 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Alexander,
First of all, I don't think it's a very good idea to discuss too many civs in the same thread at once. For now we should focus on the Mongols and the Spanish and, more importantly, on the format, and once that's done focus on other civs (but IMHO still no more than 2 per thread or things will get too confusing).
As far as the format of your post goes, it's not quite the same as mine so we should first work that out (if we're gonna send this stuff to Firaxis it would be best to have everything in the same format). In your post you don't tell anything about the history and acoomplishments of a civ (maybe you planned on doing that at some other time?) but you focused entirely on the role that they should play in a Civ3 World Map scenario. Personally I feel that that is not the right approach: in order to show the importance of a civ to Firaxis we should IMHO describe it's history and accomplishments, not prescribe it's role in Civ3. The people at Firaxis are professional game developers who are payed to design games so I think we can safely assume that they know how to implement various civs in the game once they've decided to go with these civs. However, these people probably don't however have the same thorough knowledge of history that the collective minds of all Apolytoners have, so they might be able to use our help in deciding which civs they want to go with. So that's what we should IMHO focus on with these descriptions: show to Firaxis why the most popular civs from the XPC thread are so historically important and give them some pointers in terms of possible leaders, unique units, city names, etc. If it matters at all how exactly the civs should behave in the game (IMHO it shouldn't matter: it's Civ, not a history simulator), we should IMHO leave it up to Firaxis to decide upon this. Let me know if you (or anyone else for that matter) disagrees though and think that we should pay at least some attention to their role on a Civ3 World map as well...
Wernazuma,
Great tips, those are all very helpful, thanks!  I updated the descriptions to take those into account (changes in green). Your offer to help with the Maya and Inca, though not new, is gratefully accepted as well... 
kIndal,
Hmm, you're right, I don't know why I didn't include those. I replaced Badajoz with Almeria, I think that is a good deal (let me know if I'm wrong though).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Ribannah,
The mention of slave trade seems rather unimportant to me as the idea is to tress why a civ was great (and slavery is not exactly a great achievement) and because until the 19th century slavery was absolutely normal and everyone did it (yes, I know all about the cruelties |
I have to disagree... if it was fair game for Firaxis to mention cannibalism amongst the Iroquois, I see no reason why slavery should be ignored when discussing the Spanish (or the French or the Brits or the Dutch or--especially--the Americans). Simply mentioning some of the less-than-honorable portions of history does not negate all the good various civilizations have done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander01
|
|
Well...alright, Locutus.
But I don't understand the problems with format. I think your format is quite nice, though the history is a bit longish, though not uninteresting. Perhaps it should be limited to a "Civ-of-the-Week" length.
I don't think that we should limit our ideas to a predesigned barrier, though. For instance, we should come up with all sorts of expansion ideas, like a title, for one thing. My idea is CivIII Expansion: Lords of Sea and Steppes, though I'm sure someone else will make a much better one.
In regards to the stratgy section, I don't think it should be completely eliminated, but should rather remain short - a simple addition for extra interest. After all, we want to at least consider the ramifications of adding a civ in the game world.
And ok to two civs per thread, though can we make the next one Phoenicians and Dutch since I already got that going?
By the way, for the expansion, do you think this list of 16 is reasonable?
1. Spanish/Armada (or whichever)
2. Mongol/Mangudai
3. Phoenician/Quinquireme
4. Dutch/Fluyt
5. Portuguese/Carrack
6. Celt/Woad Raider (or a better term)
7. Viking/Bersirk or Longship
8. Israelite/Slinger
9. Ethiopian/Camel Rider
10. Maya/Plumed Archer?
11. Inca/ War Party or Llama Rider?
12. Polish/Lancer or Winged Hussar
13. Korean/Turtle Ship
14. Arab/Xebec
15. Turk/Jannisary
16. Sioux/Brave
Since Firaxis apparently desires to make generalized civs, I feel that the Byzantines don't have a chance. Therefore, since the Sioux were in CivII and the Iroquois monopoly needs fixing, I suggest Sioux as #16.
In regards to my format for civ elaboration, I was merely posing suggestions to initiate commentary, and was actually hoping for more input from yourself, as opposed to a finite definition. Nothing is concrete yet.
So the format:
Civ, country, adjective, noun
Leader
Capital
Unit
Attributes
Cities
Generals
History
Strategy
Anything else to add?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Guynemer,
Well, I think one of the main reasons why Firaxis mentioned cannibalism is because it's a pretty exceptional situation, very few civs are known for it. Slavery was until 100-150 years ago the most normal thing in the world and in some way or another, (almost) everybody did it: Romans, Greeks, Mali, Chinese, Indians, Spanish, English, Dutch, Americans, etc. It was not something specific to the Spanish (even though their practices might have been more cruel than those of FE the Greeks) and that's what IMHO these summaries are about: to show what is unique about these civs (note how I kept the part of Spain after the War of Succession extremely short: Spain went through the same things as the rest of Europe then, not much unique about that period) and what makes them worthy of a place in Civ3. Also, as I said before, we're not describing the complete history of these civs (something like that could never be summarized in 1000 words), we're trying to convince Firaxis that these civs are important enough to include in Civ3. Additionally, one could argue that if you mention the Iroquois's cannibalism and Spain's slavery practices just for their cruelty and 'barbarism', you should also mention the cruelty in which the Romans dealt with Christians and other 'criminals' but I don't remember Firaxis mentioning this either.
Jay Bee,
Of course, you're absolutely right, I will fix it.
Okay, I'll drop Gibraltar then and bring Badajoz back. Let me know if anything else needs changing.
Alexander,
I agree that the history part is a bit long. As I said before, I originally intended to make them of the same length as CotW. However, there was just too much stuff that IMHO just *had* to be mentioned and I personally do think that most of Firaxis' CotW features leave out some important things, so I figured it was okay (and since you're the first to complain I think the rest of the guys think it's okay as well). If you think they should be shorter, do you have any suggestions on what parts to leave out for FE the Spanish? I for one feel everything currently in it *should* be in it but I'm open for suggestions.
I don't know what exactly you're thinking about with 'predesigned barrier' but my intention is to only make suggestions to Firaxis on Civs, at least in this thread. If you want to brainstorm about the title or other features of an expansion pack, I suggest you start a new thread about this. I personally think it's way to early to discuss what new features or whatever should be in an expansion pack: we haven't even played the game yet! Civs can IMHO be discussed because we already know which ones are in and which ones aren't but anything else would IMHO be very premature (that's also why I gave several alternatives for leaders, unique units, abilities, etc: we don't know enough yet to make specific decisions on those).
With regards to a strategy section, I explained my opinion and yours is pretty clear too, I would love to hear some other people's opinion about it. One thing more I'd like to add about this: a big problem with a strategy section is that you should know which civs are in and which civs aren't and we only know this for the 16 civs that are already in Civ3. If you want to discuss the strategy for the Phoenicians it's quite important to know whether or not the Turks, the Arabs and the Hebrew are gonna be added as well, something which we simply don't know (maybe they are high in the top 16 of the XPC poll but that doesn't mean Firaxis will automatically include them).
As far as 'the next thread' goes, I think we should first divide the work and then all start working on it. Since for example Wernazuma is doing the Maya and Inca, I think he should decide for himself when the best time is to start (a) thread(s) about them and other relevant details. As far as I'm concerned, he can start the thread as soon as we've agreed on the format but he can also wait a few weeks (to do some research, to prevent too many civs are being discussed at the same time, etc), whatever he wants. Maybe we could coordinate things a little bit so we don't flood the forum with Expansion Pack related threads but I wouldn't want to force anyone to (not) start a thread at a particular time. If you want to volunteer for the Dutch and Phoenicians you're welcome to start a thread about them as soon as we agree on format (though it might be an idea to coordinate some things with me as I know quite a bit about both civs and already have a complete city list for both FE). If you don't want to volunteer for them you'll have to wait for someone else to start threads (whenever that may be) but I'm sure that this person will take the info you already provided into account.
As far as which civs to cover, that's very simple: whatever civs are in the top 16 of the XPC thread plus hopefully a couple of good alternatives from the next 16 (FE number 17 to 25, but details can be decided upon later, depending on how it all works out) in case Firaxis for whatever reason doesn't like some of the first 16. You may not like the Byzantines, I personally don't like the Sioux. We all have our preferences but the 'people of Apolyton' should decide over this, not the two of us (or any other individual(s)).
On the format, I kind of like your suggestion of adding Great Leaders (I assume you mean this with 'Generals'), do we know yet if these will be civ-specific? I.e. can you only get Ceasar if you play with the Romans or can you get him if you're any other civ as well? Either way, if others like the idea, it might indeed be a good idea to also add a few possibilities for Great Leaders and possibly even Wonders (any other suggestions?) for each civ...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Alexander,
I agree, noone except you made any comments on the format yet so it's save to assume everyone else agrees with my proposal.
On the strategy section: well, if noone else cares (and apparently noone does), I guess the best course of action would be to allow you to add a (brief) strategy section to each civ. Don't expect me to write any - it goes against all I believe to be the Civilization philosophy (it's 'rewrite' history, not 're-enact' it) - but as long as noone else objects I'll accept anything you (and possibly others) come up with.
El Awrence & jdd2001,
No offense, but obviously you guys don't know your history. Buenos Aires and Veracruz were both Spanish for over 200 years. I cite the Columbia Encyclopedia.
On Buenos Aires:
quote:
The city was first founded in 1536 by a Spanish gold-seeking expedition under Pedro de Mendoza. However, attacks by indigenous peoples forced the settlers in 1539 to move to Asunción (now the capital of Paraguay), and in 1541 the old site was burned. A second and permanent settlement was begun in 1580 by Juan de Garay, who set out from Asunción. Although Spain long neglected Buenos Aires in favor of the riches of Mexico and Peru, the settlement's growth was enhanced by the development of trade, much of it contraband.
In 1617 the province of Buenos Aires, or Río de la Plata, was separated from the administration of Asunción and was given its own governor; a bishopric was established there in 1620. During the 17th cent. the city ceased to be endangered by indigenous peoples, but French, Portuguese, and Danish raids were frequent. Buenos Aires remained subordinate to the Spanish viceroy in Peru until 1776, when it became the capital of a newly created viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, including much of present-day Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. |
And on Veracruz:
quote:
In 1519 the Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés landed near the site later chosen (1599) for the present city. Veracruz was easy prey for the buccaneers of the 17th and 18th cent. The harbor is guarded by the fortress of San Juan de Ulúa, which was begun in the 17th cent. and was the last stronghold of the Spanish before their expulsion in 1821. |
If these cities can't be Spanish, then Antioch and Byzantium can't be Roman, Alexandria and Syracusa can't be Greek, Carthage and Gades can't be Phoenician, Dadu and Samarkand can't be Mongol, Kiev and Minsk can't be Russian, Lahore and Karachi can't be Indian, etc, etc. City lists should (and do) consist of cities that were historically very important for their host civilization, regardless of their current 'owner'. Whether or not these cities were part of this civ during their entire existence might be important but is certainly not vital. (And yes, New Amsterdam/New York, as well as a few other important (former) Dutch colonies, is on my list with Dutch city names)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Slavery was until 100-150 years ago the most normal thing in the world and in some way or another, (almost) everybody did it: Romans, Greeks, Mali, Chinese, Indians, Spanish, English, Dutch, Americans, etc. It was not something specific to the Spanish |
The reasons I mentioned the slave traffic over the Atlantic are that (1) it's unique with regard the distance the African slaves were transported and (2) the African culture journeyed with them, and had a vast influence on the culture of the colonies / new nations, and thereby on the entire modern world. So IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere; if the Portuguese will get a description, you might post it there, because they initiated this traffic.
I thought of the Basques because I read they had their own separate settlements in the new world. However, I'm not certain whether there were southern Basques involved. Also interesting is that Navarre had its own constitution and court until 1842. But the text is already getting quite longish indeed
Keep up the good work!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ubik
|
|
Greece
Jun 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Alright, sorry for being late, but I hadn’t had much time (got three days off work and spend them with me lovely wife outdoors – limited net access - but when I got back I got straight to work this out).
So, despite some that believe since Roman and Greeks are in, the Byzantine should not be included in a (possible) expansion pack for Civ3 (by the same manner the Americans shouldn't be in, right?) here is the magnificent Byzantine civilization.
Start with the basics:
Leader: Constantinos (Constantine) I the Great or Justinian. If the guys at Firaxis are all too PC and try to find some more female leaders (since they don’t really abandon in the world history) the Byzantines have some interesting empresses, like Theodora.
Capital city: Constantinupolis (Constantinople)
Cities: Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philipuppolis, Nikopolis, Nicea, Neocaesarea, Laodicea, Damascus, Theodosiopolis, Trapezus, Sinopi, Odessus, Philipoi, Andrianupolis, , Sabbi, Sardis, Caesarea, Nikomedea, Iraklion, Ancyra, Iconium, Edessa, Dyrrachium.
Great Leaders: Belissarius, Theodosius, Basil II Bulgaroktonos, Heraklius, Leo the Isavrian, Nicephorus Phocas, Michael VII Palaiologos, Narses
Unique Unit suggestions: Dromon (a fast early galley, sometimes equipped with “Hygron Pyr” - the well known “Greek Fire”).
Cabalarii: Basic Byzantine cavalry, armored and equipped with lances.
Varagian Guard: Selected Scandinavian (Nordic) and Rus mercenaries, the emperors guard (infantry, usually).
Cataphract: Elite cavalry unit, very heavy armored (the horse too!) but relatively slow.
History
In the 4th century AD the emperor of Rome Constantine I has decided to solve the poly-archy problem and get the heart of the Roman Empire away from the decadent Roman society, by moving the capital to the east. Actually, in fact Constantine has split the empire in two - something that wasn't though finalized until 395.
The City was named after him – Constantinoupolis – and was build on the site of a former Greek city called Byzantion (a colony of Megara, if I am not mistaken) placed in Bosporus, the narrow sea crossing between Aegean and the Black Sea. The Eastern Roman Empire – unlike it’s Western counterpart – lasted for more than 1000 years and it represents a civilization known to us today as “Byzantine”, a name given to it by scholars later.
Of course, both the state and the inhabitants always called themselves Roman, as did most of their neighbors. Western Europeans having their own Roman Empire (reincarnated later into the Holy Roman Empire) called them Orientals or Greeks, and even later Byzantines (a French scholar, which name right now slips my mind, is responsible for the name).
Byzantion (or Byzantium) was actually – up and until the seventh century, at least – a continuation of the Roman State, preserving also the basic structures (as in demography, culture, state and otherwise) of Rome.
We could say that it was a large multi-ethnic Christian state, based on a network of urban centers, connected by adequate roads and defended by a mobile specialized army (in the tradition of the Roman Legions). But that could not go on for ever, as the Roman state had lost it’s expansionist status (the greatest strength of Rome at it’s peak) and – with some exceptions, as the Justinian period – it tried just to preserve what it had. That wasn’t easy either.
After the Arab/Muslim conquest of Egypt and Syria, the nature of the state and culture was transformed. Byzantium became much more a Greek state [perhaps best seen in the emperor Heraklios' adoption of the Greek title Basileus, meaning King], all the cities except Constantinople faded away to small fortified centers, and the military organization of the empire came to be based on a series of local armies. There is then a persistent ambiguity about the beginning of Byzantine history - between the building of Constantinople by Constantine I and the mid-7th century collapse of late antique urban culture.
The seventh to ninth centuries are generally accounted a low point of Byzantine history. Little literature survives, and even less art. The period is studied above all for the history of the struggle over icons. This Iconoclastic Controversy bears witness to a continued intellectual vitality, and the emergence of one of history's most sophisticated analyzes of the nature and function of art. Constant warfare, especially against the Bulgars and the other Altaic tribes that moved west, kept the empire busy. Also the Arabs considered a constant threat and most emperors have had to go into war with them to preserve the unity of the empire.
Under the Macedonian Dynasty [867-1056], Byzantium's political power reached its apogee as former territories were incorporated in the Empire, and an element of multi-ethnicity was restored. This period is also significant as the time in which Byzantine culture was spread among the Slavs and other Balkan peoples.
Following massive Turkish attacks in the late eleventh century, the Empire was able to maintain a lesser but still significant political and military power under the Komnenian Dynasty: the cost was a social transformation which exalted a powerful military aristocracy, and gradually enserfed the previously free peasantry. In 1204, internal Byzantine politics and the resurgent West, effectively ended the imperial pretensions of the Byzantine state. The Fourth Crusade succeeded in conquering Constantinople and making it a Latin principality for half a century. The rest of the empire was split up between the leaders of the Crusade.
The Greek political leadership, under the Palaiologan Dynasty regained Constantinople in 1261, but the "empire" was just one state among many in the area for the final 200 years of its existence. Strangely, this period was among the most culturally productive, in art, in theology, and in literature.
What was the Byzantine civilization? A few words by Paul Halsal (distinguished byzantinologist) say much more than I possibly could:
quote:
Byzantine civilization constitutes a major world culture. Because of its unique position as the medieval continuation of the Roman State, it has tended to be dismissed by classicists and ignored by Western medievalists. Its internal elite culture was archaicizing and perhaps pessimistic. But we should not be deceived. As the centrally located culture, and by far the most stable state, of the Medieval period, Byzantium is of major interest both in itself, and because the development and late history of Western European, Slavic and Islamic cultures are not comprehensible without taking it into consideration. While few would claim elevated status for much Byzantine literature [although its historiographical tradition is matched only by China's], in its art and architecture, Byzantine culture was genuinely, and despite itself, innovative and capable of producing works of great beauty. As an area of study, as I have tried to indicate here, Byzantine studies is complex, full of conflict, and still open to new questions and methods. |
Last edited by Ubik on 14-10-2001 at 20:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
Ribannah,
Yes, I agree there were aspects about the Slave trade and the Basque situation that are quite unique and worth mentioning but the same can be said for FE the role of Spain in the Napoleontic era and the industrialization of Spain, yet noone mentioned these topics so far. As pointed by us and others both earlier, the summaries are already long enough as they are and they are by no means intended to be complete.
El Awrence,
So you argue that if a Spanish city did not pay taxes directly to the Spanish king or was not part of what is generally referred to as the Spanish 'homeland' it is not part of the Spanish Empire or even the Spanish Civilization? In that case we might as well get rid of the Romans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Dutch, the Indians, the Arabs, etc, right now 'cause most of those civs weren't even a single state for most of the time, let alone did they have a common leader to pay taxes to, and many important cities of these civs were not located in their 'homeland'. How the details of the government system work does not determine whether people and cities belong to a certain civilization or not. If Buenos Aires and Veracruz and its inhabitants weren't Spanish, then what were they? Would you argue that the Viceroyalty of Peru(?) was a civilization in itself? It's true that Argentina and the other former European colonies could well be seen as independent civilizations today, but these civilizations only began to come into being from 1800 onwards. Before that they were just remote outposts of their mothercivilizition: even if they were already independent, the culture and background of the people were not distinctly different from those in their mothercountry. What it all boils down to is that these cities were once Spanish and they were by far more important in Spanish history than FE Montefrio or El Campello (examples of 'cities' that I saw on some other, IMHO gravely flawed, Spanish city list).
Jdd2007,
I humbly apologize for the grave error of misspelling your name and beg for your mercy, I could never forgive myself but do you, in your humble greatness, think you could ever get it over your heart to forgive me, oh great master?  
On the Buenos Aires point, I guess I must somehow be misinterpreting the remark "i definitely agree with this point", I apologize for that too...
Ubik,
Ehm, I had just agreed with Alexander01 to not have more than 2 civs per thread as it would get too confusing... Oh well, since noone seems to have any comments on the Mongols and since you already posted a complete summary on them, I guess it's okay to keep them here (though if you want to devote a new thread to them that's quite okay with me as well). I briefly looked over it and it looks very good so far, I will have some more elaborate comments at a later time.
All,
We pretty much seem to have worked out the format: my original format + suggestions for great leaders & wonders and optionally a 'strategy' section (I will shortly update the Mongols and Spanish to reflect this, suggestions from our Spanish experts would be most welcome). If anyone still has objections, I'm all ears (better late then never) but for now I'm assuming it stands. As far as I'm concerned, others can start posting summaries for other civs as well whenever they're ready. Since there are only a few volunteers at the moment I guess it's not really necessary to coordinate who posts what when (unless people feel this is necessary). For clarity reasons I think it might be useful if new threads on this subject all have the title "Expansion Pack Civs Explained:" plus the name(s) of the civ(s) that are to be discussed in that thread. If any other people want to volunteer, please post in this thread for which civs, that way we can prevent that people start doing double work. As it currently stands, the following people been 'assigned' to these civs:
Ubik: Byzantines
Wernazuma: Maya, Inca
Jdd2007: Hebrew (or at least 'do some research')
Locutus: Dutch (unless Alexander01 or someone else wants them)
(Let me know if I forgot anyone.)
This means the following civs from the current top 16 are still 'available' (if anyone wants to do a non top 16 civ, that's fine with me but for now they have a lower priority):
- Arabs
- Vikings
- Turks
- Phoenicians (I already have a city list)
- Celts
- Poles (useful source: LoD's thread)
- Portuguese
- Ethiopians (I already have a (partial) city list)
- Koreans (useful source: Yin's thread)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solmyr
|
|
Ubik: Damn you, I was going to write a long rant for inclusion of the Byzantines and their description, but you beat me to it 
Just some additional comments on your writeup, then.
Leader: I would suggest a later one, because both Constantine and Justinian are more "Roman" than later great Emperors, and we don't want this civ to be dismissed as "part of Romans" My suggestions would be Heraclius, Basil II, or Alexios Komnenos.
Cities: I would remove Damascus as it seems to have more Arabic/Islamic characteristics.
Some more cities: Smyrna, Mistra, Patras, Dimitrias, Mesembria, Amasia, Amorion, Doryleion, Ragusa, Sebastea, Seleucia, Tarsus, Attalia, Abydos, Negropontos, Ioannina, Scutari, Ochrida, Dorostolon, Naissus, Sirmium, Melitene, Samosata, Soldadia, Cherson, Sevastopolis, Mosynopolis, Serres, Anazarbus (I could go on forever)
Civ Special Abilities: Religious and Commercial
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2001 20:11
|