26-11-2001 01:30									#1
	General criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Instead of seeing everybody debating of the eligibility of each civ, I propose some criterions applyable to any case:

1- An elaborated culture

Definition of "elaborated culture": A culture of hunter/gatherer that every culture started with isn't elaborated. Elaborated is that the culture has its own ways of explaining things, own theology, its way of doing things.

2- A distinct culture

Definition of "distinct culture": Even if they both made a different kingdom that was very powerful (or not, doesn't bother me), they may have the same culture and in fact both be japanese, or chinese or else. It's simply that a civilisation may have schisms or many parts. Also, a culture that can be covered by annother because she is a simple branch of this other, a division, is in fact part of that other. Of course, each civ is in fact a branch of some original human group, but they need to have taken a different path. This is why there are many European civs: many took different paths due to some envrionmental, cultural arrivals and other reasons.



So these are, I think, the reasons. All the rest comes from these two factors. You like Vikings because of their specific way of doing? Well it's because they are specific, have a distinct culture. You think a civ is great by their wars? Well their wars were maybe something coming from their elaborated way of administrating their people, their strenghts (+ they were specific or they should be included elsewhere).

I think that the "distinctive" factor should be looked at for Koreans, Polls, Khmers, Vikings, and many others. Not all are distinctive, even if they are waging wars against the civ from which their branch is coming. As Babylonians that covers some other more minor generally about-similar civs.

I think that the "elaborated" factor could be looked at with civs such as Polynesians, all Iroquois and Native Americans, all Zulus and Africans (should they be all-in-one?). In fact, elaboration is what makes that a civilisation gradually distinguish as a branch. If it doesn't elaborate enough, it wont distinguish. And it wont become a great culture by itself since only elaboration may achieve greatness, should it be as Japan, China, Greek or other.



In fact, a not elaborated enough civ is simply a seed with no flower design yet. As all civs may start the same way. So if it didn't developed any specific culture yet: it's simply a bunch of humans with too little complex organization. And if it didn't elaborated enough from a mother-civilisation, it's stil part of that mother-civilisation, a branch of it.

Last edited by Trifna on 26-11-2001 at 01:45

	26-11-2001 01:47									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Forgot: anyone has any comments on the criterions? Someone thinks I'm wrong? Any comments accepted AND wanted

	26-11-2001 01:54									#3
	Suffering from ads?

As posted in another thread, to me the key criteria is "Built cities or ruled (for a significant period) cities they conquered from somebody else". No cities, no "civilization" - any such groups should simply be added to the list of Barbarian tribes in the editor. Certain cultures already included should be purged on that basis to make room for more true civilizations.

	26-11-2001 02:16									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Because an organized group of humans that didn't made war wouldn't be a civilisation?

We see things by pushing an hypothesis to its limit, so let's try it:

Let's say we have... extraterrestrial that are very pacific. They are ultra-organized, telepathic, with a complex hierarchical and social system, and are for the rest in all as humans except they are technologically a lot more advanced and are dog-shaped ( ). They have all the litterature you can imagine, should it be philosophical or else. They are a single civilisation that isn't coming from any other civilisation since the entire 130-IQ-dog species is on a single ship and they never have been culturally separated for DNA reasons that make them similar one to each other.

Would they be called a civilisation if they didn't EVER made any war, escaping from it constantly? I think yes.

1- Its culture is elaborated
2- Its culture is distinctive

Of course, a culture that takes over others may be the demonstration of its elaborateness, having a complex structure permitting organized attacks on someone with a specific goal in favor of the civilisation. And of course, an attack may show a certain distinction between the two enemies (that may or may not be important enough to considerate them as two distinct civilisations).


PS: I like pushing hypothesis to extremes

	26-11-2001 08:58									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

how elaborate is elaborate? how distinctive is distinctive?

all these are subjective.

I think that the Koreans are really distinctive enough from Chinese or Japanese. Perhaps you don't. I don't think that the Byzantines are distinctive enough from Romans or Greeks. Some people do.

I think that the Zulu are elaborate enough. You don't. I don't think that the (say) Aleut are elaborate enough, a lot of people do. (and just a sidetrack: whaddaya mean that no Native Americans are elaborate? what about the mayans and incans?)

You see, trifna, everyone accepts and uses your definitions. The problem isn't that people don't understand 'elaborate' or 'distinctive', it's that they have different yardsticks for measuring it.

in order to come up with a definitive yardstick for 'elaborate' for example, we need specific factors, like 'city building' or 'agriculture'. i don't know about a yardstick for 'distinctive' however, and no one does. that's why there're so many byzantine-vs-greek and arab-vs-babylonian and mongol-vs-turk arguments all over the place.

	26-11-2001 10:33									#6
	Support Apolyton

Not everyone thinks all this using culture. Many are looking at it as "which civ got the biggest military", "which had the biggest territory" and other physical things as such.

And about the measurement of "distincitve" and "elaborated", well the more general we want our civs to be, the more distinctive and elaborated we will want to give to our acceptance. After this, discussions are needed to see what civ had which culture, and etc. Then, it would only be a matter of knowledge and evaluating. Measuring.

quote: (and just a sidetrack: whaddaya mean that no Native Americans are elaborate? what about the mayans and incans?)

It was only some exemples of places where the factor was concerned.

	26-11-2001 16:54									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Trifna:

I have to repeat ranskaldan's questions:

quote: how elaborate is elaborate? how distinctive is distinctive?

Can try to analize current CIV III civilizations under your criteria?

For instance:
How distinctive is the American civilization from the English?

In other posts you seem to have difficulty in understanding that
two countries, who don't even speak the same language have distinct cultures. How can you distinct two countries that share the same language, when one of them is an ex-colony of the other, and when many times people join them in what is called the anglo-saxon way to do business, to handle the economy, to face military questions, etc. ?

Not that I'm saying that the American Civilization has not an historical ground to appear in CIV. After all, they were a Republic from day one. But other than that, what makes them diferent from, say, Canadá or the United Kingdom?

	26-11-2001 18:48									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Not everyone thinks all this using culture. Many are looking at it as "which civ got the biggest military", "which had the biggest territory" and other physical things as such.

City dwelling IS a cultural matter. It has nothing to do with violence, military or amount of territory controlled. It is a matter of a way of life - a way of life which provides a high concentration of specialists. A culture built around cities is a civilization. A culture which has no cities is not. There is lots of room for debating what cultures among those meeting that definition are distinctive enough to be represented seperately in the game, but cultures which fail to meet it only belong on the barbarian tribe list.

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Not that I'm saying that the American Civilization has not an historical ground to appear in CIV. After all, they were a Republic from day one. But other than that, what makes them diferent from, say, Canadá or the United Kingdom?

You get a distorted picture if you start the Americans in 4000 BC, and you also get a distorted picture if the English colonize half the world but America in the 20th Century is impossible. Either one is a compromise. In an ideal Civ3, we'd have an event scripting system which would allow the creation of America out of English territory via a Civ2-style "civil war" under certain conditions. As a start, I'd say the English would need to have at least two cities within an area of border, with the majority of the citizens in them English, and that area not on the same land-mass as the English capital, and England had discovered (not necessarily adopted) Democracy. If those conditions exist, there should be a random chance that those cities would break off and form America (and be renamed according to the American city list). Of course, this would require Firaxis to program scripting support of such sophistication.

	27-11-2001 00:34									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ecowiz Returns:

I know what you mean. I'm just determining the criterions on which should be decided that a civilization is in or out. I'm not talking about which difference we need, but only on WHAT we need a difference. I made this post to go against the criterions such as "this civ is great because it did this, this, this..." and "she was great because here's its history that is very complete and elaborated:...".

	27-11-2001 00:38									#10
	Put an end to popups!

Barnacle Bill:

Cities are a secondary character on which we can try to look if a civilization could be there, but it isn't the criterion by itself and more a consequence of the civilization. A highly organized group will quite possibly build cities (except if environment doesn't permit). But the cities are built because of a certain level of organization, and not opposit. Or then, why do you think cities would be built? Thus, cities aren't the the criterion itself to civilization but a secondary consequence. It's searching the egg and the chicken here.

	27-11-2001 04:16									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I made this post to go against the criterions such as "this civ is great because it did this, this, this..." and "she was great because here's its history that is very complete and elaborated:...".

what's wrong with 'this civ is great because it did this, this, this...'? The greater a civ was, the more reason there is to include it. Why do you think we have the Romans, Chinese, English and Russians in civ3, instead of the Slovenes, Evenki, Picts and Karelians? These civilizations aren't inferior in any way by themselves. They simply did less.

Thus both your criteria (distinct and elaborate) and the other one (great events and doings) should be considered when including civs.

	27-11-2001 04:56									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan what's wrong with 'this civ is great because it did this, this, this...'? The greater a civ was, the more reason there is to include it. Why do you think we have the Romans, Chinese, English and Russians in civ3, instead of the Slovenes, Evenki, Picts and Karelians? These civilizations aren't inferior in any way by themselves. They simply did less. Thus both your criteria (distinct and elaborate) and the other one (great events and doings) should be considered when including civs.

Because if a great civ is in fact a branch of another civ, then it should be imputed to the mother-civ and not the branch. they are the same, the branch and the mother. Like Carthage that is simply a continuing of Phoenicians. Or as Huns that some say is a group of Mongols (no idea if it is totally verified). Or as many great countries are in fact the continuing of annother culture, tey are the same. Byzantine is, for many (me included), simply the following of Roman empire.

	27-11-2001 05:44									#13
	Remove this text

Firstly, just to get this clear, the Huns aren't Mongols. I've seen too many cases of people getting the Turks, Huns, Mongols and Manchus mixed up.

Secondly, the Koreans most definitely aren't split-off Chinese.

Thirdly, ALL civs are continuations of other civilizations. the Americans are a split-off province of Britain. Britain is a split-off province of Rome. Rome itself is an offshoot of Greek culture. Greek culture has its roots in Mycenae and Crete.

So... we shouldn't include the Americans, British, Romans, and Greeks, right?

Just because a civilization is split off doesn't mean it should be disqualified. If it's just another political entity of the same race (like Byzantines), fine, but other than that (like Britain, Vikings, and even the USA, which you yourself consider a civilization), there's no reason to exclude them.

	27-11-2001 07:33									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan Firstly, just to get this clear, the Huns aren't Mongols. I've seen too many cases of people getting the Turks, Huns, Mongols and Manchus mixed up.

I dunno... I just said it as an exemple of what some were saying was all under "Mongols".

quote: Secondly, the Koreans most definitely aren't split-off Chinese. Thirdly, ALL civs are continuations of other civilizations. the Americans are a split-off province of Britain. Britain is a split-off province of Rome. Rome itself is an offshoot of Greek culture. Greek culture has its roots in Mycenae and Crete.

the are all continuations from annother civ? Sure. Here's come the factor "distinctive", which means it needs to have made itself distinctive at a certain degree from where it's coming. The degree needs to be discussed and it wasn't the subject of my post.


[/QUOTE]
So... we shouldn't include the Americans, British, Romans, and Greeks, right? [/QUOTE]

Could you quote me where I said this or soemthing close?! I said that when they were not distinctive enough, I was disqualifying them. I didn't even talked about at which degree they needed to be distinctive. If you think they need to be even more distinctive than British are to Americans, fine, but it's not my point here.

quote: Just because a civilization is split off doesn't mean it should be disqualified. If it's just another political entity of the same race (like Byzantines), fine, but other than that (like Britain, Vikings, and even the USA, which you yourself consider a civilization), there's no reason to exclude them.

They need to be distinctive enough. Should we, instead of Arabs, put all kind of Arabs because that they have an enough degree of distinction? But we have to apply the same degree of distinction everywhere, to every civ. Accepting to divide Arab in 6 sorts and putting all Asiatics under "China" would be silly for exemple, since it isn't the samedegree that is applyed.

	27-11-2001 21:18									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Barnacle Bill: Cities are a secondary character on which we can try to look if a civilization could be there, but it isn't the criterion by itself and more a consequence of the civilization. A highly organized group will quite possibly build cities (except if environment doesn't permit). But the cities are built because of a certain level of organization, and not opposit. Or then, why do you think cities would be built? Thus, cities aren't the the criterion itself to civilization but a secondary consequence. It's searching the egg and the chicken here.

The chicken & egg thing doesn't matter - if it doesn't reproduce via eggs, it ain't poultry. It doesn't matter whether cities "civilize" a society or whether a society which is "civilized" builds cities as consequence of being "civilized". What matters is that a "civilization" is a society which possesses cities (however it acquired them). Societies which never did in history build cities (or conquer & rule somebody else's) do not qualify to be considered as civilizations. How culturally distinctive, noble, peaceful, warlike, colonialist, enlightened, or whatever are things to depate about which CIVILIZATIONS to include. If there were never any cities, though, then there was never any civilization to include.

	27-11-2001 22:01									#16
	Got spare money?

quote: What matters is that a "civilization" is a society which possesses cities (however it acquired them). Societies which never did in history build cities (or conquer & rule somebody else's) do not qualify to be considered as civilizations.

Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones).

Directly to the threads question:
In my opinion, some criteria are important:

One - did this recognizable group of people (be it Cultural Group, Ethnic Group, Country... whatever) leave a mark in the Human History that had a general efect in all Humanity or in the turn of events that made World Hystory?

For instance: Greeks (Democracy), Romans (Roman Law), Chinese (Tipography,Confucionism,Budism) , French (French Revolution), Babillons (Writing - one of the first), Egiptians (Medicine)... Portuguese (Navigation Advances), Americans (so many reasons...) ...

Two - did this group of people once ruled over a relatively big territory?

For instance: Chinese, Mongols, Greeks(Macedonians), Romans, Persians, Aztecs/Incas, Zulu, English, Spanish, Portuguese...

Three - did this group of people have made important, still registred contact with other civilizations, marking their Hystory?

For instance: Japan and Germany (for the wrong reasons), Spanish, English, Portuguese, Dutch (all colonial empires, actually)

Four - Would it be fun to play with them (the "What if Scennario")?

I believe every group of people one would like to be the leader of and try to rewrite World Hystory with and "see" what would happen is a good one.
That is why we must have all WWII major countries. That's also the only reason I understand (with much effort, tough) the presence of the Iroquois (or other noth-american native nation, for that mater).
That's also why they leave you the oportunity to custom your Civilization in Civ and CIV II.
That's why I play with the Portuguese almost everytime!

	27-11-2001 22:52									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones).

Actually, that would be ideal if the game program was sophisticated enough to support it. See Europa Universalis, or better yet EU2. However, with a limit of 16 civs (or maybe 32 after the editor patch, according to the guys poking around in the .bic structure), there is absolutely no room for cultures which never had cities during their entire independent political existence. I would also exclude those who reacquired political independence as part of the post-WWII decolonialism and inhereted cities built by their former colonial masters, but never had any cities during their pre-colonial independence. Of course, all decolonized nations don't fall in that category, but much of sub-Saharan Africa does.

	27-11-2001 22:59									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Barnacle Bill The chicken & egg thing doesn't matter - if it doesn't reproduce via eggs, it ain't poultry. It doesn't matter whether cities "civilize" a society or whether a society which is "civilized" builds cities as consequence of being "civilized". What matters is that a "civilization" is a society which possesses cities (however it acquired them). Societies which never did in history build cities (or conquer & rule somebody else's) do not qualify to be considered as civilizations. How culturally distinctive, noble, peaceful, warlike, colonialist, enlightened, or whatever are things to depate about which CIVILIZATIONS to include. If there were never any cities, though, then there was never any civilization to include.

Boy! But this is dogmatic! Why do civ need cities to be civ? Because they wouldn't if they wouldn't have cities!!! Give me an argument, or I'll constanbtly say the same thing. Go read my exemple using the extremes of alien-doggies and try to say me what goes against it. Maybe I'll see your argument that way...

	28-11-2001 00:59									#19
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Why do civ need cities to be civ?

The key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, speaking for the situation here on earth (I'm afraid I don't understand your space-canines argument), such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself.

Now, one can insert here the point that agricultural surplus can of course be obtained by conquest or enslavement, and that cities need not be permanent: felt tents can suffice as well as stone. So the Mongols are doubtless in (there are excellent historical accounts of their cities), while Australian aborigines are not (mere hunter-gatherers).

Your concept of "elaborated culture" is insufficient by itself, without rooting it in some kind of economic definition, to do the job you have set for it. I think, though, that you are probably hinting at something like the division of labor. But how much of a division would suffice?

It is interesting to note that all the first true civilizations - those in the Near-East, at Mohenjo Daro and in China - all involved irrigated agriculture. That is to say, centralized control (eg the central granaries of Mohenjo Daro) grew out the need to develop and maintain the irrigation projects and also to distribute the production of those projects, a very significant division of labor indeed.

	28-11-2001 05:25									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by pumph The key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, speaking for the situation here on earth (I'm afraid I don't understand your space-canines argument), such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself. Now, one can insert here the point that agricultural surplus can of course be obtained by conquest or enslavement, and that cities need not be permanent: felt tents can suffice as well as stone. So the Mongols are doubtless in (there are excellent historical accounts of their cities), while Australian aborigines are not (mere hunter-gatherers). Your concept of "elaborated culture" is insufficient by itself, without rooting it in some kind of economic definition, to do the job you have set for it. I think, though, that you are probably hinting at something like the division of labor. But how much of a division would suffice? It is interesting to note that all the first true civilizations - those in the Near-East, at Mohenjo Daro and in China - all involved irrigated agriculture. That is to say, centralized control (eg the central granaries of Mohenjo Daro) grew out the need to develop and maintain the irrigation projects and also to distribute the production of those projects, a very significant division of labor indeed.

I know this

	28-11-2001 05:27									#21
	Got spare money?

[why did that post posted itself??? ]

I know this, but I was saying that it isn't the fact that there were some cities itself that was making that there was a civ, but that there was an elaborated enough culture distinct from others. Cities are a secundary exterior factor to the definition of "civilization".

	28-11-2001 05:53									#22
	Put an end to popups!

It seems always to be the fate of the nomadic/semi-nomadic cultures to be traduced by the city dwellers; out go the Mongols, Maasai, and so forth, in favour of the civilizations/cultures that most resemble ourselves....

http://csen.org/

www.nationalgeographic.com/features...ghis/index.html

www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/09/cov_27feature.html

www.gonomad.com/happenings/0009/douzfest.html

www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ANCINDIA/ARYANS.HTM

www.alaskaone.com/welcome/cultures.htm

	28-11-2001 19:14									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Trifna Boy! But this is dogmatic! Why do civ need cities to be civ? Because they wouldn't if they wouldn't have cities!!! Give me an argument, or I'll constanbtly say the same thing. Go read my exemple using the extremes of alien-doggies and try to say me what goes against it. Maybe I'll see your argument that way...

That your alien-doggies are total peaceful is irrelevant. That they are totally different is irrelevant. If they built cities, peacefully, distinctively, they'd be a "civilization". If they didn't build cities, no matter how peaceful or distinctive, they would not be a "civilization", just peaceful & distinctive barbarians. Don't get hung up on the word "barbarian" - it doesn't necessarily mean violent or ignorant, just that their culture for whatever reason doesn't/didn't have cities.

Look, I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more. Civ(1-3) is a game of managing cities. However YOU want to define the word "civilization", the game(s) models a "civilization" as a collection of cities. Therefore, whether or not you like the idea of making city-dwelling a requirement for the title "civilization" in general historical discussions, it is utterly impossible to model any society that has no cities as a civilization in Civ1-3. If you put them in the game as a civilization, they will have cities in the game. If they didn't have cities in real life, then you haven't modelled them very well, have you? If you want "no city civs" to be possible, lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4.

	28-11-2001 21:12									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Barnacle Bill That your alien-doggies are total peaceful is irrelevant. That they are totally different is irrelevant. If they built cities, peacefully, distinctively, they'd be a "civilization". If they didn't build cities, no matter how peaceful or distinctive, they would not be a "civilization", just peaceful & distinctive barbarians. Don't get hung up on the word "barbarian" - it doesn't necessarily mean violent or ignorant, just that their culture for whatever reason doesn't/didn't have cities. Look, I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more. Civ(1-3) is a game of managing cities. However YOU want to define the word "civilization", the game(s) models a "civilization" as a collection of cities. Therefore, whether or not you like the idea of making city-dwelling a requirement for the title "civilization" in general historical discussions, it is utterly impossible to model any society that has no cities as a civilization in Civ1-3. If you put them in the game as a civilization, they will have cities in the game. If they didn't have cities in real life, then you haven't modelled them very well, have you? If you want "no city civs" to be possible, lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4.

Would have been nice that you would be able to not put such as "lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4", "However YOU want to define the word "civilization" or "I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more". Sure, go with irrational comments somewhere else when someone doesn't have the same opinion... I don't espescially like that 3/4 of assertions don't have an argument and that i have to guess them for the other...

	29-11-2001 14:58									#25
	Tired of ads?

I, for one, clearly understood Bill's comment: if it doesn't have cities, you can't use it to play Civilization III (or I, or II, for what that matters).

Bill put it in a clear reason why having cities is an indispensible condition for a Civilization to appear in Civ III: all Civilization Games require you to manage cities! The only "Civilization" in the game that do not require cities are the Barbarian (and even they conquer cities, in the game).

Trifna's dog-like civilization could be a "Barbarian-like" (meaning, without the capability to buid cities) technologically and cultularly evolved civilization, but not one we could play with. Maybe one should be able to customize the Barbarian tribes, giving them other names (certainly not "dog-like Civ" ) and some degree of technological development and cultural power. It would be interesting to see one of my cities convert to the "dog like civilization side" though. (Of the topic: is it possible to loose a city to the Barbarians due to cultural reasons?)

So, I believe Bill's answer, though not what Trifna might have expected, is a clear, direct, practical answer. Due to Civ's gameplay, an eligble civilization must have cities.

By the way, what do you think of the criteria I proposed?

	29-11-2001 22:51									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns I, for one, clearly understood Bill's comment: if it doesn't have cities, you can't use it to play Civilization III (or I, or II, for what that matters). Bill put it in a clear reason why having cities is an indispensible condition for a Civilization to appear in Civ III: all Civilization Games require you to manage cities! The only "Civilization" in the game that do not require cities are the Barbarian (and even they conquer cities, in the game). Trifna's dog-like civilization could be a "Barbarian-like" (meaning, without the capability to buid cities) technologically and cultularly evolved civilization, but not one we could play with. Maybe one should be able to customize the Barbarian tribes, giving them other names (certainly not "dog-like Civ" ) and some degree of technological development and cultural power. It would be interesting to see one of my cities convert to the "dog like civilization side" though. (Of the topic: is it possible to loose a city to the Barbarians due to cultural reasons?) So, I believe Bill's answer, though not what Trifna might have expected, is a clear, direct, practical answer. Due to Civ's gameplay, an eligble civilization must have cities. By the way, what do you think of the criteria I proposed?

Yes, maybe it was Bill's thought... If it's the case, then, I guess that the idea from the list to incorporate the possibility of nomadic civilization could (if it is possible to implement...) be the best way. But if not, well we have to stay within the restrictions of Civ III, beeing obliged to suppose that civilizations one day would nevermind build cities. It's like these other Civ paradoxes that cause problem, such as civs that all start at 3000 BC and stay til end. I guess a better system could be managed (don't ask me how, I'm not Nostradamus), but you're stil obliged to make "as if" til then. We're working into a structure (Civ III), thus limits when we incorporate reality/realism in it. And about the dog-like civ, I propose they have "Bull-dog" as UU

quote: Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones). Directly to the threads question: In my opinion, some criteria are important: One - did this recognizable group of people (be it Cultural Group, Ethnic Group, Country... whatever) leave a mark in the Human History that had a general efect in all Humanity or in the turn of events that made World Hystory? For instance: Greeks (Democracy), Romans (Roman Law), Chinese (Tipography,Confucionism,Budism) , French (French Revolution), Babillons (Writing - one of the first), Egiptians (Medicine)... Portuguese (Navigation Advances), Americans (so many reasons...) ... Two - did this group of people once ruled over a relatively big territory? For instance: Chinese, Mongols, Greeks(Macedonians), Romans, Persians, Aztecs/Incas, Zulu, English, Spanish, Portuguese... Three - did this group of people have made important, still registred contact with other civilizations, marking their Hystory? For instance: Japan and Germany (for the wrong reasons), Spanish, English, Portuguese, Dutch (all colonial empires, actually) Four - Would it be fun to play with them (the "What if Scennario")? I believe every group of people one would like to be the leader of and try to rewrite World Hystory with and "see" what would happen is a good one. That is why we must have all WWII major countries. That's also the only reason I understand (with much effort, tough) the presence of the Iroquois (or other noth-american native nation, for that mater). That's also why they leave you the oportunity to custom your Civilization in Civ and CIV II. That's why I play with the Portuguese almost everytime!

About these creterias:
I have to say it makes me think
But I'd say that it's a little like in SMAC: you have different ideology and one wins by taking over others. Here, it is cultures. With my criterias, all cultures that are of the same ideology (more or less, since not a single country is the same) are classed under the same banner. Byzantines AND Romans made great things, but they are both Romans. So Romans made even more great things under their branch called "Byzantines". Of course, in History, some ideology made more than some others. China's way of thinking took more place culturally speaking than Iroquoi's or else. So Civ becomes a war against ideologic factions. The German way of thinking, the French's, the China's, Japan... Like Rome that extended around all Mediterranea.

So when I apply on your criterias which forms many civs, I may regroup some of your civ because considered of similar culture, thus under the same banner (civ). They are the same. There isn't 300 general ways of thinking, and that's why there isn't 300 civs even if there's 300 countries. And when I play a civ that didn't made as much as others, I just say to myself that under certain condition, she may have made more and expanded (like Sioux in Civ II). And about civs there for fun, well I bless the... editor... well... what it may be someday... I know some people that played as Quebec or other. I'll play as Dog-likes

Did I answered well? I'm sleepy today, so just say where I didn't if so hehe

	29-11-2001 23:05									#27
	Re: General criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Trifna [...] I think that the "distinctive" factor should be looked at for Koreans, Polls, Khmers, Vikings, [...]

Hmm... intriguing name, Polls. Never heard of them. Could you enlighten me in this matter?

Perhaps they have invented polls?

	30-11-2001 09:06									#28
	Re: Re: General criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by LoD Hmm... intriguing name, Polls. Never heard of them. Could you enlighten me in this matter? Perhaps they have invented polls?

Well the guys coming from Poland as you may have guessed... English isn't my primary language, so you'll excuse me.
Let me look in my French-English dictionary... Pole!

Now we're all happy as turkeys and I hope you'll have a nice xmas!!!