 |
| |
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
This is my 2nd time trying to send these as my 1st attempt seems to have failed.
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander01
Regarding the previous statement that the Scots should be included as the largest Celtic civ just like the Russians are in as the largest Slavic civ --
First of all, there are hundreds of millions of Russians, and a high estimate for the Scottish population would be 20 million. Not too many. |
The CIA world fact book lists the Russian Republic's population at 140 million; I tried to find Scotland's population but the only figures I could find where for the U.K. as a whole. Still, if we use your 20 million population figure and we realize that there are more people of Scottish ancestry in the U.S.A., Canada, South Africa, Australia, & New Zealand then live in the mother country (as per www.britania.com). So a reasonable world population figure is 40-50 million. I agree this is a rough estimate but it shows that Scots aren't an insignificant group.
True, Scotland is not the equal of Russia but you have not argued with the logic that we break "Slavic" and "Germanic" groups into their largest parts so why shouldn't we do the same for "Celtic" groups?
quote:
I think CivIII is trying to go for civs with a greater impact on the world (with some politically correct continental representation), so the Scots are more likely to be lumped into Britain under the name "English" (CivII gave the Scottish cities to the English also). |
If we change the name of the civ from England to Britain then I will simply go away, however, to name it England (instead of Britain) is as wrong as to have a California or New York civ and saying they are the American civ. Either the correct name should be used or we should represent both of the major parties.
As for Civ3 only including civs that have had a great impact on the world; well let us not forget that the British Empire was the largest most powerful empire the world has ever known. They colonized and/or conquered large areas on every continent of the world. Again, if we name it the British civ then fine but if we are going to call it the English civ then we must recognize the Scottish as the co-equal owners/creators/administrators of this empire plus I have already listed numerous Scottish inventions and/or scientific advancements that have had a HUGE impact upon the world as we know it (the television, the steam engine, penicillin, the repeating rifle, the pneumatic tire, & the telephone. I can come up with many, many more examples if you wish). So it cannot be said that the Scottish did not have a tremendous impact upon the world in their own right.
quote:
Anyway, the Spanish will get in before the Scots ever do. |
As I said before the Spanish should be included but this is not a case where one civ or the other gets included. In fact the expansion pack will include at least eight if not sixteen civs so there is room for both civs. Please don't create a false dilemma.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I tried to find Scotland's population but the only figures I could find where for the U.K. as a whole.
|
The current Scottish population is about 6 million, but it was much higher before the highland clearances. I think the 20M number is already including Americans who cleaim to be Scottish.
quote:
to name it England (instead of Britain) is as wrong as to have a California or New York civ and saying they are the American civ. Either the correct name should be used or we should represent both of the major parties.
|
I disagree. Since the avatar is Elizabeth of England it would be silly to call it Britain - she was never Queen of Britain. The SU is also the man-o-war which is pre-Britain too. If you had Victoria as Avatar and a dreadnought as SU (or British rifleman or something) then I would agree with you.
quote:
So it cannot be said that the Scottish did not have a tremendous impact upon the world in their own right.
|
I agree with this bit. It does rankle a bit to have one of the wonders be Scottish but have no Scottish (or even Celtic!) civ.
I would be happy with a celtic civ though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ubik
|
|
Greece
Jun 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
is this developing into a trend, every nation, ethnic group etc. setting up a thread "why XXX should be included in Civ3 (expansion pack)"???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Josh,
I know the modern Capital of Scotland is Edinburgh (became in the 1530s). In CTP2 Glasgow was choosen over Edinburgh because it was the older Capital. I simply listed Glasgow because CTP2 did the same thing. |
Dunstaffnage near Oban was the first scottish capital but Scone became the capital under Kenneth MacAlpin. The capital moved to Edinburgh (in practice if not officially) under Malcolm III in the 11th centuary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lumpkin
|
|
No offence to Scots or anything but I think it would be very silly if Scotland were included as a Civ. Before the union with Britain, Scotland was a poor, relatively backward nation on the outskirts of Europe who spent its entire existence fighting with England. William Wallace was a corrupt sadist with very little in common with Mel Gibson while Mary Queen of Scots was such a spectacularly incompetent and unpopular monarch that Scots chucked her out and were quite eager to have the English chop her head off.
We can't have all 16 civs being European and I think countries such as the Netherlands, Spain and Austria all did a great deal more than Scotland.
Yes, Scotland's achievements after the unification have been quite staggering with many inventers, philosophers, industrialists, explorers, conquerors and so on but all of these achievements were very much the product of an integrated British state.
In my opinion Firaxis shouldn't include the English either. Britain has achieved far more than the two nations ever did alone so I think there should be a new civ with Queen Victoria as its leader and with all the major cities of the British Empire (from Glasgow to Sydney) included. Queen Elizabeth of the English AND of Britain is completely nonsensical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lumpkin
|
|
Oerdin,
As it happens I was planning on making a civ exactly like that.
I would probably set it around 500 AD, just after the collapse of Romano-British civilisation and plague had decimated the population. That way it would be a colonisation scenario as well as a military one.
It probably wouldn't make much sense to have an English civ at that point since they were just warring Germanic colonists at that point at fought as much with each other as with the native Britons. Similarly the Scots were just an Irish tribe in the process of arriving in Britain and colonising what was then Pictland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lumpkin
|
|
Oerdin,
My problem with a scenario in 1000AD is simply that all the major cities would have been founded and the country wholly settled by this point. I think its more fun when there is the opportunity for colonisation rather than just military conquest and city improvement.
Since since you seem to know a fair bit about that time of history, I was wondering if you could advise me on what civs should be included in a circa 500 - 1000 AD scenario set in the British Isle.
If I included the four major Anglo-Saxon tribes (Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia), the two Viking tribes (Norse, Danes), the Scots and the Picts that leaves 8 spare places for British and Irish tribes (or maybe minor Anglo-Saxon tribes). Who would you suggest putting in?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lumpkin
Oerdin,
My problem with a scenario in 1000AD is simply that all the major cities would have been founded and the country wholly settled by this point. I think its more fun when there is the opportunity for colonisation rather than just military conquest and city improvement. |
OK, I guess we have two different objectives with making our senerios, but that's alright. If you would like to do a colonization one then you might consider moving the date back further then 500AD as there we're serveral sizable towns/cities of Roman origin in England & Wales by then (example Londonium). You may consider having a weak Roman force starting with a few scattered in England and having Scots, Picts, along with various Germans and vikings set to invade. If you were to do this I'd use a map of the whole North sea area.
quote:
If I included the four major Anglo-Saxon tribes (Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia), the two Viking tribes (Norse, Danes), the Scots and the Picts that leaves 8 spare places for British and Irish tribes (or maybe minor Anglo-Saxon tribes). Who would you suggest putting in? |
I think I would lump the Germanic tribes into three main groups Angles, Saxons, & Jutes (Jutes being from Jutland in Denmark). I'd have the Norse/Vikings stay in Norway/Sweden and I'm alittle uncertain how to handle the Celtic groups. You could just have one big group covering Northern England, Scotland, & Ireland or you could break it down amoung the various subtibes.
Since we already have 5 group included (Romans [who are set up for failure], Angles, Saxons, Jutes, & Norse/Vikings) that only leaves use with 3 spaces to cover everyone else. I think I'd give one civ each to a tribe from Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Each of the three has numerious tribal names to choice from. Hope this helps.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-09-2001 03:03
|