19-05-2003 02:58									#31
	Remove this text

quote: I don't think the Dutch deserves to be in the game...

Hey!!

	19-05-2003 03:40									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp their women all had their tits out.

Yes put all the civs in that have their women's tits showing.

	19-05-2003 04:35									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Hydey Yes put all the civs in that have their women's tits showing.

quote: Oh, who cares, the DL is gone, now let's dance on his tomb.

quote: WAAAAAY too easy, Ming.

	19-05-2003 04:40									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

That guy was playing passive aggressive / blantant retard game on every single thread with his Captain Obvious and ToughUSA accounts.

	19-05-2003 04:51									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too...

	19-05-2003 05:14									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In all fairness, I think there should also have been a Women civ. It would fit right in

Yes, because women are a very small minority and can be adequatly represented with just one civ...

I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too...

It's probably possible to make a better argument for including the Dutch than for including the Germans. The Dutch are much more important historically.

Portuguese aren't and the French are basically a foil for the British.

	19-05-2003 05:25									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Er, on the contrary. Specific inclusion of Zulus is rather a symptom of Eurocentrism. There would have been many more worthwhile African and Native American civilizations - yes, more worthwhile than Portuguese and Dutch, too - to include, but Civ series chose Zulus. In Civ2 they added Sioux, who were scrapped in Civ3 for the Iroquis. Why? These civilizations are pretty much defined by their contact with Europe. Zulus were pretty much a jumped-up little warrior kingdom. Mali and Ethiopia would have been much worthier inclusions. However, unlike Mali and Ethiopia, Zulus played by the rules of the historical narrative. They achieved one rather high-profile victory against Europeans - Isandhlwana. Same with Sioux, at Little Big Horn. Unlike Mali and Ethiopians, the Sioux and Zulus are part of the European mythology, playing the role of the Technologically Inferior But Still Noble Opponent Achieving One Victory Before Utter Vanquishment. That's the stuff blockbuster movies are made of. And in case of Sioux, it's even better - they're specifically part of the American mythology. Iroquois, too, are part of the American mythology, by the supposed connections between their style of government and American democracy.

	19-05-2003 05:34									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by St Leo I think it would have been nice to see the Dutch as a civilisation too... It's probably possible to make a better argument for including the Dutch than for including the Germans. The Dutch are much more important historically.

That would make the WW1 and 2 scenarios rather dull.

	19-05-2003 05:42									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, there is PC in Civ3, but not exceedingly so. Here's the list of non-PC things in Civ3 that I can think of :

- The Germans have their traits and Unique Unit (and hence golden age) directly taken from the nazi period. Sure, their leader isn't Hitler, but AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2.

- Wine is a luxury resource that makes people happy, as well as ivory. Tobacco and precious birds will also be in the next expansion.

- You can raze cities very easily, and genocide whole populations. I remember having killed all Zulus in one game, except for a few slaves.

- Slavery is in, even though it is abstracted very much.

- Nukes

- Barbarians are dumb people who cannot hope to evolve.

- I remember a lengthy discussion that it was racist towards Mongols to depict Ghengis Khan as an ugly person. Some people of this discussion argued that Firaxis was generally racist towards Asians because of Gandhi's ugliness and Mao's laughable smile.

- One of the victory conditions is to have been at war with all the other people on Earth, and to have won. It incites to go to war.

	19-05-2003 05:46									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: - I remember a lengthy discussion that it was racist towards Mongols to depict Ghengis Khan as an ugly person. Some people of this discussion argued that Firaxis was generally racist towards Asians because of Gandhi's ugliness and Mao's laughable smile.

Hah. It's not the thing that Asian leaders are ugly - it's the thing that Europeans, especially Elisabeth - are unrealistically beautiful - when judging with late 20th century standards!

I don't care about it much, but it's pretty amusing when you notice it.

	19-05-2003 05:48									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: That would make the WW1 and 2 scenarios rather dull.

Only about 30% of graduating americans know who Hitler was anyway, so there's not even a problem here

	19-05-2003 05:48									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2.

What about after the 30 years war period? Or in the 1800s?

	19-05-2003 05:49									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Elisabeth - are unrealistically beautiful

	19-05-2003 05:53									#45
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: AFAIK, the Germans weren't "militaristic scientific" at any period of their history except during WW2. What about after the 30 years war period? Or in the 1800s?

I have no clue about the German science during the 80 years war period, and I don't think the Germans were militaristic during the 1800 (got their ass spanked by the French - if anything the German 19th century was rather scientific - industrious IMHO).
Industrious is generally a trait that fits more the Germans than Militaristic, even thought htere have been a few periods of history were the German populations were very warlike (Germanic wars against Rome, German conquests of Europe, agressive period 1870-1945). But I don't think the Germans are more militaristic than, say, the Arabs or the Spanish.

	19-05-2003 05:57									#46
	Tired of ads?

Given that Civ3 could not possibly include every single human event, units, civilization, form of though, form of government, so forth and so on, decisions have to be made. Of course civ3 has some political correctness (which has always, and shall always exist), it would not be able to exist otherwise.

	19-05-2003 06:05									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I don't think the Germans were militaristic during the 1800 (got their ass spanked by the French

Obviously you've forgotten about the end of that century and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 .

	19-05-2003 06:08									#48
	Remove this text

Gah, I meant "by Napoleon".
I include the 1870 in the agressive periods of Germany. I just don't think this aggressiveness is their main trait over history.

	19-05-2003 06:59									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Gah, I meant "by Napoleon". I include the 1870 in the agressive periods of Germany. I just don't think this aggressiveness is their main trait over history.

Yep. After all, Romans easily conquered Germania but never did manage to make headway against the pesky Celts in Gaul and Britannia.

	19-05-2003 07:01									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap Given that Civ3 could not possibly include every single human event, units, civilization, form of though, form of government, so forth and so on, decisions have to be made. Of course civ3 has some political correctness (which has always, and shall always exist), it would not be able to exist otherwise.

Actually, it almost can... as long as it can keep adding 8 new civs until it stops making profit.

	19-05-2003 07:10									#51
	Suffering from ads?

St Leo :

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor htere have been a few periods of history were the German populations were very warlike (Germanic wars against Rome, German conquests of Europe, agressive period 1870-1945). But I don't think the Germans are more militaristic than, say, the Arabs or the Spanish.

	19-05-2003 08:56									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'd say Germans are definitely more militaristic than Arabs. Arabs were probably very militaristic only in the 600-900 period. Petty principality-wise, Arabs weren't especially impressive.

	19-05-2003 17:52									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Yes, because women are a very small minority and can be adequatly represented with just one civ...

Are they not? How many civ 3 players are women? A minority obviousely. THAT is why I think there should be a Women civ. Amazones maybe

	19-05-2003 22:52									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've transformed the Greeks in my copy of Civ II into the Amazon Nation. Their capital, Themiscyra, is on the shores of the Sea of Azov (which itself is a small part of the Black Sea).

Gatekeeper

	20-05-2003 20:42									#55
	Civ 3 PC? Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes, to some extent, but not nearly as bad as Civ 1. That game had Stalin as leader of the Russians, after all. I have no problem with the Zulus or Iroquois inclusion. If a civ you like isn't included, use the editor and download some leaderheads--I've done that for Ethiopians, Khmers, Scots, Incas, and Portugese. I'd have done the Hebrews and Dutch by now, but I'm too busy playing other games.
If there is a beef about PC, one might ask about replacing communism with fascism, an ideology that has actually worked in history. At the end of the day, it really comes down to "If I had been the designer, I woulda done this, yada yada."

	20-05-2003 21:12									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh give me a break, not this again.

This has been rehashed over and over again in the Civ3 forms.

The Iroquois and Zulu each have their own unique qualities, and due to that and geographical variety, they are in. The Dutch and Portuguese et al are fine civilizations, but they are also fundamentally European ones, and since there is already an abundance of European civs, what's wrong with including some non-European ones for variety?

Nothing, and to accuse Firaxis of just bowing to PC is ludicrous. The Zulus were in the original game, after all, and the Iroquois are representative of all native North Americans, of which the Souix were in Civ2.

If you don't like non-white civs in the game, then you have your own racist **** to deal with, and we don't care.

Thanks.

	20-05-2003 21:23									#57
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer The other thing to keep in mind is that the game starts in 4000 BC so the potential for just about any group to rise to greatness is quite significant.

Actually, not really. Much of what made civs great had as much to do with geographic luck as it did anything else. You could replay history thousands of times over, and the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world, nor are the Zulus.

But since Civ3 is often played on random maps, it's a moot point there.

	20-05-2003 21:25									#58
	Re: Civ 3 PC? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by HolyWarrior Yes, to some extent, but not nearly as bad as Civ 1. That game had Stalin as leader of the Russians, after all.

How was this PC? It was the opposite of PC, it was dubious taste. That's why Stalin was dropped from the next installments.

	21-05-2003 02:25									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Boris:

quote: Actually, not really. Much of what made civs great had as much to do with geographic luck as it did anything else. You could replay history thousands of times over, and the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world, nor are the Zulus.

What the hell? then you are in agreement with the iniator of this thread? saying that zulus and aztecs were doomed to never get anywhere anyway so then Civilization mightaswell only have the greatest, most influential civilizations?

But before that you said you were in favour of having them in... i'm confused...

	21-05-2003 03:51									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that the Mexico reigion certainly had potential and would have eventually formed a power block with the Mississippi tribes, but Zulus were screwed by their continent. Africa has no domesticable animals and her domesticable plants are lousy.

the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world

Who would have conquered the world? Mongols with better naval luck? Her Majesty the Queen's loyal Empire? His Most Catholic Majesty's Dominion? The Fuhrer? Xerxes?