 |
| |
|
|
Arator
|
|
As of now, here's the 18 nations RON will include along with my amendations. My explanations follow.
From Europe (7):
British
French
Spanish
German
Russian
Roman
Greek
From Asia (5):
Turk
Mongol
Chinese
Korean<---Indian
Japanese
From Africa (3):
Egyptian
Nubian
Bantu
From the Americas (3):
Aztec
Mayan<---American
Incan
I think they are for the most part excellent choices, but for two.
Why are the Koreans included but the Indians left out? Along with China, India is one of the two most populous nations on earth. By that measure alone, it is a far more significant world civilization than Korea. As only the most significant nations should be included in the first 18, I would replace the Koreans with the Indians.
IMO, ancient American civilizations are sufficiently represented by the inclusion of the Aztecs and the Incas. The Mayans are superfluous and add little, especially given their mysterious and relative little known history. Why not replace them with Americans, a far more significant world civilization?
What do ya think?
Last edited by Arator on 09-06-2002 at 04:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
I agree that Indian should have been switched with Korean. Come on, Indus River Civilization was one of the first. The advancements in that continent were huge at first. Amazing them and the Persians were left off. But I am sure some of that was that certain units were needed and so that fueled choices. And maybe Yin was able to push hard enough for Korea for Civ3 that Brian took notice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chilliwilli
|
|
Well I agree with the above posters and have some suggestions of my own. I agree that Koreans should get the axe they are arguebly one of the most innovative civilizations militarily speaking ever, but have not done many great things in history since they were so occupied with surviving since there was always the threat of China, Japan, and The Mongol hoards nearby. I do think India is a good idea, but I also think an interesting Civilization to include in The Asian group would be the Phonecians. They were a very important people in ancient times creating a trading empire that spanned the entire Mediteranean Sea and used surpreme navigational skills to be the first Civilization to ventrue past the Straits of Gebralter (I butchered that word hehe) and some agree they sailed all the way to The southern tip of Africa! And of course lets not forget about Carthage wich they founded.
I agree with the choice of the Mayans and much more is known about their people now than say 5 years ago. Historians and archaeologists now know of their customs, traditions, names of cities, and even some of the names of their rulers. Its also known that they were more than just peaceful scientists it has been comfirmed that they were just as brutal during war time as any other culture taking enslaved prisoners of war and showing no mercy on the battle field, so I think they should stay. As for the Americans I'm fine with them not being implemented. Yes, I am American, but I don't think we are really such a unique culture many will agree with me that we are the world's melting pot and besides we are technically represented in the game with the inclusion of Britian.
The only real objection I have is the inclusion of Bantu considering they are not all that important, but I do understand that you should try to include civs form each region of the world, so everyone is equally represented, so no big deal there. I would have liked to see The Huns included, but even though there is enough information on them it would be very dificult to find the bulk of it and the time that would be wasted is better put into actually developing the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
India is annuled, because it only became a nation in the mid-20th century, after the Brits had united it and left. before then it was mostly small collections of tribes, or allied regions. No formal nationality was in place, it was more a cultural thing. |
Hmmm, the same can be said of Germany: about 50 kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, and city-states until 1870. Most of India was united under Asoka (Sythian, IIRC), and then under the Mogul Emperors (eg, the builder of the Taj Mahal). The area of direct rule was far larger than ever ruled by Germany. Britain controlled very little of India until the 19th century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
I think it's a great loss that the Indians aren't in, they deserve to be in any list of great civs. There has been a number of major Indian civilizations: Harappans (Indus Valley Civ), Mauryans (Asoka), Guptas ('colonization' of SE Asia), Vijayanagars (Hindu stronghold resisting Muslim invasions for centuries), Moghuls (Babur, Taj Mahal), modern Indians. 18 Civs is far from enough to cover world history, but when limited to 18, I would indeed have preferred Indians over Koreans.
But also, I would have chosen either the Arabs or the Persians over either the Turks or the Mongols, as those two last are very similar, the Turks are basically a West-Asian/European offshoot of the Mongols (that's grossly oversimplifying things, but they *are* very similar). And that's coming from a big Mongol & Turk admirer...
I'm not too sure about Bantu either. I used to be a big Bantu-advocate (as replacement for the Zulus in the Civ series), but lately I've grown to realize that they're basically just a language group, not a civilization (it's a bit like having a Semitic civ, which includes Arabs, Jews, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc). Malians, Ethiopians, Zimbabweans, Beninians, Congolese, even Swahili would IMHO all have been better choices for an African civ, but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind Bantu. I'm already very glad that 3 African civs were picked (and that the Zulus are NOT in there), not many other games out there with such a high number...
The absense of the Phoenicians is a pity, they deserve to be in, but I have no idea what civ would have to be left out in that case...
Overall, I think the list of civs is very acceptable (plenty of room for new civs in a possible expension pack too) but I'm glad CtP allows you to have up to 63 Civs 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
One_Dead_Villy
|
 |
Toronto, Canada
May 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Yes I agree with you Locutus for the most part.
I am a big India advocate, and dont forget the Kushan Empire in the area during the 2nd century AD.
In regards the Mongols and turk connection, they certainly are very linked, afterall on their conquest the mongols recruited large numbers of turkish tribes along the way which essentially had a very similar lifestyle as the mongols at the time. It is only with the establishment of the Ottoman empire that Turks developed in their unique way. They also arent even the same peoples as the original inhabitants, the Hittites, at least not the Turkish/Ottoman "empire" itself.
As far as Africa, I am also disappointed that the Pheonicians or in fact Carthage isnt in there. I am not not so opposed to Bantu, but they besides being a langauge group also represent a geographic area. What I dont understand is why they have Nubians. What I think they should have done is to have one civ for each region of Africa, Egypt for the North East, Phoecians/Carthage or Maybe Malians for North Western Africa, and well I guess Bantu for Southern Africa. Would be better also if they have one for Central Africa also to cover some of those you mentioned.
>Overall, I think the list of civs is very acceptable (plenty
>of room for new civs in a possible expension pack too)
>but I'm glad CtP allows you to have up to 63 Civs
63 civs hehe now that would be wild..but they thing is they have to make graphics and unique units for each civ in RON. Now of course depending on how the civ editor in RON works we could still have our wishes for some of the left out civs, and at least tie us over for an expansion to flesh out civs that couldnt be adequately portrayed by the civ editor. Now that being said I hope the civs in the civ editor can be used in multiplayer and balanced for it.
Last edited by One_Dead_Villy on 03-07-2002 at 05:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Praetorian
|
|
Choosing a nation is choosing the nations enemies too, if you choose to put Britians in the game u have to put some nation that had conflict with it in the past like french and germans that was no big messeage just saying that so i can have an intro to this, the persians i think they should be here, considering they fought greeks and greeks are in the game, i think it be a smart thing to include another ancient civilization yes civilization notice the word nation not in there, i know persians were not a nation as BHG is looking for, but come on Persians had one of the largest empires, practically because they didn't fight too many hard nations to get it it was mostly sending armys in villages who had no army to defend, and other nations simply surrender to persian because of rumors that persian was strong, greeks defeated persians numerous times, if your going to include greeks there have to be persians, greek campaigns in the games or single player scenarios people might make would be much better if u make persian civ, so someone could make a Persian War campaign.
Carthage is another great idea yes it fell quite quickly wasn;t a nation for long but yet it make a great campaign for romans, a punic war campaign.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Praetorian
|
|
Oh and one did villie, phoenicians were middle easterns, and carthage was north africa by sicily.
And i agree with ya, i really wish there was carthage and persia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Praetorian
|
|
and whats ctp one dead villie u mention it
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carver
|
 |
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
I'm not too sure about Bantu either. I used to be a big Bantu-advocate (as replacement for the Zulus in the Civ series), but lately I've grown to realize that they're basically just a language group, not a civilization (it's a bit like having a Semitic civ, which includes Arabs, Jews, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc). Malians, Ethiopians, Zimbabweans, Beninians, Congolese, even Swahili would IMHO all have been better choices for an African civ, but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind Bantu. I'm already very glad that 3 African civs were picked (and that the Zulus are NOT in there), not many other games out there with such a high number...
|
Yes, that Bantu listing immeadiately made me raise an eyebrow. Bantu is a very large umbrella group that includes many very different peoples from sub-Saharan Africa. I would have preffered Ghana, Mali, Ehtiopia or the Swahili. But Nubia was certainly a suprising and good choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Markus The Mighty
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Praetorian
[...]Persians had one of the largest empires, practically because they didn't fight too many hard nations to get it it was mostly sending armys in villages who had no army to defend, and other nations simply surrender to persian because of rumors that persian was strong, greeks defeated persians numerous times, if your going to include greeks there have to be persians, greek campaigns in the games or single player scenarios people might make would be much better if u make persian civ, so someone could make a Persian War campaign.
|
I think you underestimate the Persians a bit. They didn't build their empire on rumors, but on bloody, brutal conquest. The only reason they could hold it together was because they didn't insist on the destruction or deportation of their enemies (like, say, the Babylonians) and thus managed to unite the whole ancient Near East.
But you are right. They definately(sp?) should be in the game, at least as opponents to both Greek/Macedonians and the Egyptians.
And besides, the ancient Greek weren't a nation, too. They almost never were united in history until 19th cent. except when that unification was imposed by an outside force (like Macedonia).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Reynolds
|
 |
Baltimore, Maryland
May 2000
time: 05:20
|
|
Most of the alternate nations you name were on our "short list" and didn't make the cut.
Which of course doesn't mean they won't be back in the expansion pack...
One of the significant decisions we had to make in forming our list was to group nations into "regional groups" because given the size & quantity (and quality!) of the buildings and structures in our game, and given that any architectural style would need art that "changed through the ages", there was a limit to the number of architectural styles we could represent.
India is an example of a nation that has an architectural style extremely & obviously different from other major nations, so there wasn't a lot from there we would be able to "re use" for other nations in a group. But like I said, there's always the expansion pack.
Another reason we have 18 nations (as opposed to, say, 20, or 63--although 18 actually represents a stretch of two from the 16 we were supposed to have  ) is that each of our nations also has several special unique units (complete with full art and animation), along with in many cases "unique art" even for units that aren't unique. For example the units of African nations have dark skin--their Citizens, Musketeers, etc, have special art for this. Likewise, many Far East units have eastern style uniforms instead of European style.
Anyway, glad to hear you guys generally like the list!
Brian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:20
|
|
Brian Reynolds, will modern age/information age non-unique units also differ depending on country? For example, will in WW2 (modern age) planes carry symbols of air force (cross for germany, red star for Russia, etc.)? Also, will for exmple modern age units have different uniforms (like realistic uniforms of third reich for Germany, Soviet Union for Russia, etc)? And how about different units in the last (information age)?
I know this is probably untrue because it would be hard to implement (what air force symbol give to aztecs for example). However, from here comes the next question - will cities of different cultures still differ from each other in information age? Currently Tokyo, Frankfurt, New York, Dubai, etc. looks pretty much the same - everywhere lots of glass skyscrapers, etc.
And the last question about unique units - will they just change some other unit in the game (like Panzers changing tanks for example) or will they be absolutely unique, or will there be both types units? Some units, like kamikaze fighters (Japanese) were surely unused by any other nation and thus completely unique.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Can we untop this thread? It has not had any responses in the last 25 days, longer than any other post that is on my BHG front page. Thanks.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2002 23:44
)
|