 |
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
I like the minor tech idea; if I read it right, it is sort of like being able to discover improovments on known technologies.
Note to LordStone1: Civ II does not give civs abilities related to where they are. I usually play Ireland (big suprise there), start out on the island without mapmaking and wonder how I got there in the first place!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aharon Ben Rav
|
|
Cambridge, MA 02140
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Think Paul summarizes things nicely, so I'll riff off of his comments...
quote:
1) How many civilizations should be in the game?
As many as the players want. If I wanted to play with 100 or 200 civilizations I should be able to do that. |
Unrealistic, if the Firaxis designers want to include distinct graphics for a Civ's diplomats, let alone some of the other things people are asking for like cities, units, flags, etc. I think 36 is more realistic.
quote:
2) Which civilizations?
Whichever they can think of and some more. If you want to play with lots of AI players you will need them. But some civilizations should have higher chances of being selected. I would certainly be disappointed if I had a three civ game with Luxemburg, Andorra and Liechtenstein, so civs like the Chinese, Spanish or Aztecs should have a bigger chance of being selected when you start a game. |
If more than 40 or nations are included, this is a good point. I like the idea of having more historically important nations show up more often.
Civ had a better selection of nations than CTP as far as picking empires which actually had empires, but for the 47th time let's make sure we include the Arabs, okay? They did rule a good deal of the world and were the most advanced nation on earth for a couple hundred years. For selfish reasons, of course, I'd also like to see the Hebrews included as in CTP.
And let's not have one of the major American cities be "Newport Beach." Thank you.
quote:
3)Should the civilizations have special abilities?
4) Should each civilization have a personality? |
I am in favor of the second, not the first, but either way this should be able to be turned off at the start of the game (as in SMAC where faction profiles can be randomized).
Aharon Ben Rav
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I had a post in the technology thread: that techs should give a bonus, a small bonus to the empire. A food making tech, like farming or irrigation, would give a +5% to all food growth in the empire.
This represent that techs have bigger effects of the civilazation then just more units and buildings.
But techs don't just enhance us, they mold us. Every tech has some cost, but a changing bonus will be added to the MOST ADVANCED ABILIIES. If you have the biggest bonus for food making, you will get an extra +25% to that. The second one will get +10%, the rest nothing. The lowest section would get an extra -10%.
Those effects will slowly change when the order will be replaced.
Let's say that you had food for first, and consturction for second...
suddenly culture is first... before that it had +0%. to the trasfer is 5% per turn...
turn 1:
Food: +20%
Culture: +5%
turn 2:
Food: +15%
culture: +10%
Etc.
Those effects would come IN ADDIDATION to all the other tech effects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
Personally, 14 civs would be fine for me, but we have yet to deal with the real limiting factor: personality traits. The present formulation in Civ II permits 27 distinct variations. How do we go higher? Another personality facet? Increase the depth of the characteristics?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mo
|
|
I think there should be events in the game which can change a civs personality. A semi war like civ can become pacifist if they lose a big war. A civ can become warlike if there homeland is threatend, and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
True. Whose to say the goths were any better or worse than the mongols - they both seemed to have pretty much the same idea.
36 civs sounds reasonable, provided this doesn't start repeating races more than twice (e.g Vikings, Swedes, and Nordic civs - I think that's a bit much - if you like scandiavia that much, you should create your own civs.)
So long as there is a means to include your own civs - I'll be bitterly dissapointed if there isn't a polynesian civ in CivIII. On the other hand, most of europe and america probably couldn't care less. So long as I can include my own civs, I'll be relatively happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cartagia the Great
|
|
Wisconsin(the greatest dere hey!)
Jan 1970
time: 05:14
|
|
I have a few intersting ideas for the new Game. For the first I would like to say that I do enjoy the way that ,in Civ:CTP, you cna create new governments, not jsut customize the ones given to you. I feel that this is something which needs to be kept in Civ3.
Likewise, for the governments, I believe that it woudl bei nterstign to, isntead of jsut startign out in the Tyranny gov, if gave you an option. You could start as either a City State gov, or a Tribal gov. Each would have a few advantages and disadvantage,s and might control lthe way your tech tree goes from that point on.
I also feel that it would be a good idea to be able to build colonies, or convert conquered cities into colonies. these colnies would produce mroe trade, and more money, but would cost slightly more to defend, and would have a better chance of rebelling than other cities. When they did rebell they would take colonies near by and form a new government. In the case of conquered lands like India, a new Indian Nation would be created. In the case on non-conquered colonies they would form a brand new government, of a new name.
For personality, perhapse it woudl be intersting for each Male and Female leader to ahve slightly differant persoanlities. lets take the case of...Russia. If the male leader is Stalin, his persoanlity would be far diffreant than the female leader Cathrine the Great, and this should be shown, I believe.
Boarders are another thing that needs to be adressed. I think it makes sence that their purpose, and such, would be modified over time. In the early stages of the game if under, the hypothetical, Tribal government, you would have few, if any, boarders due to the tribal state. Now, if they developed into a Monarchy, and this was still in the beginning of the game, they boarders would be lose, and forts kept along them would be needed to a greater extent. However crossing one would cause diplomatic relations to go into affect. later in the game it would be even mroe extreme once things such governments and Fascism went into affect, or so.
For the civlizations actually represented in the game, I think that we need to stray as far from the Civ:CTP way of having Haiti and Rome standing next to one another. Now, I do nto midn the inclusion of the Scots and Irish in the game, however, but only if the Celts are not done proporly, as they were done in Civ2, with the Celtic Capital beign the Capital of Wales, created in the later part of this millenium. I bleieve that a proper list of civilizations MUST include:
Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Aztecs(or Mexicans), Inca, Russian, Polish, German, Chinese, Germans, English, Irish, Scotish, Celts, Turks(Ottoman), Norse, Hellens, Indians, Egyptians, French, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Etheopians, Zulu, Hungarians(or Austo-Hungarians), and others.
For thatm atter I bleive that civilization names should change through the differant ages. When you enter a certian year you should be able to change the name of your civilization to, eithe,r one that was pre-chossen, or give you theo pinion of taking an ew one. In such a way the Franks, after reaching the proper age, could becoem the French, the Magyars could becoem Hungarian, and the Slavs could become the Serbs, Bulgarians, Russians and so forth. Or, if you prefer, the Franks could become, if in your mind they had a lot of contact with the English, the Franklanders or something.
What do you all feel about those ideas/ i DO ahve more, of course 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Monolith: Man, you are so right. Make that 2 votes for tibet!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
I also think that the personalities should be preset; only those of us with multiple personalities are actually going to change attitudes in the middle of the game. One thing though, the "rational" AI players need to be a bit more defencive minded. I would also like it if more Oceanic civs were included; I put Australia (and Inca) in my rules.txt, because it is so unbalanced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PhotonMan
|
|
) How many civilizations should be in the game?
I think 7 is too few, I'd say as many as 32. Much more and the game would probably be too slow. I also think if you are allies, like in Alpha Centauri, you should be able to occupy the same square, and fight together. (Imagining a whopper of a WWII scenario, with 32 countries.)
2) Which civilizations?
I like most of the Civs listed in CTP, although overall I don't like CivCTP (5 on a 1to10 scale)
3)Should the civilizations have special abilities?
I would like to see a civilizations abilities customizable to an extend the same way you can customize Social Engineering settings Alpha Centauri. Have a few major areas, like Seafaring, Agriculture, Industry
etc. and maybe a few minor specific areas, like Archery, Horsemanship, Gunnery, Naval Gunnery, Naval Construction, and you'd have a value you can put for each... like POOR,GOOD,AVE,EXCELL, and you'd only have so many "points" to put in total for all areas.
4) Should each civilization have a personality?
Maybe... I think there should be an option to play with random or historical personalities. For example, you could play against the British, and they'd have excellent NavalGunnery. (British naval gunners were better trained and had a greater rate of fire than Spanish or French.)
Assyrians,Scythians,Mongols could have good HorseArchery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordStone1
|
 |
Rochester, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
Okay, here's some more input on this minor civilization idea.
I asked people at the BOTF (Birth of the Federation) forum @ Sidgames.com about how the minor civ thing worked out in the game. Here's fluffy's response.
quote:
Minor races are probably the best new feature in BOTF - really the only major new idea.
In general, a minor race has one "special" building that it can contribute. The special building does something like improve research in a particular area, increase morale, improve that planet's industry, or something.
The minor races, when independent, function basically as miniature empires. They never colonize or invade other planets, but they can maintain their own military forces. Each minor race has its own technology level - some of the technology levels are extremely high and better than anything you might build your own for most of the game, and some are barely out of the stone age.
You can either conquer a minor race, or convince them to join you, or leave them independent and trade with them, etc. You can even ally with them. Different minor races react differently to the various major empires. Some like everybody (there's one that immediately joins you the minute you encounter them) whereas some are picky about who their friends are.
If you end up owning a minor race (either by them voluntarily becoming a member of your empire, or by military conquest) you get whatever's on their planet when they join, and then their planet acts like a member of your empire. If they are low tech you can upgrade them, and if they are high tech they will soon be a rather important member of your empire. :}
Minor races that voluntarily became members can voluntarily become un-members again, but that doesn't happen too often. If you conquer them, on the other hand, they will riot and sabotage things and generally carry on; but this is controllable. Empires have different abilities with respect to minor races- the Federation has a great advantage in persuasion, allowing minor races to more easily join, whereas the Cardassians are very efficient at keeping the slaves under control. Klingons aren't particularly good at either of those, but they fight so well that taking over minor races is much easier. And the Ferengi can make so much money trading with them that letting them be independent is almost as good as getting them to join.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diodorus Sicilus
|
|
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
- First Post in this Thread-
Some of what I'm going to say will repeat things I've posted in other threads, but since this seems to be the place to bring them all together, here goes...
There are several major problems with having a mass of civilizations playing at the same time in a single game:
1. Telling them apart. My computer doesn't always differentiate enough between "barbarian red" and "civ maroon" in CtP; what's going to happen when there are so many civs that they have to use chartreuse, puce, and vermillion?
2. One of the major features of the game is Exploration (the others being Advance, Build, and Conquer). If the map is stuffed with civs, no goodie hut/monolith/ancient ruin will survive the first few turns undiscovered, takng a lot of the fun out of "wandering the map" later in the game. Also, everywhere you wander you'll hit a civ border very quickly. The only way to keep the relationship between civs and map we have in the games now would be a massive increase in the size of the map. This is not an intrinsically bad thing, but now we're looking at huge Sav. files, increased loading times, and a general slow-down of processing. Can we afford that?
3. Historically, very few Civs had cities in 4000 BC, or anywhere near that time. Now, some have suggested moving the starting date back to 6000BC or earlier, but I have't heard any suggestions for moving the date forward, truncating the early part of the game so that everyone starts with a chance to build a city.
I think the answer to the Multiple Civs question is more Variety of civs. Right now, everyone follows pretty much the same pattern: build cities, go for the Major Wonders and Advances, get ahead of the opponents in Tech, build Spaceship/Wormhole, whatever, Win. Let's mix it up a little:
1. Nomadic Civs
I posted this elsewhere, but here's a summary. You start with a Tribe, not a Settler. Tribes have a radius lke a city, but they can move (slowly). They exploit the terrain differently: no agriculture, but hunters in the woods, herders on the grasslands and plains. They automatically generate Warriors or other military units from their population (military skills are part of survival for everybody). Certain Improvements (permanent structures) would be impossible, but they could have alternatives, for example if they have enough food surplus they can put some of it into Increased Production (folks don't have to work for food, they can sit around fabricating things like weapons, trade goods, etc).
They would be major traders, and should have an advantage in "borrowing" Tech from setled Civs they contact - and possibly spreading them to other Civs in trade routes.
Eventually, the Nomad civ would have to settle down, because Gunpowder, for example, pretty much requires fixed installations to manufacture. But they could do this either by starting their own cities (which the Scythians did in the Crimea) or by conquering other cities (which durn near all of the nomadic civs did!). This would give a valid alternate starting civ for a lot of the early players.
2. Vary Civ's starting Tech level based on where they sart. Terrain influence has always been hugely underestimated in the Civ games (and some other games I could mention, like MicroSwamp/ESs AoE). The characteristics that made a Phoenician or Egyptian civ were based largely on the surroundings they had to work with. Egypt had a large river and a requirement to irrigate, the Phoenicians had a lot of seacoast and unfriendly interior terrain.
We can either start Civs in terrain appropriate to their historical beginnings, or vary their starting Tech based on the terrain they start in. The first leads to somewhat stereotyped Start Positions, but historical development (no Seafaring Mongols, or Jungle-dwelling Romans for instance), the second to more randomness in how you play (I picked Vikings and ended up in the middle of the desert with Chariots, oops!)
One compromise would be to allow the player to choose which he wants to play from the beginning: select Historical Civs, and startng positions would be based on the historical terrain and conditions. Select Random Civs, and your civilization, regardless of the starting name, would develop according to the random terrain it starts in.
Examples of varied starting tech/conditions:
1. Egyptians
start in 4000BC with Irrigation, Agriculture, and possibly with a city already built. They have the government type Divine Monarchy and Organized Religion. They start on a navigable river, surrounded by desert and/or mountains. In other words, their farmable land is limited without irrigation, abd they are relatively isolated from neighbors.
2. Celts
Start in 4000BC with Metal Working (copper, no Bronze yet) as nomads with a Elected Chieftain in a forested, hilly terrain. Their Warriors will have better Morale (SMAC-type multiple level system is a MUST) than Egyptian farmers, and there are more resources readily available without having to "terraform" the terrain around them.
The Egyptians would have pluses when attempting to research things like Masonry or Construction (they built some of the first large stone buildings in the Near East), while the Celts and other Nomads would have an advantage in developing Trade and certain weapons (advanced bows, swords, etc).
Along the same lines, Barbarians must be much more versatile than they are now: you should be able to trade with them more, and a Barbarian-captured city if not recaptured should develop into a new hybrid civ: use shields divided into two colors: one the original Civ color, and Barbarian Red. This would solve the problem of including Civs in 4000BC that didn't exist until millenia later, like French or Americans.
Even with a relatively small number of civilizations, perhaps between 7 - 10 starting civs, by increasing the variety of starting positions and development paths we can get the equivalent of a far larger number without having to monstrously increase the size of the game to keep the goodies in exploration and contact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eggman
|
|
You can avoid the similar color shield confusion caused by large numbers of civs at the same time by implementing shields with multiple color designs. The UK's Union Jack is hard to confuse with anything. And I am sure that there will be an option to play with as many or few civs as you would like so that it really not an issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Flags are fine, but how do you display them on an overview/replay map?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Ok, ok, I know. People love to include THIER own civ's. But I mean, really Cartegia, CANADIAN?! I won't even talk about Americans, they ridicolous entry is allready widely accepted. But canadians? A culture?! Huh?
I you ingnored one of the most vital civ's, my civ, that only CTP chosed to bring into existance: Hebrew. I mean, how many culture DID we have in 4000BC? We were here... Not the bloody canadians...
Here are the true civ list:
Gauls
German
Minoun
Babylonions
Persian
Hebrew
Zulu
Egyptians
Pheonicans
Byzants
Vikyings
British
Chinese
Japanise
Aborjians
Indian
Aztec
Maia
Inca
Russians
Monguls
The rest is just popy-****, they didn't exist back then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I agree about canadians not being a valid civilization (you didn't have to be insulting, eh?), and your list looks good.
There is a major problem, though.. how many Vikings do you know today? How about Minoans?
If you look around today, about half of the civs in the list are around in one form or another. But is would also be wrong to dismiss America. They are not a "civilization" but none the less, they are a superpower. Perhaps THE superpower...
The American were originally British, which is on your list. Obviously, having them as a permanant civilization is inaccurate, but having only the old civs is also inaccurate. Somehow, the ebb and flow of civs over time must be represented. Civs just don't last thousands of years, they die, split, merge, and reform.
<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited June 01, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecce Homo
|
|
Stockholm, Sweden
Apr 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I think I wrote this in the former Civs thread, but it wasn't summarized here.
There shouldn't be a civ called "Vikings".
No tribe called themselves "vikings" - a viking was any Danish, Swedish or Norwegian sailor in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Instead, the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes and Finns should be included (not necessarily all of them - they are not that important).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Insulting... maybe. Got a bit upset, i guess. I mean, the hebrew people are the origin of most civ's on Earth, and is one the oldest civ's on Earth. It's annoying people seem to forget about us. But, you agree my Earl gray that the Canadians are not a culture in any spectrum, not even CTP too-wide spectrum.
however, about what you said we need to show the civ's around history. Well, we start at 4000 bc, so we can't just can't show americans in 4000 BC when they only appeared in the 16-17 centaury.
What CAN be done, is have the spawing cultures after the names of the newer civ's: Minoun will break into greek and roman, british into Americans, Gauls into French. However, this is the starting list.
By the way, I streched the time period greatly. In south America, i should have only included the Maia, as the Inca ( and mostly the Aztecs ) are the products of later times.
This also applies for Arabs, Viking, British, Russian, Chinese ( The state Chi was erected by former Persains and monguls ), Japanise and the Byzants.
Also, not to forget, the the Indians ( can't think of one GOOD tribe to mention ), were the by-products of the expanding south-america cultures.
The list should be:
Maia
Gauls
German
Mongul
Egyptains
Hebrew
Persian
Pheonican
Minoun
Zulu
Aborjians
Babylonian
The rest can be programmed into the data-base, and can be switched over time. For example, an AI minoun
"The minoun had a rebellion, and from it ashes comes from a new culture: The greek".
Then, all the names of the greek will be used for that AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
[getting off topic]
I thought that the "Indians" (I assume you mean native americans) did not come from the south american cultures, but were an independant culture.
Actually, since migration came from Siberia and spread south, it might be possible to argue that the South american tribes came from the northern ones, though in the case of Civ it's not necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rong
|
|
Euless, Texas, USA
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
...Chinese ( The state Chi was erected by former Persains and monguls ) |
Huh? I assume you are talking about the Ch'in dynasty, founded by Shih Huang Ti on 221 BC. He's 100 per cent chinese.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Transcend
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Apr 1999
time: 22:14
|
|
Harel gor wrong about Chinese? Its civilization started around 2000BC and had nothing to do with Mongols or Persians. The first Persian state was founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC. By that time, the famous Chinese philosopher Confuzius was already born. It might be true that the first Emperor of China had distant Persian or nomadic(Mongols?) ancestors, but that hardly mattered. What really matters was the cultural characterics such as language, custom, philosophy, and government. China has developed all of these aspects on its own.
In history, Chinese met with Persians around 100BC after they busted Huns under Emperor Wu of Han. The term Mongols did not exist until Chingis Khan, and that was around 1200AD! Before Chingis Khan made appearance, they were simply a tribe among hundreds on the Asian steppes.
I was little off topic. I think we need to set some criteria for civilizations to be included in Civ3. One is the historical significance of a civilization, and its area of influence. Another criteria is its relevance to modern world(After French revolution?). Some of the civilizations that only meet the first criteria are:
- Romans(later Byzantines)
- Ancient Greeks(Minoan, Athenian, Hellenistic)
- Sumerians(later Babylonians)
- Ancient Egyptians (until 31 BC)
- Mayans
- Aztecs including predecessors
- Incas including predecessors
- Phoenicians
- Polynesians
- Celts including Gauls
- Angkor Khmers
- North American Indians?
These civilizations were once very dominant, but now have either disappeared, replaced, or sunken into total insignificance. Their languages, customs, and religions are no longer or very rare in use.
One civilization only meets the second criteria:
- US Americans and Canada
The majority of civilizations in Civ3 will meet both criterias:
- Arabs
- British
- Chinese (or maybe Han?)
- French
- Germans (Deutschen, not those Germans called by Romans)
- Hebrew (or maybe Jew?)
- Indians
- Japanese
- Persians
- Russians (or Slavs in general?)
- Eurasian Steppes Nomads (Huns, Turks, Mongols)
- Scandivians (Vikings, Normans, Sweds)
- Spaniards
- Zulus
I think the above names covered pretty much the civs we need. I don't bother to put aboriginals in because their contributions(boomerang) to our world were too few compared to the above civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diodorus Sicilus
|
|
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I Say Again:
NO CIVILIZATION has lasted from 4000BC to the present day uninterrupted. Period.
Egyptians, Sumerians, pre-Aryans in India were the only "civilizations" as defined in the current games in 4000BC (they had cities). China doesn't enter the lists until around 2600BC, Sumerians were submerged by later 'barbarian' invaders out of the Zagros (Assyrians, Cimmerians, etc), Persians were even later nomadic invaders from beyond the Zagros Mountains, and Egypt ceased to be a separate Egyptian civilization when the Persians conquered them - followed by the Macedonians, then the Romans, then the Turks, etc, etc. The Indian civilization around Mohenjo-Daro disappeared when the Aryan (Asiatic nomad) invasions hit in 2500-2000BC.
'Greeks' didn't arrive in Greece until about the same time: even in Classical times they recognized the Dorian Invasions as the end of the original cultures' Bronze Age.
By Gauls I assume you mean Celts - the Halstatt culture doesn't even date to 4000BC, and in any case they'd be "nomadic barbarians" in current game terms for the first 3500+ years of the game.
By British I suppose you could mean the original non-Indo-European speakers of the British isles, but the British (English) Civilization is a result of those folks being conquered by the Romans, then invaded by Saxons, Angles and Jutish Germans, Scandinavians (Norse and Danish 'vikings') and finally conquered by French Normans (more second-generation 'vikings') - by which time they thought of themselves as a Saxon Kingdom!.
ALL Modern Cultures/Civilizations are a result of a series of Overlays: one culture/group invading, being invaded, absorbing, amalgamating with another. The sad fact is that the current Model of Civilization used in all the Civ games does a ratty job of showing this, and rather than argue about which Civs belong in the game, we should figure out how to design a game system that will produce the Modern Civilizations, or a semblance of them, from the ancient civilizations, with suitable problems and opportunities for the player along the way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Well, being a super power doesn't count, no-o-wazs. Lot's of cultures been the pinnacle of humanity along histroy, and they tumbled down. Just beacause America is a current super-power ( and only for the last 50 years ), and it has the majority of the market doesn't mean we need to settle down and lower our standards.
The game start at 4000 BC... how can you include a culture that it's first settlers only landed 400 years ago, and exist for 250 years? You can't, thats what.
And, sorry, don't take this the wrong way, Canada shouldn't be a minor nation anymore then Zimbabawe should be. It might be a big and rich nation, but it just, well PLAIN. Nothing special or very unique about her, differeneting here from it's Europing origins. Canada did not effect the world civilaztion and history in anyway: atleast you can say the americans did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
True, Canadians haven't contributed much:
idea for UN Peacekeeping forces, telephone, standard time zones, insulin
But you do agree that the Americans should be included, right? By the way, I agree that the Jews and Arabs should be included if for nothing else than their long cultural history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cartagia the Great
|
|
Wisconsin(the greatest dere hey!)
Jan 1970
time: 05:14
|
|
Ok, first of all, I'm not Canadian, I'm Wisconsinite, and I resisted the urge to demand the Wisconsinite Civilization. I'll just add my enlightened people later  I do see your point, but I always liked the idea of some compitition in the Americas, so I added the Canadians. So, ok, no Canadians, here's my updated list
English
Irish
Celtic(differant than Irish)
Roman
Greek
German
French
Spanish
Russian
Egyptian
Zulu
Chinese
Indian
Aztec
Incan
Mongol
Byzantine(or the Turks under the Ottoman Empire, none of this Ankara being the capital stuff from CTP)
Polish
Nordic
Japanese
Cartegian
Hebrew(yes I agree, they deserve to be in here)
Babylonian
Arabic
Persian
Hungarian
Ethopian(a strong Middle Ages African Empire)
Serbian, Bulgarian, or another Slavic nation
Australian(we really need a civlization on that island)
there, sorry if I missed any
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-05-1999 18:29
|