 |
|
Laes
|
|
Russia
Sep 2001
time: 08:15
|
|
Here's my votes:
Spanish 20
Arabs 20
Eskimos 20
Polynesians 20
Serbs 15
Mongols 15
Turks 15
Vikings 10
Tibetans 10
Byzantines 10
Celts 5
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Unspeakable Horror
|
|
Here is my list:
Argentina 20
Spain 20
Inca 15
Mexico 10
Sumerians 10
Assyrians 10
Maya 5
Italians 5
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Internationalist
|
|
Thessaloniki,Hellas
Oct 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
My Civilizations Proposals:
1. Mongols 20
2. Spanish 20
3. Arabs 20
4. Byzantines 20
5. Hebrew/Israelis 20
6. Koreans 20
7. Zimbambuans 20(sorry if i misspelled that)[hope the people who founded the Z. empire were different from zulus.I'm not good with african history)
8. Aborigines 20
Oops, mistake with Japanese! Thanx for noting,Marcus!
Has been corrected.
Last edited by Internationalist on 07-09-2001 at 17:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:15
|
|
20 - Irish (not the Notre Dame type, and they're not just Celts)
15 - Canadians (I love my Canadian neighbors)
20 - Holy Roman Empire People
8 - Byzantines
7 - Inuits (You know, those Alaskan Natives) you can also call them Aleutians I guess
20 - Vikings
15 - Swiss
6 - Mexicans
10 - Polynesians (or some other Pacific Islander generalization)
Edited because I blanked out and tried putting civs that were already in the game.
Last edited by mactbone on 07-09-2001 at 09:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Summary updated up to krzysiek. 126 votes counted with a total of 18447 points.
Gramphos,
To be honest, I have a couple of things going right now that could in the future turn out to be the 'Apolyton Program', some of them are CtP-related, some Civ3-related and some just generally Apolyton/Civ-related. I always have a whole bunch of potentially good ideas in my head but I only have so much time so I can only execute them one by one. Also, whether or not something is a 'big project' largely depend on how people respond to it. I once made a flat-map mod for CtP1, expecting it to create quite a stir in the CtP community but although it was received with enthousiasm, it never became quite as popular as I had thought and hoped. The Civs included project and this thread were never meant to last more than a week or so but turned out to be a bit bigger than I had anticipated. So even I don't know yet what the 'Apolyton Program' will be exactly, but I don't plan on leaving Apolyton until I find out 
BTW next time, please use READABLE colors for your table, I had to copy-'n-paste the text to NotePad be be able to figure out what the heading of your table said and what the hell those green characters were...
Adm.Naismith, Dainbramaged et al,
Do you guys think I should present this list to Firaxis personally (i.e. by email)? I mean, they read the forums don't they? Haven't they've noticed this thread and the news items by now? Surely they'll draw their own conclusions when they see this thread and if they care... Also, I think Firaxis has more important things to do right now that to think ahead to expansion packs that might never come. Releasing standard Civ3 is and should be their only concern right now (SimGolf has caused us enough delays already, right Yin? ) Personally I think by having this thread we've done all we can but I wouldn't mind hearing other people's opinion on this...
Ribannah,
Those city names, as you already implied, aren't Olmec city names at all. They are the names of Mexican and Mayan towns/cities and indicate the location of archeological sites where Olmec remains have been found - not quite the same. Adding those names to a Olmec city list would be like adding names like Paris, London, Xanthen, Istanbul and Nijmegen to a Roman city list, something which I for one wouldn't like one bit.
As far as those leader names and non-American origins go, that is all highly controversial. There seems to be very little support among historians for those theories of Clyde Winters and Leo Wiener, as their evidence is very 'circumstancial' and some of their research methods unconventional. Originally I myself tended to agree with Winters (wishful thinking, I suppose) but then I found out that his original decipherment of the Olmec 'language' (supposedly African in origin) - mainly based on the Tuxtla Statuette - was inconsistent with the more recent finding of the La Mojarra Stela. This while the more 'conventional' decipherment of Justeson & Kaufman - who presumed that the Olmec language was related to Sokean, an ancient Mesoamerican language - was not challenged by this new find in any way. Winters explained the inconsistencies in his version by claiming that there were two different forms of Olmec (syllabic and hieroglyphic). I certainly won't claim that that's bullsh*t (the Egyptians had a similar system), but because of this (and a couple of other reasons) he has certainly lost my support. A good website on the decipherment of the Olmec language by Justeson & Kaufman and the problems with theories of Winters et al can be found here.
So the way I see it, we don't have much on the Olmec. The translations of their writings by Justeson & Kaufman offer little useful info as far as king or city names or whatever are concerned. And even if you'd just use the Mexican and Mayan city names and use one of Winters' king names, you'd still have no clue as what these Olmec kings looked like. Where they Negroids, Caucasians, Near Asians, Chinese or (Meso-)Americans? The many theories and infamous Olmec statues make all aforementioned options a real possibility... All in all, adding them to Civ is just too troublesome, so when I had to thrown 1 civ out of my personal top 16 to make room for the Harappans, I choose them. In a top 20 list I would probably include them again though, they're not called the 'Mother of Meso-America' for nothing...
GP,
Shall we confine ourselves to humaniods here, GP? I suppose voting for aliens, neanderthals or elves is one thing but voting for kittycats or poodles, albeit funny  , won't accomplish very much (as the chance of those being added as a civ is 0). Aux contraire, it will only clutter up the summary unnecessarily. I don't think I'm too fond of voting for Am. football or other sports teams either, not because it's not possible for a club to have a culture of it's own but because if everyone starts voting for their favourite team(s) there would be no end to it... So if you don't object, I'm gonna ignore your votes for poodles, kittycats, Northwestern wildcats and the Washington Redskins and give you an oppurtunity to spend those 4 points on 'real' civs if you want to...
Carlos113,
For the record, you have 65 points left.
Internationalist,
Master Marcus is right, you voted for the Japanese who are already in the game. This means you still have 20 points left.
Master Marcus,
You have 9 points left.
MacTBone,
You have 39 points left.
Krzysiek,
For the record, you have 105 points left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
my votes:
Arabs - 20
Turks/Ottomans - 16
Spanish - 14
Celts - 11
Phoenicians/Carthaginians - 11
Dutch - 11
Portuguese - 11
Poles - 11
Siamese - 11
Koreans - 11
Ethiopians - 11
Vikings - 11
Magyars - 11
Last edited by ranskaldan on 08-09-2001 at 03:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Aksumites/Abyssians/Ethiopians--20
Vietnamese (or a general SE Asian civ)--20
Arabs--20
Inca--15
Turks--15
Mongols--15
Iberians (Spanish/Portugese)--10
Koreans--10
Celts--10
Mayans--10
Slavs--10
Anasazi--5
To be honest, I was stunned that not even one of the Arabs, Turks, or Mongols were included. A convincing argument could be made that the world's most dominant force of the last 1500 years is Islam, which could be represented by either the Arabs (preferably) or the Turks. The Mongols... goes without saying. The Ethiopians held the most dominant sub-Saharan civ of all-time, which at the height of its power was nearly unmatched in the entire world. And by virtue of culture alone, Vietnam (SE Asian) is and has been a huge world player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
As far as those leader names and non-American origins go, that is all highly controversial. There seems to be very little support among historians for those theories of Clyde Winters and Leo Wiener, as their evidence is very 'circumstancial' and some of their research methods unconventional. Originally I myself tended to agree with Winters (wishful thinking, I suppose) but then I found out that his original decipherment of the Olmec 'language' (supposedly African in origin) - mainly based on the Tuxtla Statuette - was inconsistent with the more recent finding of the La Mojarra Stela. This while the more 'conventional' decipherment of Justeson & Kaufman - who presumed that the Olmec language was related to Sokean, an ancient Mesoamerican language - was not challenged by this new find in any way. Winters explained the inconsistencies in his version by claiming that there were two different forms of Olmec (syllabic and hieroglyphic). |
Here is Clyde Winters' reply to Justeson & Kaufman, an interesting read and fairly convincing.
Note further that the Chinese evidence is based on the close resemblance of early Olmec glyphs to early Chinese writing: quote:
"At first these experts all tried to send me away, saying they could not give an opinion on foreign artifacts," Mike Xu recalls. But after his repeated entreaties, they reluctantly took a look. The moment they saw his drawings, each of them asked him: "Where in China were these inscriptions found?" When they heard they came from America they were all dumbstruck. |
And: quote:
"Oh, I can see what's written on that one," Chen Hanping called out in surprise. "It says: 'The ruler and his chieftains establish the foundation for a kingdom.'" |
The La Majorra Stela shows dates of 150 AD, while the supposed landings by Africans and Chinese happened around 1200 BC. Surely, the script must have evolved over those centuries. Would it not be possible that the Olmec language influenced the languages around them, instead of the other way around?
So, the speculation continues
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
Arabs - 20 (religious, expansionistic)
Turks - 20 (religious, militaristic)
I agree, they have truly been a dominate force in history, we shouldn't leave the Arabs out. Certainly have made a longer lasting impression on the world than the Babylonians or Persians.
Magyar/Hungarians - 20 (industrious, militaristic)
Austro-Hungarians - 20 (industrious, commercial)
The Hungarians don't get enough credit in history. The Magyars scoured France, they pilliaged Italy, they invaded Germany. Look in any maps from 1000 AD onward, the Hungarians often had the largest empire in Europe. At its peak Hungary (not Austro-Hungary) was as big as France and England. The rest of Europe better be damn glad Hungary fought off the Turks and stopped their spread. Downside is Hungary lost most of its kingdom to the Turks (my families castle included, grrr.) Hungarians kick major ass throughout history, they revolted and won an equal split ruling the Austrian empire. They were one of the few countries under the Soviet Boot that attempted to revolt. And currently they are one of the fastest growing former Warsaw Pact countries. I could go on, but Hungary kicks ass.
Ethiopian - 20
Mali - 20
Some others in Africa. The Ethiopians deserve incredible respect for being the only country in Africa to survive European Colonialism. Ethiopia has been a sovereign nation for a hell of a long time. Good job.
Poland - 10
Khmer/Angkor - 10
Incas - 10
Texans - 10
Some other honorable mentions. Texas shouldn't have joined the US, they'd have been a cool country.
Last edited by OzzyKP on 08-09-2001 at 04:55
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tigen
|
|
I'll add my voice to the roar...
I picked these considering their geographical balance on the Earth map, and level of world fame. (I had problems with the middle east getting too crowded. I hate having civs that overlap each other's historical regions because then it's hard having them all on the same Earth map, but oh well.) Then I considered the civ and how unique it is, and how well it could stand on its own in a random world, and how much it makes sense for it to have a "golden age" and special units.
I think an expansion pack would include 8 new civs, since there seem to be 16 now. Other possibilities for me could have been Celts, Ethiopians, Polynesians, or Carthaginians. For the former three, I have a hard time characterizing them in a way someone would recognize. For Carthaginians there's the whole Hannibal thing and elephants but they kind of overlap Spain in my mind.
Mongol 20 (famous in both Asia and Europe)
Spanish 20 (famous empire, affected American and European civs and even Japan, Phillipines etc.)
Inca 20 (advanced American civ, fills empty South America)
Arab 10 (large world impact...)
Turkish 10 (ditto)
Korean 7 (nice to have another Asian civ)
Norse 7 (nice to fill up empty Scandinavia, make Swedes/Norwegians/Danes happy; European impact, but potential colonizers too)
Hebrew 6 (huge religious impact)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
|
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Adm.Naismith, Dainbramaged et al,
Do you guys think I should present this list to Firaxis personally (i.e. by email)? I mean, they read the forums don't they? Haven't they've noticed this thread and the news items by now? Surely they'll draw their own conclusions when they see this thread and if they care... Also, I think Firaxis has more important things to do right now that to think ahead to expansion packs that might never come. Releasing standard Civ3 is and should be their only concern right now (SimGolf has caused us enough delays already, right Yin? ) Personally I think by having this thread we've done all we can but I wouldn't mind hearing other people's opinion on this...
|
Hmm, I'm not in contact with Firaxis, so I have no sure idea about best way to contact them.
My suggestion is to e-mail MarkG or DanQ and ask them to be messengers from us to Firaxis (they probably have better contact).
They probably read this thread, but we can't take this for sure.
If you have time, please write down a short explanation of the effort; considering Essential Civ III history we should had some line of explanation for every "less than obvious" Civ.
Look back to the original post, or ask to us the needed help: a long list is more relevant if supported by some game or history fact, IMHO.
Another point: don't filter the list, send them it full sorted and rated, because we don't know for sure if they care to add 16 or 32 Civ. May be they are looking for a fantasy Civ list...
Great work, again
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Internationalist
|
|
Thessaloniki,Hellas
Oct 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
Locutus,
I did change my post, guess it is a large list that takes you a day or so to calculate the numbers so you couldn't see it in time.
Anyway, if you don't wan't to go searching,here it is:
Zimbambuwans 20(assuming they are different from zulu's, otherwise it would be Skythians or maybe Ethiopeans who had a greater influence)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Oh - OK then:
Celts: 20
Spanish: 15
Phoenicians: 15
Vikings: 15
Arabs: 15
Byzantines: 10
Scots: 5
Trojans: 5
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Graeme LeSaux
|
|
London, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:15
|
|
Interesting thread...
My picks:
Celts 20
Spanish 20
Portuguese 20
Inca 20
Turks 20
Maya 20
Ethiopians 20
Czech 20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ottooo
|
|
these are my votes:
Zimbabwe: 10
Carthage: 10
Sioux: 10
Apache: 10
Maya: 10
Inca: 10
Brazil: 10
Arabia: 10
Turkish/Ottomans: 10
Phoenicia: 10
Spanish: 10
Dutch: 20
Celts: 10
Viking: 10
Mongolians: 10
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2001 11:00
that means that my first vote joke (8 points to them that added them to the list) isn't over yet. I removed my points with the last update, as I thought that I could use them more wisely, and not wasting them on a civ that can't be added due to missing facts. I do support your vote 
|