 |
|
Alexander01
|
|
From lots of rather hostile conversations that I've been reading, it's apparent to me that just about everyone has different criteria for the inclusion of a civilization in Civ4, or even what constitutes a Civilization!
So this thread is to see what the general consensus is.
Keep in mind that there also needs to be an entertainment factor to the game.
Please choose all options that apply, and please, please remain civil and cordial to each other in this thread!
Last edited by Alexander01 on 01-08-2005 at 20:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yarco_TW
|
|
1, 2, 4, 6
1 and 2 are obvious.
I disagree with 3, because we can eventually go tribal.
I agree with 4, because some nations, although large and important are completely left out (like Indonesians or Thai). They definitely are as important as Portugese or Dutch, and were excluded because they are LESSER KNOWN.
I disagree with 5 - No Dahomey. However Dutch were not as insignificant as it seems. Just have a look at Civ 2 Colonisation scenarios.
I agree with 5 - I want to have all major civs.
My criteria are
1) Presence of state (required)
2) Existence for long time (required)
3) Population size (highly recommended)
4) Contribution in wonders, leaders, UU, and technology (recommended)
5) Major role in the respective area of the world. (recommended)
Therefore, I am against Tribes (Iroquois, Sioux, Celts, Polynesians), against worthless civs (e.g. Tibet, Vikings, Hittites only meet criteria 1 and 2)
I do note, that Wonders are selected in a very pro-European fashion, and so I make my own judgements.
In this list the long absent Incas get 1+1+1+1+1+1=5; Mali gets 1+1+0+0+1=3, Zulu = 1+1+0+1+1=4; Indonesians = 1+1+1+1+1=5; Maya = 1+1+1+0+0=3; Aztec = 1+1+1+1+1=5; Thai = 1+1+1+0.5+0.5 =4; Cambodja = 1+1+1+1+0=4.
On the contrary weird nations get 2 or less. Sioux = 0+0+0+1+0; Iroquois = 0+0+0+1+1=2; Polynesians = 1+0+0+1+0=2; Tibet = 1+0+0+1+0=2; Hittites = 1+1+0+0+0=2; Vikings = 1+1+0+0.5+0=2.5, Celts = 0+0+0+0+0.5=0.5.
Also some European Nations get low marks, as they are not major in Europe, and are outcompeted by others.
Portugese (&Brazil) = 1+1+1+0+0=3, but Spain = 1+1+1+1+1=5. Dutch = 1+1+1+0+0.5=3.5. Some nations are tough to grade: Carthage had elephants (unique?) and Hannibal (only one leader?) but no Wonders. Also its area of importance is limited. My rating = 1+0+0.5+0.5+0.5 = 2.5.
Overall all civs with rating higher than 3 are OK, 3 is a marginal rating, and 1 and 2 are unacceptable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
"A cross section of the world, representing all ethnic groups and cultures regardless of civilization status."
That sums it up, for the most part.
Really, I don't understand people who whine about which civs are or aren't included in the game. Such notions are going to have an inherent bias in them. Since most of us have been subjected to standard Western Civ courses in school, we're going to have a prejudice that those civs are the ones most worthy.
If I'm playing civ on a real-world map, I want enough civs to cover the map with diverse cultures. All European would be boring. I like having A sub-saharan African civ, someone in N. America to compete with the Americans (who should be in the game), etc.
Still, I think having all three Mesoamerican civs was overkill (why not just the Aztecs and Inca?), but then again, so is having so many European civs in C3C (England, France, Spain, Celts, Vikings, Germans, Austrians, Dutch).
I would love to see the inclusion of a S.E. Asian civ (Vietnam, Cambodia)
Oh, and the Iroquois were far more than just a "tribe." That's displaying patent ignorance of the social structure established (The federation was a major influence on the establishment of the U.S. Constitution) and their technological capabilities (considering their farming techniques were more "advanced" than the Europeans who showed up).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yarco_TW
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
quote:
Therefore, I am against Tribes (Iroquois, Sioux, Celts, Polynesians), against worthless civs (e.g. Tibet, Vikings, Hittites only meet criteria 1 and 2) |
You still don't appear to really mean 'state' when you say so. You have a very narrow and extremely biased view of what a state is. |
Sorry, Solver,
but here I do not fully get what you mean. Please explain.
My definition of state is somewhat narrow, and by state I mean coersion system which sustains itself, and manages the people. So, my attributes of state are taxes, army, police, etc.
I granted state to Polynesians (Hawaiian kingdom), but I cannot afford to do so with Iroquois and Sioux. Not yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yarco_TW
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"A cross section of the world, representing all ethnic groups and cultures regardless of civilization status."
That sums it up, for the most part.
Really, I don't understand people who whine about which civs are or aren't included in the game. Such notions are going to have an inherent bias in them. Since most of us have been subjected to standard Western Civ courses in school, we're going to have a prejudice that those civs are the ones most worthy.
If I'm playing civ on a real-world map, I want enough civs to cover the map with diverse cultures. All European would be boring. I like having A sub-saharan African civ, someone in N. America to compete with the Americans (who should be in the game), etc.
|
Agree so far. 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Still, I think having all three Mesoamerican civs was overkill (why not just the Aztecs and Inca?), but then again, so is having so many European civs in C3C (England, France, Spain, Celts, Vikings, Germans, Austrians, Dutch).
I would love to see the inclusion of a S.E. Asian civ (Vietnam, Cambodia)
|
Agree again. I think we need Indonesians. Their history is just not that well known. And Cambodians.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh, and the Iroquois were far more than just a "tribe." That's displaying patent ignorance of the social structure established (The federation was a major influence on the establishment of the U.S. Constitution) and their technological capabilities (considering their farming techniques were more "advanced" than the Europeans who showed up). |
Here I would agree with what is written. But not all is written, so I do not agree with conclusions.
Iroquois were a confederation of tribes, who eliminated other tribes through beaver wars. They eliminated such tribes as Erie, Wenro, Susquehanna, caused many tribes to run away (Wyandot, Fox and Sac, etc.), slaughtered much larger villages of Illini in Illinois, etc.
In addition to this barbaric behaviour they never had overall population above 30 000 people. They never had a single city. They did not collect taxes. They had no wonders. Their real UU is raiding party.
Why should we not have Burmans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Majapahit? Why are Iroquious more civilized than Zapotecs, Olmecs, Moche, Magyar and others.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:37
|
|
There are far too many civs who made a significant contribution to world history to be able to name a number of them small enough to fit the list. So I'm going to have to go with Option 7.
I find Civ to be a bit of a learning experience. I wouldn't have known as much about the Sioux, Zulu, Iroquois, etc. if they didn't appear in this series, as I took their presence as encouragement to research and read about them. I'm looking forward to learning more about Mali.
And anyway, if I don't like the list of civs, then its a simple matter of modding them out and replacing them with different types depending on my mood. Sometimes, I might occasionally include the Australians (not that I'm patriotic, its just that sometimes I want to play as a civ I can relate to on a role-playing level). Did it once with Civ III, and I easily imagine having a crack at it this time around too.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2005 19:58
.
|