 |
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
I could think of at least 64 good civs. We're definitely missing some good ones: Poland, Austria-Hungary, Mali, Ethiopia, Apache, Siam, Indonesia, Israel, Polynesia, Souix, Tibet.
However, this is miles away from Civ II, which didn't have the Incas or the Arabs or the Koreans and all those really good civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander01
|
|
Well, I agree. We are missing several other good civilizations. But we DO have a much greater selection than before. We've got all of the old Civ2 civs with the exception of the Sioux, whose place was taken by the Iroqouis. You can now have ALL the civs playing at the same time. You can have the Vikings, Germans, and French all at the same time, without the "they're-all-blue-so-only-one-at-a-time" problem.
And there's a much greater slice out of the world demographics available. I, for one, never anticipated seeing the Hittites, for example.
And most of the major "empire" contenders are all there, which satisfies the majority.
All-in-all, a superb game. Leaps and bounds over the competition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
I do hope they get rid of that 31-civ hardcoded limit, though. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how hard that might be. But how hard could it be?
I like Conquests a lot, but there's a lot of good civs missing: the list above was fairly good. Aside from the Zulu, Africa is empty (not counting North Africa, which is missing the Berbers), and Asia is way too sparse. In my opinion, North America could use some more... and WHERE the hell is Israel?
All in all though, most pleasing. Most pleasing indeed. |
hi ,
wanna bet loads of people would complain that they need to buy an other comp , ....... 
have a nice day 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
I don't understand this desire to have Israel as a civ - pretty titchy in the grand sweep of history. True, they gave us the Bible (and similar cultural things) - but CivIII doesn't have any way of simulating the effect of one nation's culture on that of another nation, does it? Except for city flipping, of course.
In my opinion, the civs we're really lacking are the African ones - Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Ethiopia, to name the most obvious. I noticed Alexander01 listed Carthage, Egypt, and Zulu as "Africa" above - is there really an "Africa" culture group in this game? I thought Carthage and Egypt were considered Mediterranean (together with Rome and Greece), while Zulus were Middle Eastern (for want of anything better). Has this been changed in Conquests?
I think there's too much emphasis on Europe (come on, Spain *and* Portugal?) - understandable, perhaps. It'd be nice to see Tibet in there, and perhaps some kind of Pacific civ to cover the Polynesians, Maoris, etc. After all, the Celts count as "a" civilisation in this game.
I'd like to see the Assyrians too (after looking at their fabulous relief sculptures in the British Museum the other week! Which, in fact, appear in CivIII's front end somewhere). I'd have had them instead of the Hittites.
Other possibilities include the Avars, but that's getting pretty obscure. I think they did a good job in giving us a good selection of civilisations, all with animated leaders going through four epochs... very imaginative!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plotinus
I don't understand this desire to have Israel as a civ - pretty titchy in the grand sweep of history. True, they gave us the Bible (and similar cultural things) - but CivIII doesn't have any way of simulating the effect of one nation's culture on that of another nation, does it? Except for city flipping, of course.
In my opinion, the civs we're really lacking are the African ones - Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Ethiopia, to name the most obvious. I noticed Alexander01 listed Carthage, Egypt, and Zulu as "Africa" above - is there really an "Africa" culture group in this game? I thought Carthage and Egypt were considered Mediterranean (together with Rome and Greece), while Zulus were Middle Eastern (for want of anything better). Has this been changed in Conquests?
I think there's too much emphasis on Europe (come on, Spain *and* Portugal?) - understandable, perhaps. It'd be nice to see Tibet in there, and perhaps some kind of Pacific civ to cover the Polynesians, Maoris, etc. After all, the Celts count as "a" civilisation in this game.
I'd like to see the Assyrians too (after looking at their fabulous relief sculptures in the British Museum the other week! Which, in fact, appear in CivIII's front end somewhere). I'd have had them instead of the Hittites.
Other possibilities include the Avars, but that's getting pretty obscure. I think they did a good job in giving us a good selection of civilisations, all with animated leaders going through four epochs... very imaginative! |
hi ,
" I don't understand this desire to have Israel as a civ - pretty titchy in the grand sweep of history. True, they gave us the Bible (and similar cultural things) - but CivIII doesn't have any way of simulating the effect of one nation's culture on that of another nation, does it? Except for city flipping, of course. "
well now , that can be said about many of the other civs in the game also , ........ 
where are the great civs of the old days , they are all gone , what people have survived mass murder to the near brink of annihilation , we as the Jews / Israelis are still standing , we have not changed for 5764 years , ...... where are all those other civs , ..... they are gone , we have seen them all coming , and all go , .......
and today we stand with around 15 million , but we are still there , thats what counts
maybe if we where gone now like the other civs we would have been a natural choice to be put in , ....... 
so keep your remark for yourself or put it in the OT section , .....
bye
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
Panag, no offence intended - I just think that there are a few contenders from history who might have stronger claims to inclusion than Israel. You are right to highlight longevity as a good trait though. One problem here is that the game doesn't model the conquest of one civilisation by another followed by independence (like India being conquered by Britain but subsequently becoming its own nation again - and Israel being conquered by all kinds of people before becoming an independent country in the twentieth century). After all, Israel hasn't existed continuously as a political unit since its foundation. The only major civilisation I can think of that has done so since extreme antiquity is China. There are quite a few in the same sort of position as Israel (ancient foundation, conquest by foreign invaders, modern reinstatement), such as Greece, Egypt, and, perhaps, many African nations, although they tend to share nothing with their ancient or medieval predecessors apart from their names.
Another disconnected ramble about the problems of mapping real history in CivIII turns, for which I apologise... as I say, no belittling of Israel intended...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2003 00:08
|