Gamespot's C3C civilization profiles

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Then again, there were better choices for Civs than Byzantium, which, paired alongside Rome, is going to look fairly absurd... but I guess I'm being hasty to judge.

I agree. There are other civs they could have chosen before Byzantium. The same goes for adding Sumer, which is redundant considering Babylon is already in the game.

I would have liked to see Ethiopia, Mali, a southeast Asian civ, and/or an Indus Valley civ instead of those two.

[History Guy]

Ethiopia, surely.

However, I think the one civ that most deserved to be in this pack (and, frankly, PTW as well) was: Israel! There is no excuse for leaving them out of Conquests!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by History Guy
Despite the fact that the Hittites were a poor choice in the first place (what are those guys thinking about not sticking in Israel?!), the attributes are good and so it seems is the UU.

I have to disagree on this issue, I think the Hittites were a decent choice and score higher as a dominant civilization than Israel.

[Fatwreck]

Originally posted by Spiffor

IIRC, you can build your UU even when you can build more advanced units. But I play with modded rules, so I may be wrong.

yeah that´s how it works I think...

[History Guy]

GF,

The influence that the Hittites had on world civilization is pitiful, really. We don't even know that they were the first to smelt iron, as suggested above. They were just the (less-successful) Mongols of the Bronze Age.

The Israelites influenced civilization, arguably, more than any civ included in this X-Pack. This is rather hard to deny.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by History Guy
However, I think the one civ that most deserved to be in this pack (and, frankly, PTW as well) was: Israel! There is no excuse for leaving them out of Conquests!

Panag is here any minute now

[GhengisFarb™]

The only thing the Israelites contributed was religion (generalization) and they are hardly mentioned by other civilizations at all. Except "in so and so year some slaves (ancient foreign word for Israelites)".....

The only records we have of the Hittites is from all of the OTHER civilizations. They were important enough that the Babylonians and Egyptians wrote of their conflicts and interactions with them.

If not for Religious contributions the Israelite civilization might never have been mentioned.

[Saint Marcus]

I'd pick the Khmer over the Israelites.

[raen1978]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
the English weren't that commercial. they ought to be industrious (industrial revolution started in England), or better yet, Expansionistic.

I agree with you, The Dutch were more commercial than The English, even Portugal was. And the industrial revolution fits well with the English, I dont know why they changed that....

[Arnelos]

Does everyone so easily forget Napoleon's characterization of England as "a nation of shopkeepers" and the frequent characterizations of England over time as a more commerically-minded nation than the rest of Europe? If one starts to consider British figures who have had an impact on history, does not Adam Smith come to mind?

What of the fact that the British "ruled an empire upon which the sun never set" which spanned colonies around the globe and from which they successfully harnessed profitable international trade? That they actually did so speaks to what the commercial trait actually does, allow for a higher percentage of trade to be useable in a large and sprawling empire.

It must also be remembered that while the Dutch were the dominant commercial power in Europe up to the mid 17th Century, the English stole that domination from them and from that point on were the dominant commercial power of the region. By the late 18th Century, it wasn't just the first signs of the Industrial Revolution that lended England its dominance, but its power in commerce and trade!

The seafaring+commercial combination in the game perfectly lends itself to the power of English commerce as an island nation. In fairness, one might argue that the Dutch should be commercial and seafaring as well, but there should be little denying that the English should be the foremost holders of that trait combination.

When combined with the English UU, it just makes a ton of sense.

[raen1978]

Originally posted by Arnelos
(...)

The seafaring+commercial combination in the game perfectly lends itself to the power of English commerce as an island nation. In fairness, one might argue that the Dutch should be commercial and seafaring as well, but there should be little denying that the English should be the foremost holders of that trait combination.

When combined with the English UU, it just makes a ton of sense.

Good text I agree with you but the only problem here is that in civ3 they dont want to repeat traits, and Industrial fits well to the english and agricultural not so well for the Dutch.

But we edit, no problem

[GhengisFarb™]

I still think an option to CHOOSE your your first trait or have it be assigned based on your terrain/playstyle after the first 10 turns and then your second one assigned at a predisignated time would be more realistic. Most civs adapted to their environment and or beliefs.

[WarpStorm]

Actually, a scheme where your actions determine your trait might be interesting.

[Randolph]

Predetermined traits are not something that is going to change. People really need to stop complaining about things like this. Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that Civilization has nothing to do with actual history.

When gameplay buts heads with historical realism in civ development they always go with gameplay. If you want sacrifice gameplay for realism look elsewhere. Complaining that England has the wrong traits is like arguing that there is something wrong with Chess because bishops really can't move ten times faster then kings. Civ is a game with some quaint similarities to actual history; it is not a historical simulation.

I certainly hope that Conquests stick to what civ is good at, being a fun and challenging strategic game, and leaves historical simulation to titles that do it a lot better. From what I have heard it looks like they are doing just that.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, a scheme where your actions determine your trait might be interesting.

I'd advise you check out www.stonetosteel.com

[vmxa1]

Well said Randolph

[raen1978]

Originally posted by Randolph
Predetermined traits are not something that is going to change. People really need to stop complaining about things like this. Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that Civilization has nothing to do with actual history.

When gameplay buts heads with historical realism in civ development they always go with gameplay. If you want sacrifice gameplay for realism look elsewhere. Complaining that England has the wrong traits is like arguing that there is something wrong with Chess because bishops really can't move ten times faster then kings. Civ is a game with some quaint similarities to actual history; it is not a historical simulation.

I certainly hope that Conquests stick to what civ is good at, being a fun and challenging strategic game, and leaves historical simulation to titles that do it a lot better. From what I have heard it looks like they are doing just that.

Good text also But you missed one little detail, Many people Buy the game exaclty because of historical simulation (in my opinion).

But as I said, we edit, no problem

[Saint Marcus]

The seafaring+commercial combination in the game perfectly lends itself to the power of English commerce as an island nation. In fairness, one might argue that the Dutch should be commercial and seafaring as well, but there should be little denying that the English should be the foremost holders of that trait combination.

Not quite. Eventhough England was and is quite commercial, there's little denying that the Dutch were (and are) extremely commercial.

First international trading company: Dutch East Indian Company (the english followed later)
First company to give out shares: Dutch East Indian Company (once again, the english followed later)
First stock exchange: Amsterdam Stock Exchange (and once more, the english followed later)
First (and for a long time the only) European country to trade with Japan: Holland
Biggest seaport during the age of discovery: Amsterdam
Biggest seaport in the 20th century: Rotterdam
Main economic engine for Holland in the 20th century: Trade

etc, etc, etc.

We've always been extremely commercial, so much that it found it's way into the stereotypes of what the Dutch are like. IMHO, the English are better of having a combination of 2 out of seafaring (Royal Navy), expansionistic (British Empire), industrial (Industrial Revolution).

[Panag]

hi ,

Saint Marcus , dont forget about the villages in today Brazil and the US of A , the best example , todays NY , .....

not to mention the printing press on a large scale (!)

have a nice day

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
First (and for a long time the only) European country to trade with Japan: Holland

Just a nitpick: the Portuguese arrived first, and they established trading posts years before you. But trade wasn't their main bbusiness in Japan, as the spread of Christianty was.
Edit: but after the victory of the Tokugawas in 1611, the Christians were booted out of Japan. Only Dutch merchants were tolerated in Japan (I think they were the only foreigners tolerated at all in Japan before 1850).

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Randolph
Predetermined traits are not something that is going to change. People really need to stop complaining about things like this. Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that Civilization has nothing to do with actual history.

Mine change all the time. Its called the Editor.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Randolph
Predetermined traits are not something that is going to change. People really need to stop complaining about things like this. Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that Civilization has nothing to do with actual history.

Mine change all the time. Its called the Editor.

I don't think jumping down peoples throat because they discuss things they would like to see improved in the game is necessarily the way to go. If no one ever commented about things they would like changed or bugs they found in the game it probably wouldn't have been patched and expanded like it has.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

To jump in on the whole Dutch: commercial? debate, I'd like to add that the Inca and Hittite traits seem to have little to do with their history. Well, the Inca one isn't so bad, but for the Hittities, commercial? Wha?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
The only thing the Israelites contributed was religion (generalization) and they are hardly mentioned by other civilizations at all. Except "in so and so year some slaves (ancient foreign word for Israelites)".....

More people on the face of the planet Earth today worship YHWH than believe in anything else, so I'd say that's a pretty signifigant generalization!

And it's hard to think of a more contentious - and thus, IMHO, game-worthy - civilization on the planet today than Israel... nor as great an antagonist to the Arabs, Romans, and Egyptians... even the Turks... I intend to switch the Hittities with the Israels once I get the mod.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by raen1978
I agree with you, The Dutch were more commercial than The English, even Portugal was. And the industrial revolution fits well with the English, I dont know why they changed that....

Commercial is a much better fit for England. English banks remain important today... English capital financed much of the world for many years, and it's offshoot continues to do so to a significant extent... on the other hand, English workers aren't EXACTLY known for their "industriousness"...

If there was an attribute such as "witty" then maybe we'd have a better fit.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
More people on the face of the planet Earth today worship YHWH than believe in anything else, so I'd say that's a pretty signifigant generalization!

And it's hard to think of a more contentious - and thus, IMHO, game-worthy - civilization on the planet today than Israel... nor as great an antagonist to the Arabs, Romans, and Egyptians... even the Turks... I intend to switch the Hittities with the Israels once I get the mod.

They only contributed one aspect and even then the bulk of the establishment of it was by other civilizations. I'm not saying Israel is not a civilization but to say they were so historically important and dominant in relation to other civilizations is a farce.

The Catholic Church scores higher as a civilization than Israel.

They controlled and maniputulated nations, exhorted far more cultural influence and and fielded military forces over a larger period than Israel.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
The Catholic Church scores higher as a civilization than Israel.

GF, there's some theology reading you need to do...

YHWH = "God" = Al-lah.

How much more influential do you get?!?

In terms of being able to field troops, or command masses, sure, the Catholic church "scores higher". But in terms of influencing the course of history, few civilizations rank higher than Israel. Perhaps India and China. Perhaps Europe, as a whole.

But there would BE no Catholics - or Protestants, Muslims, Sihks or even Neitzchean-style atheists - without ancient Israel and its God, and that's the important point.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


GF, there's some theology reading you need to do...

YHWH = "God" = Al-lah.

How much more influential do you get?!?

Yay! They game up with a word and a concept! Their a Major Civilization.

Ronald Reagan came up with a word (Reagonomics) and a concept (Trickle Down Economics) now he's a Major Civilization too!

When did the Israel civilization conquer Egypt? Never. When did they sack the Hittites? Never. When did they bully the Bablyonians or Persians? Never. They spend their whole existence in a VERY small little plot of desert hoping the world would forget they were there.

If Civilization was a religion only game then Israel would be at the top of the list, but it isn't. It is a game of Major Civilzations butting heads with one another. Israel does NOT qualify.

[ormstunga]

so the israelis invented god, ok great

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by ormstunga
so the israelis invented god, ok great

I was kinda wondering about that..... isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Someone needs to inform God he was created by the Israelites so he can bow down and worship them........