21-05-2003 03:57									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Boris: 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...

Noooo, as you clearly said the game started in 4000 BCE, I was going from that point. Had the people who had become the Zulus settled in a more geographically beneficial place way back in, I dunno, 15,000 BCE, then they might have had a better shot.

But whomever ended up in Sub-Saharan Africa was always going to be at an extreme disadvantage in history, just as would any people that ended up in ancient Mexico. It has nothing to do with any racial traits, but in geography and biology.

But you missed the part where I pointed out that most Civ games are played on a random map, making such considerations moot. Zulus and Iroquois can then end up with spectacular locations, aiding in their ascent to world supremacy.

Happy now?

	21-05-2003 04:11									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Boris:

I think i understand you now it was just weird because we were in agreement that zulus and what not should be in there but you were arguing with me over what i guess is a side issue.

though I'm not too sure central mexico is that bad of a place for a civilization... same with much of Africa. West Africa had (before european incroachment) fertile soil, abundance of animals, plenty of resources, good means of travelling between different groups to trade and share ideas, etc. hence the Songhai, Mali, Benin, Ashanti, Dahomey, etc. civilizations.

Similiarily, central mexico aint that bad either as can be attested by the sophistication of the Mayans and Aztecs... Tenochtitlan rivalled any european city in its size and architectural wonders.

a bad location for a civilization is central Africa, the western plains of america, brazil, etc... south africa might not be too good either but other parts of africa (such as the west [and the east only because of relatively easy trade routes with India and Arabia]) and central mexico are actually pretty damn good places for civilization.

	21-05-2003 04:13									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Actually, the Zulus were part of the Bantu migration. That doesn't change my point of Africa being a lousy continent for the whole urban technological civilization shtick.

	21-05-2003 04:23									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

St. Leo:

quote: That doesn't change my point of Africa being a lousy continent for the whole urban technological civilization shtick.

Timbuktu? Zimbabwe? Mombasa?

	21-05-2003 07:02									#65
	Remove this text

The Mali and Ethiopians had cities and organized government structure. Had they been more imperialistic and more bent on technological progrees (an idea they could have taken from the Arabs with whom they traded extensively), they'd have become full-fledged 'Civilizations' just like the Persians or the Aztecs. I still hope for their inclusion in the next expansion.

Actually, I think the Zulu are a lousy choice as an African Civ, the same way Sioux were as a native American Civ. Both Zulus and Sioux hadn't a urban culture, which was more present with the Iroquois and with the Mali.

	21-05-2003 08:43									#66
	Re: Re: Civ 3 PC? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov How was this PC? It was the opposite of PC, it was dubious taste. That's why Stalin was dropped from the next installments.

By having Stalin as leader for the Russians, Mao as leader of the Chinese, but not Hitler as leader of the Germans, one could sense a possible PC bias. Hitler is almost universally seen as evil, whereas some on the hard left have a blind spot regarding their tyrants such as Stalin and Castro. Remember, Stalin is responsible for many more deaths of his people than Hitler. True, he had more time. Mao is still around because there really isn't any well-known (to Americans anyway) alternative leader of China.
I could also go on about how communism has appeared in every game despite never having worked anywhere it had been tried.
But most of this has already been discussed ad nauseum before in various Civ threads. I really do not want to visit them again.

	21-05-2003 21:51									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Boris: I think i understand you now it was just weird because we were in agreement that zulus and what not should be in there but you were arguing with me over what i guess is a side issue. though I'm not too sure central mexico is that bad of a place for a civilization... same with much of Africa. West Africa had (before european incroachment) fertile soil, abundance of animals, plenty of resources, good means of travelling between different groups to trade and share ideas, etc. hence the Songhai, Mali, Benin, Ashanti, Dahomey, etc. civilizations.

While on the surface the Sub-Saharan regions may not seem so bad, they actually were not ideal places for civilization to flourish. This has to do with several factors. First, while there were resources, the resource packages were somewhat limited. They had fewer domesticable crops and animals than in, say, the Middle East. They also were geographically isolated from other regions. Getting to Mali or Songhai required crossing extremely inhospitable terrain. One of the keys of flourishing civilization is the rapid spread of ideas via contach with other regions. Due to geography, it was far easier to spread methods and ideas between Europe, the MidEast and Asia than it was between those regions in Africa. The climate in the African regions did not allow for an easy acclimation of foreign crop packages, either.

The abundance of space and lack of population pressure also hindered civilization in these regions, as there was no impetus for building strong urban centers. While Mali and others did build civilizations, they did not develop until centuries after civilization had flourished elsewhere. By the time Mali came around, they were already centuries behind. One of the chief reasons the MidEast and Europe were so suitable to civilization was that there wasn't much room to expand, so competition for land/resources triggered the need for more organized means of living.

quote: Similiarily, central mexico aint that bad either as can be attested by the sophistication of the Mayans and Aztecs... Tenochtitlan rivalled any european city in its size and architectural wonders.

Tenochtitlan was huge, but primitive by European standards. Size doesn't equate to technology, and the Aztecs were close to 1,000 years behind Europeans when Cortes arrived. Mexico actually is not a very good place for a flourishing civilization. In addition to very limited crop and livestock variety, the North/South axis of the continents made Mexico a choke point that stifled the exchange of ideas/methods between North and South America. The jungles of central America presented an almost insurmountable hindrance to transfering crops and animals. Also, Mexico is isolated, being bounded on the north by desert and on the south by jungle. North America presented the same problem to civilization as the expanses of southern Africa - plentiful land and food meant no need for highly organized urban culture.

Civ fails to mimic reality in this regard. People are resistant to change they deemed as uneccessary, and there's no reason that ancient hunter-gatherers living an easy life in a relatively idyllic setting were going to up and go live in crowded, dirty cities without a good reason to do so.

	21-05-2003 22:33									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

One huge thing is being ignored here people. Aztec civ begun in the 1200 AD! Zulu civ in the 1700's. The Babylonians were gone for centuries before the French, English, or Germans became recognizibly different groups. We are talking about a game in which all players start at the same time, something utterly incorrect, historically speaking.

Groups in the Americas had yet to discover useful metalurgy (bronze, copper, iron) by the time they came into contact with the much more developed civs of Eurasia, without even going into the whole bit about disease gradiants. On Africa though, there were successful urban civs beyond the zulu, as other have pointed out.

quote: I could also go on about how communism has appeared in every game despite never having worked anywhere it had been tried.

And yet you think Facism worked!


What is it about facism, the 20 year lifespan, or the modenist outfits that give you that impression?

	21-05-2003 22:40									#69
	Tired of ads?

quote: Civ fails to mimic reality in this regard. People are resistant to change they deemed as uneccessary, and there's no reason that ancient hunter-gatherers living an easy life in a relatively idyllic setting were going to up and go live in crowded, dirty cities without a good reason to do so.

There is a good reason, that there were getting too many of them, but this, as been said before, disregards the desease factor, etc.

	21-05-2003 22:44									#70
	Remove this text

Actually Boris, pre-contact NA had more urbane cultures than post-contact NA. After all, grouyps like the Souix began as farmers, then switched to nomadic hunters since the horse made that economically viable.

As for Africa, those limitations you state were the reason advanced civ did not BEGIN there, but domesticated Animal species could be imported from the ME, and where.

	21-05-2003 22:48									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov 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.

Ironic, then that the best starting positions when playing a world map are America and Africa (in that order)

	21-05-2003 22:50									#72
	Remove this text

that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

although with the issue of contatc between west africa and the rest of the world. though the Sahara was a major problem preventing much contact (though there still was plenty of caravans going through there even in ancient times), Phoenician and Carthaginian merchant ships were known for trading in west africa so the atlantic did allow trading and sharing of ideas but at that time, west africa was neolithic at best.

as for the Aztecs being 1000 years behind Europe, i dont think thats true... actually the Aztecs didn't invent much new but only adopted the Olmec and Mayan civilizations that were from 700 or so to 1100. anyway, you're thinking in terms of tech trees if you will being the same. the ancient Mexicans could have emphasized different things than European civilization did... for example, the Mexicans only put wheels on toys... as they had no horses or oxen or anything, they had little need for the wheel and cart so that whole area of chariots, wagons, etc. was never developed. Do you know what i mean? I cant think of a good example in the case of Mexicans but i know that the differences between a regular flooding of the nile and the irregular flooding of the Euphrates and Tigris (as well as the need for irrigation) caused differences in the early sciences of the two regions... egyptians became more astrologically oriented to be able to time the floods while the Sumerians/Babylonians required more mathematical sciences to be able to organize irrigation systems and also to become merchants and count money and all that.

so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.


thanks

	21-05-2003 22:51									#73
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion In all fairness, I think there should also have been a Women civ. It would fit right in

Whose units get a special attack bonus four days a month?

	21-05-2003 22:54									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Yep, I ve heard that theory, that life in early Europe was j hard enough to challenge people to develop but not so hard that they failed.

	21-05-2003 22:59									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

GePap:

Fascism has worked... every communist would tell you that true communism never existed what with the Soviet Union and Red China not actually being 'communist'. Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc. are all agreed to be fascistic from a politically standpoint... so fascism did exist and lasted for many decades in the cases of Franco and Salvatore.

Also there is recent evidence that seems to show that european diseases completely destroyed American Indian civilizations. The inhabitants of the Mississippi for example during the time of european colonization were hunter-gatherers and rural farmers but there are remains of huge mounds and large towns dating back to pre-Columbus times. There was a recent Atlantic Monthly issue (what you learn sitting in the doctor's office ) that went in depth talking about that the population of the Americas in 1550 was only about a quarter (i think thats the percentage) of the population in 1492 and the sudden huge loss of population turned growing civilizations in the americas into primitive farmers at best.

	21-05-2003 22:59									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The Aztecs had incredible argriculture. Due to the nature of corn, and to thier mehtod of farming, one acre of farmland of the aztecs could feed more people than one acre of farmland in europe.

Speer: the biggest failings of Mesoamerican groups were that they were behind in metalurgy and writing.

quote: that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Sub-saharan africa faces a huge porblem with disease. Humans are basically a foreign species to most of the world, but they are indigenous to Africa, which means that in Africa, nature has had more time to find ways of exploiting man.

	21-05-2003 23:01									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.

I'm not sure on astrology (or did you mean astronomy?), but this assertion is patently false in terms of architecture. While the Aztecs possessed fine architecture, it was nowhere near as advanced as Eurasian architecture of the same time period. They hadn't even developed the rounded arch. They did have some innovation, but it was overshadowed by the far superior architecture of the Europeans.

Europeans were cultural absorbers, and had Aztec architecture been superior, they would have lifted it and incorporated it into their own. They did not. Why? Because theirs was already better.

	21-05-2003 23:05									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Astrology? AstroNOMY.

you cannot be more scientifically advanced in astrology. It's like being more scientifically advanced in Tarot card reading.

	21-05-2003 23:05									#79
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Reds4ever:

That did bother me a bit when i was playing Civ2... as the Zulu, all I had to do was just take out the Egyptians or Carthaginians (assuming they were even there) and i got a whole continent for my own self... wall off the Sinai and an all-Africa (which is a huge continent) Zulu could just sit back and build 20 cities in Africa.

Playing as a european civ, however, i always had problems with the two other europeans that were bound to be on my small continent.


thanks

	21-05-2003 23:09									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Astrology? AstroNOMY.

Our alchemy beats yours any day!

	21-05-2003 23:12									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

early astronomy was very metaphysical and theological... therefore it was astrology... what NASA does is astronomy... what the Mayan priests did was astrology.

Boris:

one problem with that idea is that the Aztec architecture was completely destroyed... archaelogists even doubted the Spanish descriptions of the indigenious cities until the 19th century when they started finding abandoned cities in central america and the andes... so the Spanish did not adopt Aztec architecture because it was systematically destroyed.

	21-05-2003 23:18									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Actually Boris, pre-contact NA had more urbane cultures than post-contact NA. After all, grouyps like the Souix began as farmers, then switched to nomadic hunters since the horse made that economically viable.

And European diseases tended to wipe out farmers. The Mississippi River Valley civilization, for instance, disintegrated with transatlantic contact.

quote: that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Desertification really didn't get going until agriculture started in the first place (trees were destroyed, soil was depleted, etc.), so this isn't a valid theory. The fertile crescent became a waste land primarily because it was the first area humans farmed (and it didn't rain enough for the land to replenish rapidly, as in Northern Europe).

quote: so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.

Astrology? I wasn't aware that the Aztecs invented tarrot cards.

If you mean astronomy, I would say bullshit. Europe was on the verge of the Newtonian revolution when the Aztecs were wiped out. Hell, Europeans could predict the movement of the planets to a great degree of accuracy at this period (even if the mechanism through which they understood planetary motion was totally wrong).

As for architecture, the Egyptians were doing the same thing several thousand years earlier. The pyramids in the region were big, certainly, but all they needed was a huge amount of manpower.

There's absolutely no doubt that the Europeans were far ahead of the Aztecs at the time. They had plows, they had advanced ships, they participated in world trade, they had much higher population densitites (Tenochtitlan was an aberration), they had advanced metallurgical techniques, a nascent industry, etc., etc.

	21-05-2003 23:21									#83
	Increase the size of your Attachments

And all of that cause they could count on thousands of years of inovations within Eurasia, while folks like the Aztecs could not.

	21-05-2003 23:29									#84
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Now the real question is, where Europe was at the time vis-a-vis the east.

	21-05-2003 23:33									#85
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Desertification really didn't get going until agriculture started in the first place (trees were destroyed, soil was depleted, etc.), so this isn't a valid theory. The fertile crescent became a waste land primarily because it was the first area humans farmed (and it didn't rain enough for the land to replenish rapidly, as in Northern Europe).

Wrong... the desertification began with the end of the last ice age. Why is the Sahara undergoing desertification? berbers were never farming there...

not only does the idea that desertification predate civilization make sense what with the ice age, also paleolithic wall paintings in north africa and egypt show that the Sahara used to be woodlands populated by huge numbers of animals including elephants and lions. Egyptian civilization appeared AFTER desertification hence why Egyptian towns were always near the Nile... if **** was not desert beyond the nile then there would be towns out there which there werent.

quote: They had plows, they had advanced ships, they participated in world trade

Exactly and these technological innovations were not needed by the Aztecs so they were not developed... without any draft animals, the plow was pointless and the good Mexican soil and efficiency of corn made there be little need for anything but hand-tools to farm. Why would the Aztecs need advanced ships when they were an in-land civilization that had no neighbours across the seas?

The aztecs only developed what they needed.


thanks

	21-05-2003 23:40									#86
	Support Apolyton

Albert you're kind of right. But you forgot the impact of slash and Burn.

	21-05-2003 23:46									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer early astronomy was very metaphysical and theological... therefore it was astrology... what NASA does is astronomy... what the Mayan priests did was astrology.

Charting stars and planets and using their movements to create calendars is astronomy, not astrology.

quote: Boris: one problem with that idea is that the Aztec architecture was completely destroyed... archaelogists even doubted the Spanish descriptions of the indigenious cities until the 19th century when they started finding abandoned cities in central america and the andes... so the Spanish did not adopt Aztec architecture because it was systematically destroyed.

If Aztec architecture was completely destroyed, how do you know it was so superior?

Mayan architecture isn't superior to the European architecture of the time, either. Europeans were creating vastly more complex structures than the Aztecs were. Compare the architectural knowledge needed to build the Colliseum vs. any Aztec building, and you'll see what I mean.

quote: Exactly and these technological innovations were not needed by the Aztecs so they were not developed... without any draft animals, the plow was pointless and the good Mexican soil and efficiency of corn made there be little need for anything but hand-tools to farm. Why would the Aztecs need advanced ships when they were an in-land civilization that had no neighbours across the seas? The aztecs only developed what they needed.

This is precisely the point. Due to geographical situations, the Aztecs had not needed to develop more advanced technology. The Europeans, however, had such needs. So when the two civilizations collided, Europeans won. You could replay history over again starting in 4000 BCE, and the result would more than likely end up being the same. You could swap the Aztecs and Euro positions, and those inhabiting Mexico will still lose to those who inhabited Europe. It has nothing to do with any racial traits, but purely on geographic/biological situations.

	22-05-2003 00:12									#88
	Support Apolyton

Boris: why take the Colliseum? take any of the vast amount of Cathedrals scattered around europe.

	22-05-2003 00:14									#89
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually, I'm amazed by the lack of technological progress in subsaharian Africa, and to a lesser extent in precolombian America.

Historically, the search for power through war has been a huge motivation to research more efficient weapons (which had a civilian use thereafter). Precolombian America and subsaharian Africa had their share of wars too, so I wonder why the weaponry was still that primitive. Before the colonization, many African warriors still fought with Sticks, while the best weapons were scrap from the Arab weaponry (destined to kings).

	22-05-2003 00:30									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: If Aztec architecture was completely destroyed, how do you know it was so superior?

Contemporary descriptions as well as modern archealogists theorizing... then again, remember that i go to a 90% minority public school district so i wouldnt be surprised if they taught us wrong information just to make minority groups look better. it's a possibility...

quote: Precolombian America and subsaharian Africa had their share of wars too, so I wonder why the weaponry was still that primitive.

with pre-colombian mexico, part of the reason why weapons didnt become more advanced was because of the Aztec religious idea that you are not supposed to kill an enemy on the battlefield but rather capture him to be killed/sacrificed later. This led to all those 'garland wars' where Aztec warriors used clubs and obsidian stone swords to wound rival soldiers who they would then capture. Another issue was that due to Aztec ruthlessness, they effectively pacified central america and there was little need for effective weapons... only when Cortez arrived did the Aztec rivals like the Tlaxcala actually start fighting... before then, they were subserviant to Tenochtitlan.

As for sub-saharan africa... civilized areas (such as the west and east) did possess good, metal weapons. The people of Benin were especially known for their metal-working so i assume that the same smiths who could make exquisite statues out of iron could also fashion swords.

as for the rest of africa... that can be explained by the idea of if it aint broke, don't fix it... blunt spears did well enough for roving Bantu... in fact, i heard that Shaka was the first of the zulu to even think of having sharp spears and this idea caused the insignificant zulu tribe to conquer almost all of uncolonized south africa. who knows why Shaka just thought up one day to equip his soldiers with lethel weapons...


thanks