Civ with 16 players... there's never a continent to colonize! It seems as though the other players are always developed enough to fight back, should you choose to take them on. Maybe I'm just not playing right.

Panag · January 31, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

True, actually... that ALWAYS bothers me about Civ with 16 players... there's never a continent to colonize! It seems as though the other players are always developed enough to fight back, should you choose to take them on. Maybe I'm just not playing right.

hi ,

use Marla's map , try australia , with a bit of luck you might get it , .....

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 31, 2003, 13:35

I'm talking about a randomized world, and besides, who wants Australia?

Panag · January 31, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
I'm talking about a randomized world, and besides, who wants Australia?

hi ,

, are you sure , it happens often that large parts dont have a starting place and are seperated from others by ocean , .....

have a nice day

sabrewolf · January 31, 2003, 14:14

but those large parts usually are already colonised by at least another civ with the mentioned 16 players.

Panag · January 31, 2003, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
but those large parts usually are already colonised by at least another civ with the mentioned 16 players.

hi ,

try to create a map in the editor , .....

often the map generator gives larger parts of land without a starting place , .....

but the real deal in getting to ensettled land is to send out your ships ASAP , .....

and one of the two wonders that help your ships in moving a bit faster dont hurt neither , ....

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 31, 2003, 15:10

That never happens to me. I play a huge world, 4 billion years old, temperate with continents, with 15 opponents. This, I've always been told, is the most "earthlike" (I choose 15 opponents because the world is filled with people, and has been for tens of thousands of years). I play on Regent difficulty.

At this level, by the time I get magnetism, navigation, etc., there's no land of worth left to make explorers/conquistadors worth the effort of building.

Underseer · February 1, 2003, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Be Quicker
King of Rasslin, are you kidding?

The Dutch gave the world Johan Cruyff !!!

apropos, Brazil should also be included.

I don't know about that. Everyone seems so upset that the U.S. was included, so I'm sure Brazil would be a bad idea.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
That never happens to me. I play a huge world, 4 billion years old, temperate with continents, with 15 opponents. This, I've always been told, is the most "earthlike" (I choose 15 opponents because the world is filled with people, and has been for tens of thousands of years). I play on Regent difficulty.

At this level, by the time I get magnetism, navigation, etc., there's no land of worth left to make explorers/conquistadors worth the effort of building.

hi ,

try generating a couple times a map in the editor , ....

tip ; use random on types of land , 5 billion on age , 60 % water , that should give you some options , .....

you can also play with the distance and some other things in the editor , give it a try , .....

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 3, 2003, 12:30

I think I'd rather master the normal "Earth" using EVERY civ before I "move on".

I'm FINALLY having a leading game as a Babylonians. About time!

HAND · February 4, 2003, 03:00

The Netherlands, Poles, Portugese, Incas, Israel and the Aborginals..all should be included. I think it would be good to have another eastern european civ too, either Hungary or Romania?

Centauri18 · February 4, 2003, 07:27

Some kind of civ in the Balkans, yeah. But the Aboriginals? Hm. It would certainly make things interesting. Could you imagine ruling the world as the Aboriginals?

It would certainly be interesting.

HAND · February 4, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Some kind of civ in the Balkans, yeah. But the Aboriginals? Hm. It would certainly make things interesting. Could you imagine ruling the world as the Aboriginals?

It would certainly be interesting.

Where do you think you Americans got inspiration for the stealth bomber from? Yes! The Aboriginal Boomerang!

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 4, 2003, 12:19

I think the Inuits should be added... their UU could be a kayaker, which would be like a trireme the inuits could get prior to map making.