 |
|
PMLF
|
|
Rio de Janeiro,Brazil
Jul 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
What do you think will be the characteristics for the new nations?
The Celts will be militaristic/Religious
What about the other nations?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
 |
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Gee, i don't follow that reasoning, monkspider. The spaniards had other reasons for going to the new world, too. Just because a civ isn't commercial don't mean it isnt greedy. Spain's economy was run by archaic, monopolistic guilds when the joint stock company was evolving in real commercial civs to the north. The ability to, by brute force, loot less technologically advanced civs and force their people to mine huge amounts of gold & silver does not equate to commercial. In fact, the spaniards were so bass ackwards commercially that they only alowed trade once a year in 3 places, santo domingo, colon, panama, and veracruz, mexico. If you lived in argantina and wanted to buy some european manufactured goods, you had to go all the way to one of these places, thousands of miles. In fact, the people of these places were so starved by this backwards economic system that many actually looked forward to english pirates, who, "forced" them to buy cheap, high quality english manufactured goods unavailable otherwise.
No, spain has never been a commercial civ until recently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
All the false propoganda about printing presses aside; I wouldn't make Korea Scientific. Commercial is just a better fit.
Ottomans should be Mil/Exp
Arabs Rel/Com
Spain Rel/Exp
Mongols Mil/Exp
Carthage Com/Ind
Vikings Exp/Com
Having the Celts as Mil/Rel is a good choice but I would have been tempted to go with commercial, due to the Celts making the first trans-european trading network, or even Scientific, due to Celts being the first Europeans to invent Ironworking & they came up with their own alphabet.
Last edited by Oerdin on 09-08-2002 at 13:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
|
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Well, firaxis will do what they will do in regard to civ characteristics. Still can't belive they did not include the incas, if for no other reason than to balance the world map out. If Sid really is a history buff, i sometimes wonder just how involved, beyond lending his name, he is in the whole effort. Maybe he's just sitting on a beach somewhere sipping margaritas with a couple of gorgeous, well tanned 3rd world babes attending to his every need, rubber stamping what others are doing. More power to him, but the historical quality of his baby seems to have slipped. Oh well, an irritatingly unbalancing omision like the incas creates the desire for expansion pack 2, and modding fixes all. He is a shrewd business man, after all. Wonder if he plays his games?
ps: Can't wait til it comes out(!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
|
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
OK, I know its a dead horse, but the exclusion of the Incas relates, in a roundabout, way to the entire logic in assigning characteristics anyway. I look at the existing 16 and can't help but question some of the decisions already made - whether they were made based more on historical analysis or the desire to have as much variance as possible amongst civs. I mean, China as militiristic? Got serious questions about that, suspect that militaristic industrious might have been better served by Japan. And if civ characteristics were based to some extent on balance issues, the omission of Incas is well...sorry, last I'll say about that. Anyway, whats done is done.
As for Spain, I can't possibly understand how anyone who has any knowledge of their history can classify them as commercial, for the reasons stated above by me. Absolutely no way. Religious, expansionist, yes to either, but no no no no no, not commercial!
The inclusion of both Ottomans and Arabs really crouds things, geographically as well as civ trait-wise. The three possible traits that come to mind for Ottomans are religious, militaristic, and expansionist. Of the three, militaristic seems the most certain. Until their decadance, non can doubt the phenomenal success of Turkish arms. Forced to choose, I would have to take expansionist over religious for several reasons. Although moslem, they showed no more propensity toward religious fervor than most contemporary european powers, in fact making no great effort to convert their Christian balkan subjects, though many did, as evidenced in Bosnia an Albania. In fact the rise of the Ottoman Turks was far more a result of their own military prowess and a vacuum of power in the Islamic world left im the wake of their Mongol cousin's understandable decision to rape the flourishing, rich, societies of the Middle East instead of the barely emerging civilization of Europe in the 13th century. As such, although taking the banner of Islam as they did, this was in fact far more a result of said vacuum and the fact that they found themselves nearly the sole inheritors of the ravaged, once glorious Islamic commenwealth than a concious effort on their part to spread the faith. The repeated assaults on Vienna and southeastern Europe for some two centuries as well as their expansion to the edge of North Africa in the west, to Vienna in the northwest, to the former Mongol holdings in south central Russia to the north, to the borders of Persia in the east, and to Sudan in the south, indicate to me expansinist more than anything.
The Arabs seem to point to 4 charcteristics to me, militaristic, religious, scientific, and commercial. I can make strong arguments for all four, as well as expansionist. Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, seems to beg religious - what more can be said? Islam was forced to fight from the beginning, and no student of history can deny the combat abilities of those rock hard beduoin warriors that exploded from the Arabian penninsula in the 8th century, yet, despite their military successes, I have a hard time, given the variety of options combined with the limited possibilities in terms of the game, of assigning them militaristic as a characteristic. The phenominal Islamic/Arab conquest was as much a result of the reforming, advanced, beautifully simple, appeal of the message of Islam as it was the bravery of Arab arms, so militaristic is out. Expansionism, though tempting due to the amazing...well, expansion, of the first caliphate, can also be seen in terms of the strengths of Islam itself, so out with that. This leaves two possibilities, scientific and commercial. I would go with scientific on purely historical grounds, yet am tempted to chose commercial on more game balance terms. The profusion of universities, science and medicine, and the preservation of classical learning nearly forgotten in the west more than outweigh the relatively recent technological backwardness of the region vis-a-vis the west, which was largely a result of the devastation wrought by the Mongols for some two centuries, from which not even the Ottoman reconciliation of the area, ulitmately stagnating as it was, could rescue nor diminish. Yet arab traders, as much as arms, spread the word to places as far flung as Indonesia, the Phillipines, western China, and deep into Africa, and the economic vitality of the first caliphate may have had as much to do with the largely voluntary conversion of so many souls as the progressive social agenda of Islam or the convincing might of Arab arms. So, ideally, I would classify them as Religious/Scientific, though in terms of game balance, I would be more than comfortable with Religious/Commercial.
As for the Cartheginians, who could have been the Phonecians, and whom I assume will be classified as a Mediterrenean civ along with the Egyptians, the first and most obvious choice is commercial. Their seafaring empire was never as much based on outright military conquest as it was on amazingly successful trade colonies that insinuated themselves into often primitive populations who were in possesion of some kind of valuable raw material not possesed by the Carthegenians themselves. Beyond that, its truly kind of difficult to choose another characteristic, and its almost a case of any one being as good as any other. I discard militaristic, partly because of game balancing considerations, partly due to the fact that much of Carthage's military prowess was purchased, the rest based on the military genius of one man, Hanibal, and the technological superiority of his most famous weapon, the war elephant. Pity there is not a seafaring characteristic - Carthage's naval hegemony in the mediterranean was undisputed and only overturned by the dogged determination of Rome, and Rome's productive abilities (the Romans built, at first without any experience whatsoever, and lost, three fleets to the Carthegenians before finally wearing them down and winning the fourth time around - if at first you don't succeed...). Of the rest of the options, scientific has to go. No real evidence of technological achievements other than those aquired from others, so, ini mini mini moe....I guess industrious, to comliment their business/economic propensities has to be my pick. Sure, they sacrificed lots of their kids when in desperate straights vs. the Romans (an according to the Romans), but that smacks more of an attempted business deal with the gods to me than real religious fervor, or the ability to adapt governmentally as the game seems to suggest. Expansionist? Well, they just never seemed too interested in colonizing nor settling much beyond the coasts, leaving much of the hinterlands relatively undevelopped and untouched.
Vikings. Again we find a conflict between historical reality and game balance questions. Militaristic seems an unavoidable option, not only in light of the Fury of the North explosion of the dark ages, but of the phenomenal success of Swedish arms from the mid 1600's til their national exhaustion under Charles the umpteenth verses Russia in the early 1700's (though for their size they remained a force to be reckoned with until Napoleonic times and despite the amazing transformation to peaceful democratic socialism in the late 1800's throughearly 1900's, have discouraged foriegn aggression through two world wars last century by maintaining a formidable military). Religious does not fit despite the ability to change governments relatively bloodlessly, and despite the far ranging raids and explorations of their heyday, expansionist fails to fill the bill too, as those that did settle afar tended, with certain exceptions to blend in more with local populations than maintain a distinct national/cultural identity – Normans in France who spoke French, a few remarkeable Normans in Sicily, who faded into the local populace, and a few danes in the British Islaes who likewise became English within a short time. This leaves us with commercial or scientific, bothe of which are valid. For game reasons I have to pick commercial, as much of the raids were economically motivated and apparantly these guys were as good at that as at raping burning and pillaging, the success of modern Scandinavian business is impressive (two major automobile manufacturers in a country a tenth the population of France, Sweden).
I can come to no other conclusion in regard to the Mongols than militaristic/expansionist. These were the only two things they did well, though they did both remarkably well. For a semibarbaric (aw hell, lets be real, barbaric) society they were one of the best, most efficient, most organized, well oiled military machines the world has ever known. No one, not even Germany, bests them in this regard. And considering that in the lifetime of one man, Ghengis Khan, they established the largest empire, landwise, the world has ever known, expansionist is obvious. They showed no great religious bent, being open to, yet not showing preference til later, all major religions they encountered. There was certainly no great commercial bent. They slaughtered farmers, unable to make the connection between working the land and generating wealth – though I suppose later Eurasian caravan societies, largely Turkic, might be cited. Scientific? Only in military regard, though much of that was more acquisition from others than their own penchant for innovation. Industrious? Only in crushing enemies, slaughtering resistance, and enslaving entire populations. Hope I did not sound too down on them. I’m sure they are decent enough folks nowadays, but the Mongol Empire, historically speaking, was really less a great civilization than the most fearsome barbarian empire ever seen.
Korea. Probably included more for the large number of Korean and Korean-American potential buyers than for true historic significance, these guys are another enigma, somewhat, and good candidates for game balance fillers. Based on their heroic historic struggles with aggressive, giants of neighbors (China and Japan), as well as recent amazing “Asian Tiger” economic status, both commercial and industrious lend themselves well to characterizing these guys. Commercial, I’d say, based on the last 50 years. In terms of game balance, though, as well as such bizarrely advanced and equally bizarrely abandoned innovations as printing presses and 15th century ironclads (the deadly “turtle boats” that devastated the Japanese navy), I’d have to go with commercial/scientific.
Celts – OK, Militaristic?Religious? I guess so. There seems to be something wonderfully generic and amorphous about these guys. Always fighting amongst themselves, to the point where people like the Romans and English could overwhelm them, so, ok, militaristic. Religious? I guess so – druids and all. Also goes along with that adaptable, generic thing. Some could argue that althoug they got stamped out pretty hard on the surface by others, that in a larger sense the practical, adaptive nature of western civ is more an extension of the celtic, than an aglomeration of several seseparatentities – they conquered the west by being conquered.
OK, All I can write now, since I’m chatting with my e-girlfriend, so, here goes til later.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
My guesses;
Vikings Mil/Com - They were somewhat able to keep hold over a large empire for a while, & their asets in England were conquests, & not do to their own settlers, & the fact that even though they had colonies in America, they didn't expand into America. That, & the bonuses given by Expantionist don't fit the Vikings at all, since they didn't have great land scouts, & they didn't have good relations with the natives.
Korea Ind/Com - Their invention of a printing press doesn't really worrent making them Scientific. THe Chinese invented Gunpowder & paper currency before anybody else, but they're Mil/Ind.
As for the others, I don't know enough about them to say, & I'm not going to look them up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PMLF
|
|
Rio de Janeiro,Brazil
Jul 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigvic
I can come to no other conclusion in regard to the Mongols than militaristic/expansionist. These were the only two things they did well, though they did both remarkably well. For a semibarbaric (aw hell, lets be real, barbaric) society they were one of the best, most efficient, most organized, well oiled military machines the world has ever known. No one, not even Germany, bests them in this regard. And considering that in the lifetime of one man, Ghengis Khan, they established the largest empire, landwise, the world has ever known, expansionist is obvious. They showed no great religious bent, being open to, yet not showing preference til later, all major religions they encountered. There was certainly no great commercial bent. They slaughtered farmers, unable to make the connection between working the land and generating wealth – though I suppose later Eurasian caravan societies, largely Turkic, might be cited. Scientific? Only in military regard, though much of that was more acquisition from others than their own penchant for innovation. Industrious? Only in crushing enemies, slaughtering resistance, and enslaving entire populations. Hope I did not sound too down on them. I’m sure they are decent enough folks nowadays, but the Mongol Empire, historically speaking, was really less a great civilization than the most fearsome barbarian empire ever seen.
|
The Mongols were not so bad as the public generally think. Gengis Khan was for the Mongols what Muhammad was for the Arabs. Both unified reival tribes into a power civilization. The Mongols estimulated the commerce in the entire Eurasia and thanks to them the Silk Road reborn. the Mongols were not barbarians as much as the Arabs weren't either. There are a lot of similiarities bewteen Mongoils and Arabs. The major difference was that the Mongols were more tolerant while the Arabs were narrow minded.
I think the mongols must expansionistic/commercial.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PMLF
The Mongols were not so bad as the public generally think. Gengis Khan was for the Mongols what Muhammad was for the Arabs. Both unified reival tribes into a power civilization. The Mongols estimulated the commerce in the entire Eurasia and thanks to them the Silk Road reborn. the Mongols were not barbarians as much as the Arabs weren't either. There are a lot of similiarities bewteen Mongoils and Arabs. The major difference was that the Mongols were more tolerant while the Arabs were narrow minded.
I think the mongols must expansionistic/commercial. |
Mongols themselves were never very interested in trade themselves. They had always remained the military aristocracy or big landowners in their conquered territories. Of course, they didn't do anything to impede commerce and trade like die-hard confucianists, but they certainly valued the military above everything else. Thus, militaristic/expantionist best fit them.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-08-2002 01:38
maybe they'll be Religious and Scientific (with all discoveries they've done during their golden age)
)
|