 |
| |
|
|
Indignator
|
 |
Earth
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
-Spanish (European)
-Mongols (Asian)
I don't think there is much disagreement here.
-Incas (American)
How the Aztecs have always made it before the Incas will always astound me.
-Turks (Middle Eastern)
The importance of the Turks on Europe and the Middle East cannot be denied.
-Mali or Ethiopians (New African culture)
There needs to be at least one more African, non-Mediterranean civ.
-Polish, Ukrainians or Hungarians (European)
The level with which Eastern Europe is being ignored is not even funny. Hey, we got Russia, so the rest doesn't matter. Well, we got China and Japan, so why should we add Korea?
These should be included. The remaining two spots I'm not very solid about. Here are possibilities, with pros and cons.
-Koreans
Many people support this civ. I know nothing about Asian history, so I can't say how important the Koreans were in history.
-Arabs
The Arabs were a very important civilization in their time, wouldn't mind if they were included.
-Hebrew
I'm a little confused about this. At what time in history was the Hebrew civilization anything more than a small nation on the coast of the Mediterranean?
-Vikings
I would like to see the Vikings, just because I like them. However it would add yet another civ to the already full European culture.
-Carthage
Ugh, I don't know how this civ made it to Civ II. Sure it was an important city in ancient times, but why include it while there are so many much more interesting civs? On the other hand it would provide another Greco-Roman civ.
-Celts
Yay, another European civ. No, I think the Vikings and Eastern Europe are much better candidates. Besides, the English are already here, so if the Celts make it, so should the Scottish the Irish.
-Portuguese
I added them here, because just like the Eastern Europe, they too are ignored on a scandalous basis.
Well, these are my two cents. Tell me what you think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Iron Chancellor
|
|
It has more to do with simplicity and keeping it from being overwhelming like in the Call To Power games. No Offense to anyone of these nationalities, but do we really need a:
Nigerian
Nicaraguan
Brazilian
etc. etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indignator
Agree, but again, when were the Hebrews anything more than a small nation on the Mediterranean??? You make a valid point, but you didn't answer the quesion. |
hi ,
the fact that in the "old" days where involved with more then half the trade in the ancient world would do , ...
Small , yes and no , for those days average , with a big influence , ....
small , what is the definition of small , .....
the Iroquios where smaller , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Indignator
|
|
Earth
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
the fact that in the "old" days where involved with more then half the trade in the ancient world would do , ... |
I'll have to take your word for it, though that was probably true for only a selected period of time (several hundred years, as opposed to the thousands of years that compromise the ancient era)
quote:
Small , yes and no , for those days average , with a big influence , ....
small , what is the definition of small , .....
the Iroquios where smaller , ..... |
The Persian, Alexander's and Roman Empires were "big," though they came after the Hebrews' peak (I think). And also, the Iroquios are considered to represent all the Native North Americans - the real Iroquios had no horses (UU = mounted warrior).
In any case, it really comes down to a matter of personal preference. I'm just saying that I would rather see the Arabs and Vikings than the Hebrew.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JtheJackal
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indignator
-Incas (American)
How the Aztecs have always made it before the Incas will always astound me.
|
The Aztec's are a way more major civ than the Incan's ever were.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikhail
|
|
flesh.and.binary
Mar 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
No, I DON'T think the Celts should be included (at least, instead of the Gauls) because it's way too vauge. Celtic tribes, in many cases, were very different from each other. Including the celts would be like including a 'European' civ, or 'Asian' civ. Gauls are a better choice, though I'd much rather have Irish, personally. Even if they had less than an impact on the world, I think it would be more fun to play as them.
About the Hebrew: If you're basing their inclusion solely on their monotheist religion, remember that, while Christianity did grow out of Judaism (Islam grew out of it as well), It was Byzantium that's responsible for spreading Christianity throughout the western world. And yet, Byzantium isn't even up for discussion (and no, they're not the same as Rome. They kind of had 1000 years after the Roman Empire fell to develop their own culture)
As for trade and influence, yes, the Hebrews had that too. As did Byzantium and a dozen other civilizations not included.
But Indignator's right. It all comes down to personal preference. and if Firaxis were going to include 16 civs, then yes, they should be included. But there are several, IMO, more important civs to take up the few unconfirmed slots.
As for the Eastern Europe civ suggested, it ought to be Poland. the Ukraine is more or less included with Russia (Kiev is in the Russian city list as well, I believe. My Civ3 is so modded, I have no idea). But at least Eastern Europe HAS Russia. South East Asia has nothing. Thailand/Siam should take priority over any other European civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:20
|
|
Having a Celtic civ is no more of an abstract then having a Viking civ or an Iroquis "that represents all native Americans" civ. We should make sure that we use the same standards on everyone and not try to hold some to higher standards then others.
It light of this I can say, yes, we should have a Celtic civ and not a Gaulic civ. BTW Celts were one ethnic and linguistic group (though they did have two main subgroups) so it would NOT be like having an Asian or European civ.
Last edited by Oerdin on 20-06-2002 at 23:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mongoloid Cow
|
|
General Tacitus, the Babylonians conquered the ancient Jewish peoples a lot of times, enslaved them, burnt their cities to the ground, etc. They were far more powerful. Also the Babs represent the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Mittanis, Hittites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc.
All you care about is territory, the Aztecs were larger than present day Isreal though 
And Indignator was responding to your question where you said that the Japanese were little more than islands until WW2, suggesting that you think they are in ther game solely because of WW2.
Anyway, I want:
Mongols, Spanish, Malis, Incas, Koreans/Thais, Carthaginians, Ottomans and Vikings. I don't care if only two of these are in, as long as the Mongols are in which they are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lateralis
|
|
just wanted to jump in real quick on the hebrew thing. I've been lurking here for a while so please don't flame me for not getting it 
the current hebrew calendar tallies to the year 5 thousand 7 hundred and 60 something. It is an unbroken calendar that has been counting for almost 6000 years. the only other continuous calendar I know of that even comes close is some asian one which is over 4200 years long right now. why does this matter? although some would argue that hebrew (or jewish) is a religion and therefore not a civ, most religious scholars (that i've come across anyway) reffer to judaism as more than just a religion but as a culture, ethnicity, religion and civilization. THe fact that they haven't had land to call their own for their whole history is hardly a reason to disqualify one of the longest continuous and culturally influential peoples ever. the fact that all currently practiced western religion has it's roots in a culture that both pre-dated and currently post dates: the egytians, the greeks, the roman empire, the babylonians, the spanish inquistion, the third reich (sp?) and the USSR (all of whom tried to exterminate them at some point in history) should speak volumes about the strenth of the hebrews as a civ.
oh, and the whole israel thing: israel is tiny. it has half the land mass of ohio. it has also been in an almost constant state of war scince its inception in 1948. it also (although many don't know it) has the ability to completely destroy the ENTIRE middle east it it were to so choose. it has had this option since the mid fifties, it's called the samson option. (like if I'm going down you're all comin with me  but they have yet to do it. this is one reason that peace is always so weird over there. the PLO wants them gone but they know they will be taken out too, blah blah blah.
Israel's ability to have existed as a nation (even when they didn't have a NATION) for almost 6000 years I think would make for a fun civ to play, maybe their UU could be something a diaspora jew, a wanderer who doesn't fight but just hangs out under the surface of other nations waiting without picking a fight while their people get exterminated.
ok that didn't sound as good as I though it would
maybe it's not viable for that UU but I still think they would make a good civ. that's it, I hope that wasn't too long of a post!
lateralis
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Indignator
|
|
Earth
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
In it's day Israel was just as big. |
Please supply a historical map that shows Israel with an area bigger than that of the Assyrian empire, which at it's height included present day Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Turkey and Egypt.
quote:
Your point? I'll have to check the exact boundaries, but I was talking about territory, not population. |
However you slice it, Aztec empire was larger than the Hebrew ever was.
quote:
I haven't seen anyone who thinks that Japan should be in solely because of what they conquered in WW2. |
But I have seen a lot of people who think Rome was important because of what they conquered.
Another point of view: The Japanese nation emerged on a world scale at the beginning of the 20th century, especialy after their defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. If the modern Japanese nation was relatively as strong and influential as it was in the 19th century, it wouldn't be included. The moment of greatness for the Japanese - for better or for worse - came in the 20th century. There was another nation that emerged on a world scale at about the same time Japan did, and had its greates moments of glory (so far) in the 20th century- the United States.
Mongoloid Cow, thanks for your support.
lateralis, you make a very good point, far better than claiming that Israel was larger than Japan, Aztecs or the civilizations of Mezopotamia. It seems that everyone has different reasons which civs should be included, and which not.
Last edited by Indignator on 17-06-2002 at 11:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:20
|
|
quote:
And Indignator was responding to your question where you said that the Japanese were little more than islands until WW2, suggesting that you think they are in ther game solely because of WW2. |
quote:
Another point of view: The Japanese nation emerged on a world scale at the beginning of the 20th century, especialy after their defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. If the modern Japanese nation was relatively as strong and influential as it was in the 19th century, it wouldn't be included. The moment of greatness for the Japanese - for better or for worse - came in the 20th century. There was another nation that emerged on a world scale at about the same time Japan did, and had its greates moments of glory (so far) in the 20th century- the United States.
Mongoloid Cow, thanks for your support.
|
I mentioned Japan in response to Indignator's statement that the Hebrews had never been more than a small nation on the shores of Mediterranean. I don't think that the Japanese should be in because of WW2, but because generally they were a significant civ.
quote:
But I have seen a lot of people who think Rome was important because of what they conquered.
|
Comparing Japanese and Roman conquests is just ridiculous. The Romans conquered an empire that they were able to impose a common culture and law in, and that was effectively a single nation: they all considered themselves Romans, not Celts or Gauls or Greeks. The Japanese Empire was a collection of territories that were conquered and kept down almost solely by the army.
quote:
Please supply a historical map that shows Israel with an area bigger than that of the Assyrian empire, which at it's height included present day Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Turkey and Egypt.
|
I was speaking on the basis of what I have read, which stated that in Biblical times Israel stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates. I know it's not as big as the Assyrian Empire, but that is irrelevant. I was making a general statement.
quote:
However you slice it, Aztec empire was larger than the Hebrew ever was. |
Assuming that my information above was correct, the Hebrew Empire at it's height would have been several times bigger than the Aztec one.quote:
lateralis, you make a very good point, far better than claiming that Israel was larger than Japan, Aztecs or the civilizations of Mezopotamia. It seems that everyone has different reasons which civs should be included, and which not. |
Do I need to remind you that it was you who started this argument off by asking:
quote:
-Hebrew
I'm a little confused about this. At what time in history was the Hebrew civilization anything more than a small nation on the coast of the Mediterranean?
|
You were suggesting that size is an important reason for including Civs. I was pointing out that there have been other civs which are already in but have been smaller than Biblical Israel. Hell, if we were working with size alone the Incas would have made it in instead of the Aztecs.
quote:
General Tacitus, the Babylonians conquered the ancient Jewish peoples a lot of times, enslaved them, burnt their cities to the ground, etc. They were far more powerful. Also the Babs represent the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Mittanis, Hittites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc. |
1) I suppose you could say that they do, yes. It would be pretty stupid to have masses of Civs all from Mesopotamia.
2) Various Europeans did the same thing far more effectively to the Aztecs and Iroquois. Should they be removed because of this? Of course not. Having been conquered by other Civs does not disqualify a Civ from being included (If it did, then we'd be reduced to having America, England and Russia out of all the ones we currently have).
Anyway, I think that is all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
in the new editor whe shall have the ability to make new civ's , ......loads of them , maybe we can start to talk on who the best of the best true-out history is good enough to put on that list , ....
have a nice day |
Indeed!  For instance, then we could start a North American map with our own Apaches, Comanches, Sioux, Navajhos, Iroquese... etc. (yeah, loads of them)
All culturally opposing English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and maybe even making alliances thereafter?! 
Not as cool as good old Colonization, but something about there...
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 18-06-2002 at 00:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Indeed! For instance, then we could start a North American map with our own Apaches, Comanches, Sioux, Navajhos, Iroquese... etc. (yeah, loads of them)
All culturally opposing English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and maybe even making alliances thereafter?!
Not as cool as good old Colonization, but something about there... |
hi ,
one thing we really should hope for is that there should be more "civ specific abilities" , ....
Firaxis , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mongoloid Cow
|
|
Im sorry if it seemed like I was ganging up on you General Tacitus. I just don't like the idea of the Hebrews as a civ.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2002 23:30
|