23-03-2005 04:14									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You have to at least admit that Christianity and the Bible are influential, even if you don't call them important. Maybe the Hebrews can be a Non Player Civ.

	23-03-2005 04:15									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

My point exactly. And I don't think there will be non player civs... good thing, too. If they make a civ, why not have it playable?

	23-03-2005 04:21									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I agree, and I feel the same way about the civs in the Conquest scenarios in Civ3.

	23-03-2005 04:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Brent Much of the world today is very aware of the Hebrew nation and their religion has mucgh greater influence on the modern world than that of the Vikings, Celts or Olmecs.

There are 14 million Jews today, on a population of 5 billion. There's not all that important. Half of the world's population (China, East Asia, Africa) probably never even heard of Judaism. Sikhism has almost twice as many followers as Judaism (and I can assure you that throughout much of Asia (minus the ME) its presence it much more dominant and visible than Judaism), but I don't see anyone arguing for the Punjab to be included as a civ.

And that's just today, when the impact of Judaism is (ironically mostly thanks to the Nazis) more important than ever before. Over the course of the past 5000 years, the influence of African, Meso-American and indigenous European religions by far outway that of that tiny Jewish population.

Again, Judaism as a religion was important (but then really only because it's the basis of two other religions, not even in its own right), but the Hebrew as a civilization wasn't.

quote: Besides, it's existing religions that are in Civ4, so Hebrews have to be in if Judaism is in - otherwise it would be sort of stupid.

It would only be stupid if religions are directly tied to a nation, but there's no reason why it should be. That would in fact only create problems as India and China would have numerous religions while many European nations would have to share the same one.

	23-03-2005 04:28									#35
	Tired of ads?

A civilization is as important as its achievements are. So if Judaism is important, Hebrews are. And while indeed Asia was and is not too related to Christianity and Judaism, it was largely religious events that shaped the development of Europe. The Crusades, the conquest of South America and settling of North America to a degree, it all depends on that, largely. We can argue about whether or not Europe influences rest of the world, but most players of this game will anyway be European or American, not Asian or African - therefore, they come from areas that were more heavily influenced by Judaism than Sikkhism.

BTW, in highschools here, teaching of both literature and history of culture starts with the Hebrew civilization .

I'm not saying civs will be directly tied to religions... probably they will not be. But I'm saying that for each religion, there should be a civ included that we do, in the real world, associate with that religion.

	23-03-2005 04:33									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, at least most of China and East Asia have heard of Christianity, and most of Africa is more than aware of Islam and probably more aware of Christianity than China and East Asia are. I certainly wouldn't complain about a Punjab civ, even with only 19 slots. But isn't it largely considered part of the Indian realm?

I agree with Locutus about India, China, and Europe.

	23-03-2005 07:58									#37
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

One thing we all have to remember, importance of religions and nations aside, is that Firaxis is a business. Businesses need to make money. Seeing as Firaxis is a NA company, they will make most of their money from NA. What does that mean? The majority of the nations and religions will be those at least fairly well known to the general NA public. How many North Americans gamers know about Sihkism (sorry about my spelling if I got it wrong)? Now, how many know about Judaism? Chances are, a lot more NA's will know about Judaism than Sihkism, or any generally non-western religion for that matter. And common knowledge is probably going to be at least the starting point for most of their lists.

	23-03-2005 09:04									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It's good to see they're starting off with 19 civs rather than 16 like they did with vanilla Civ 3.

That said, they'd better not do what they did when Civ 3 first came out and leave out the Mongols! The Mongols had better be in the next game!

	23-03-2005 10:50									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Assuming there will be two expansions that each add new civs as a significant feature, how many do you think each will have? 10? 15? MKaybe they'd even surprise us and give us a library expansion with 30 to 200 civs. Can you tell I care about predesigned civs?

I'd like it if the game includes dozens of realworld religions, including Sikhism and a few different denominations of Christianity.

The Mongols can be barbarians for all I care. But I would be disappointed if the Scandinavians were included as barbarians.

	24-03-2005 06:49									#40
	Re: Which Civs are In? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'd assume the Civs will be:

England
France
Germany
Russia
Roman
Greece
Egypt
Zulu
Babylon
China
India
USA
Native American (Cherokee would be a nice switch)
Aztec
Mongols
Spain
Japan
Vikings
Persia

If the Civs in italics are considered the obvious choices, then I think the other 5 are most likely in.

~The Mongols were one of the most dominant forces in history ruling a good part of the world, plus they have a good commerical feel Genghis Khan.

~Spain was an extremely dominant country the greater part of the "Modern age". In fact, it was Spain who initiated the world into the "Modern age". The Spanish are too influential on the world's history not to be included.

~Japan has a history as a country dating all the way back to the turn of the first millenia (c.e.). Not to mention, Japan has a little too big of a gaming market not to include them apart of the game. Japan is almost in no part of question of being included.

~The Vikings are too popular of a choice to leave out. Not to mention, being playing a big role in European history, which is obviously favored or Eastern or Native American history in the Civ series.

~Persia helps satisfy the need for a Middle Eastern country, and they are probably the most recognizable nation over history. I see them being a preferred choice over Arabia or the Ottomans, personally.

	24-03-2005 07:13									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree regarding Japan's gaming market. I think Scandinavia is also well represented among players of this particular type of game. I would personally say Arabia deserves to be in more than Persia.

	24-03-2005 07:22									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd like to see the Arabs. They've had a huge impact on the middle east and north Africa for the past millenium. But the problem is, who do you remove to make room for them?

If it was up to me, I'd kick out the Zulu in favour of the Arabs. The problem then? You'd be left with just one African tribe (the Egyptians). To fix that, remove native Americans to make way for the Ethiopians. BUT then you'd only have two American civs, so...


In any case, hopefully most of the overlooked tribes will make it back in an expansion.

	24-03-2005 07:36									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

The Arabs could always replace Greece or Babylon. Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Songhay, or Kongo could replace Zulu. Maybe we should start by dividing slots among the continents/ regions, either equally, by land area, by current population, by current power, or by how long they've been in contact with the cradle of civilization, or a combination. By continents equally, I would start by dividing into Old and New World, maybe 10 for old, 9 for New. 5 for North America, 4 for South America. Three for Europe, three for Africa, four for Asia. Two for the middle east, two for the far east. Russia, Germany, England, Egypt, Kongo, Mali, Israel, Arabs, India, China. Inuit, USA, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Inca, Guarani, Brazil, ???

	24-03-2005 07:39									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: I agree regarding Japan's gaming market. I think Scandinavia is also well represented among players of this particular type of game. I would personally say Arabia deserves to be in more than Persia.

Arabia may deserve to be in more than Persia, but I think Persia will be the included Civ over them. Then again my bias based on the history of Persian and Greek wars may be the reason for that.

quote: If it was up to me, I'd kick out the Zulu in favour of the Arabs. The problem then? You'd be left with just one African tribe (the Egyptians). To fix that, remove native Americans to make way for the Ethiopians. BUT then you'd only have two American civs, so...

It's a rather tough decision on who should be included in the game, because obviously to most people there should be more than 19 or even 31 Civs included with the game.

I would say the Americans belong more to the European/Western world than the North/South American world; therefore, there has to be at least 2 (Aztec and North American) included with the game. I think the Mayans and Incans are very well deserving too and maybe moreso than the Aztecs, but of course Aztec nation has more of an appeal than the other two. It's all about the appeal, IMO, for who will be chosen.

	24-03-2005 07:54									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd rather have Maya than Aztec.

	24-03-2005 22:01									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The problem with many civs in a game: If they keep culture as it is in Civ3, we can expect that the game will need several times more RAM and disk space, since they have to save for every tile how big the cultural influence of every civ in the game is. It's only a few bits each, ut you have to multiply that with the number of civs and the number of tiles. 200 civs would mean more than ten times more RAM needed (only speaking about culture).
IMO, if they want to keep culture, they'd have to change a few things anyway (why are all my units destroyed if a city with foreign population revolts?)

About the Jews/Hebrews in Civ: I don't think it's a bad idea. Judaism isn't only the root of Christianity and Islam, many Jews have played an important role in history: Einstein, Freud, Karl Marx (ok, not everyone thinks Communism is a great invention, and he wasn't a praticing Jew anyway), and I'm not even mentioning all the famous Jewish artists.

	24-03-2005 22:42									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

For my earlier division by contiments, I guess the remaining South American civ would be the Tupi.

Another way of going about it: Four civs for Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America, three for South America:

Israel, Arabs, India, China, Egypt, Congo, Mali, Carthage, Russia, Germany, England, Rome, USA, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Inca, Guarani, Brazil.

Or five for Asia, Africa, and Europe, and four for Panamerica. Israel, Arabs, India, China, Japan, Egypt, Kongo, Mali, Carthage, Ethiopia, Russia, Germany, England, Rome, Celts, USA, Maya, Inca, Brazil.

	24-03-2005 23:07									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Why is everyone limiting their guesses to 19? Wasn't that just an initial estimate of how many civs were assured to be in the game? I would bet strongly that CIV is going to have at least an initial number of civs greater than 20. They tried simplifiying with C3, but obviously that was an unpopular choice...hence the expansions. But, having realized this, they are likely to start out with at least 24, the number as of PTW.

Going with, say, 24 civs out of the box, we can probably expect: ~ 6 European, 4 Mediteranean, 4 American, 6 Middle Eastern (including Africa, which they did in C3), and 4 Asian.

Well, looking at the breakdown of C3C, we have: 9 European, 5 Mediteranean, 5 American, 7 Mid-East, and 5 Asian. I would say that this ratio is similar to mine, so we could likely except something like what I have for CIV...though anything could happen, and I could just as likely be way off.

	24-03-2005 23:40									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

19 is the only number we can go by, but I accept and hope for the possibility of more. But going by 20, I would say UK, France, Deutsch, Rus, Rome, Greek, Egypt, Zulu, Babylon, China, India, US, Aztec, Japan, Persia, Mongol, Spain, Jews, Arab. To make 24, I would add Scandinavia, Aborigines, Polynesians, and Inca. I would be disappointed if they call Africa part of the middle east again. If anything, the Middle East should be part of Asia. I could easily be way off. Maybe they'll focus on the ones added by PtW and Conquests...

	25-03-2005 00:59									#50
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Max Sinister The problem with many civs in a game: If they keep culture as it is in Civ3, we can expect that the game will need several times more RAM and disk space, since they have to save for every tile how big the cultural influence of every civ in the game is. It's only a few bits each, ut you have to multiply that with the number of civs and the number of tiles. 200 civs would mean more than ten times more RAM needed (only speaking about culture). IMO, if they want to keep culture, they'd have to change a few things anyway (why are all my units destroyed if a city with foreign population revolts?) About the Jews/Hebrews in Civ: I don't think it's a bad idea. Judaism isn't only the root of Christianity and Islam, many Jews have played an important role in history: Einstein, Freud, Karl Marx (ok, not everyone thinks Communism is a great invention, and he wasn't a praticing Jew anyway), and I'm not even mentioning all the famous Jewish artists.

First, not all Civs have to be played at the same time, so if Civ included 200 Civs and you were still only playing with 8 per game it would have the same effect on the RAM. Plus nowadays with how expansive RAM is nowadays on computers, the problem lies more on the processing and reprocessing of the cultural borders, which would obviously be a problem having 200 Civs or even possibly 16 in the game. It's the thousands of different computations each turn that slow down the game and that problem rests on the CPU not RAM.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is detesting the important role of Jews in the world but those individuals you mentioned were born in Germany/Prussia. I'm just not sure how you would constitue those Jews as being apart of the Israeli/Hebrew nation. With only 19 Civs available to be chosen I'm not sure how worthy that selection would be. It would be great for them to be included but with only 19 Civs available (as we are led to believe at least) I think there are other Civs more deserving.

Thirdly, I could say a lot about Marx, mostly positive, but I'll refrain from going off-topic.

	25-03-2005 01:18									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I wouldn't mind too badly if the maximum number of rival civs to play against at once was: one. Maybe the game would be structured to have defined modes where the more the civs, the less complexity.

Okay, going roughly by population, North America gets one, South America gets one, the Middle East gets one, the rest of Asia gets 10, Africa gets four, Europe gets three. Sobtrtact one from Asia for a total of 19, Add one instead for 21, plus one for Africa for 22, plus one for Europe for 23, plus one for the Middle East for 24.

Africa: Egypt, Kongo, Mali, Carthage. Optional: Ethiopia.

Europe: Russia, Germany, England. Optional: Rome, or switch places between Rome and England.

Middle East: Arabia. Optional: Hebrews.

The Americas get the USA and the Inca.

I'm not entirely sure about 10 for Asia. In order of certainty: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Tibet, Korea, maybe Turkmen? Malays? That would make eight.

To keep 19, keep the 8 for Asia, the 4 for Africa, the three for Europe, the 2 for the Americas, and give the Middle East 2: Arabs and Hebrews.

For 20, add Ethiopia, for 21, add the fourth for Europe, for 22, add Babylon or Armenia, for 23, add the Maya, for 24, add Brazil.

	25-03-2005 02:04									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Brent I wouldn't mind too badly if the maximum number of rival civs to play against at once was: one. Maybe the game would be structured to have defined modes where the more the civs, the less complexity. Okay, going roughly by population, North America gets one, South America gets one, the Middle East gets one, the rest of Asia gets 10, Africa gets four, Europe gets three. Sobtrtact one from Asia for a total of 19, Add one instead for 21, plus one for Africa for 22, plus one for Europe for 23, plus one for the Middle East for 24.

So the first part would be a 1 vs 1 game? You wouldn't mind that?

The thing with Asia getting 10 is that most of the population of Asia comes from 2 Civs alone in India and China, then the rest of the majority filled out by Indonesia and Japan. That amounts to four for Asia in my book if you want to go by terms of population.

	25-03-2005 02:32									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I normally play with only one rival anyway, to make it easier and so I can use as many city names as possible with meaning for me, when I play a civ that I identify with, like America, Germany, or Scandinavia. But currently I'm the Zulu on a full world for a change, trying to expand and conquer the best that I can. I also like the histograph with more than two civs, but that's not important enough to change my preference.

Point taken regarding India and China, just as well that I had trouble finding enough suitable Asian civs.

Going by length of contact with the cradle of civilization:

If you count the middle east separately:
Africa 6: Egypt, Kongo, Mali, Carthage, Ethiopia, Zulu, optional: Songhay
Middle East 5: Israel, Arabia, Armenia, Babylon, Persia, optional: Assyria
Asia 4: India, China, Mongols, Japan, optional: Turkmen
Europe 2: Russia, Rome. Optional, Germany
Combined Americas 2: America and Inca. Optional: Maya, Brazil

Otherwise: Africa 6, optionally plus one
Asia 5: Israel, Arabia, India, China, Mongol, optionally plus Japan
Europe 4: Russia, Germany, England, Rome, optional: Celts
Combined Americas: 4, optional: Aztec, Guarani

	25-03-2005 04:02									#54
	Tired of ads?

To back-up what TechWins said, you could have 200+ civs in the game, while limiting the number of civs allowed in one game at a time. (If there was no limit, you know that people would try to pack 50 or more civs into a game, and then complain when their computer runs slow.)

The problem then with 200+ civs is that you'd end up facing a bunch of civs that you couldn't care less about. To fix that, toggle switches could be introduced to turn on/off civs so that they will or won't randomly appear in a game. (For example, if you don't want to see the Byzantines in the game, set their switch to 'off'.)

That being said, I don't want to advocate 200+ civs. ~40 civs would be just fine, IMO.

	25-03-2005 04:16									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And there should be default sets for continents, regions, notorious rivalries, Traits, and overall realworld power and importance. And you can set these groupings for yourself.

	25-03-2005 20:31									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't like the way any of the Civilization series has worked; isn't it supposed to be "rewriting history? If so, why are we hand picking existing civ's with pre-set abilities, religions, etc?

Would it not be better to start off as nomads and then choose an identity later in the game? I mean, you're not exactly classified as a civilization at 4000BC.

	25-03-2005 20:35									#57
	Support Apolyton

Oh btw, the main reason they don't add so many leaders is because its damn hard to create the leaderheads (and on the side - unique units) Well hey, I have an idea, how about no leader heads?

Why not come up with a system like in The Sims 2, where you can create whatever head you want easily.

	25-03-2005 20:39									#58
	Suffering from ads?

We don't know what they're doing with leaderheads in Civ4. I'd be content with just simple drawings/photos, though. Like Civ2. If they make animated leaderheads, they need not look too cartoonish, I want this game to be somewhat serious.

	25-03-2005 20:40									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The game is about writing a new history based on real history. The game will never turn out exactly like real history, although it would be interesting to try. It is meant to resemble real history, and it would not without existing civs, although it is always possible to create your own.

Here's another speculative list on who might be in, this time based on the most recent Civilizations thread from The List For Civ4:

America, China, Japan, England, Germany, France, Russia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Poland, Austria, Israel, Armenia, Anasazi, North American Mound Builders, Songhay, Ethiopia. That makes 19. For 24, add Arabs, Maya, Spain, India and one more, but it didn't seem clear to me from theat thread which it would be.

	25-03-2005 20:46									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

We don't need no stinking leaderheads, but I wouldn't mind going the Sims2 route. We don't need no stinking beaten- up versions of the leaderheads neither. We don't need no stinking unit animations, why not compromise and go the SMAC route?