 |
|
Wycoff
|
|
I updated/edited the original post for this thread for clarification.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Orz
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Thanks for the link, Wycoff!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vince278
The subject of the thread is about Poland in Civ, not the real world. Being ascendant for about 100 years (Only 10 turns, I believe, at that time period) does not make one a major power.
Guess it is hard to accurately model some nations in Civ. My own country arose only recently (in 1776) and only achieved greatness by the end of WWII (1945).  |
I agree, which is why I'm not arguing that Poland should be in instead of Japan or Rome or something. I'm arguing that Poland is just as worthy for inclusion, if not more so, than the Portuguese, Dutch, or Hittities, civs that many people think are going to be included for more than just scenarios. The Hittites (and the Sumerians) are already included in the Babylonian civ, which is meant to represent all of the ancient Tigris-Euphrates civs (other than Phoenicia, Israel, and Persia.) The period of Portuguese ascendancy or Dutch ascendency wasn't much more than 100 years. The Poles have had at least as much of a cultural impact on the world as the Portuguese, and probably as much as the Dutch. If they are to be brought into an already crowded Europe, the Poland deserves to be brought in as well. Eastern Europe needs a civ between Germany and Russia.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ISTANBUL
|
 |
silicon valley
Jul 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
I agree, which is why I'm not arguing that Poland should be in instead of Japan or Rome or something. I'm arguing that Poland is just as worthy for inclusion, if not more so, than the Portuguese, Dutch, or Hittities, civs that many people think are going to be included for more than just scenarios. The Hittites (and the Sumerians) are already included in the Babylonian civ, which is meant to represent all of the ancient Tigris-Euphrates civs (other than Phoenicia, Israel, and Persia.) The period of Portuguese ascendancy or Dutch ascendency wasn't much more than 100 years. The Poles have had at least as much of a cultural impact on the world as the Portuguese, and probably as much as the Dutch. If they are to be brought into an already crowded Europe, the Poland deserves to be brought in as well. Eastern Europe needs a civ between Germany and Russia. |
Hi,
I'm new here.
Hittites do not overlap with Babylonnians or Sumerians geographically or chronologically.
But, I'm against the Hittites and also the Polish, whether they were great or not. Southeast Asia, Australia and Israel need to be in, I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ISTANBUL
Hittites do not overlap with Babylonnians or Sumerians geographically or chronologically.
But, I'm against the Hittites and also the Polish, whether they were great or not. Southeast Asia, Australia and Israel need to be in, I think. |
Hittites conquered Babylon and dominated Mesopotamia for about 400 yers. The Sumerians came before the Babylonians in the same geographical area, and were a great influence on their culture. However, I know that they were historically distinct cultures. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I mean is that the Babylon civ as it is in the game is meant to represent all of those ancient Mesopotamian civ. For example, Uruk and Ur, Sumerian cities, are cities in the Babylonian civilization list. My point is, why include new civs (Sumer, Hittites) if they are already represented by the Babylonians? That is too much overlap when there are other major, unrepresented civs such as Poland, Israel, Khmer, Mali, Ethiopia, Polynesia.
Here is a website that gives a good, short summary of Mesopotamian Cultures.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM
Last edited by Wycoff on 25-07-2003 at 07:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
What would be really cool would be for start out with the base tribes that were around during 4000 BC and allow the other civs to branch off of them. Say the French, English, and Germans branch off the Germanic tribe, and the Canadians and Americans later branch off the French/English and German/English civs.
Would be somewhat comlicated to work out programming wise, but it would still be kinda cool. |
That is also something I'd like to see. We could still start with the ancient civs and have them continually evolve/devolve once they reach a certain point. A large civ could break up and give you a choice on with piece to play and which piece to hand off to the AI. (Or you could voluntarily "free" a "colony" to help avoid such a breakup)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Loui
|
|
I find it funny that everybody talks about Poland as a new civ, even mentioning the Austrian/Hungarian Empire, but not nominating it.
The Austrian/Hungarian Empire was one of the major political powers in Europe until WW1. I do not vote for another European power to be added, but if there is one it should be Austria/Hungary, not Poland. Then you could even have Prague and Bratislava as cities, plus Vienna as the Capital, Budapest, Graz, Linz, Maribor, Zagreb, Salzburg, Innsbruck......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
Why not the Holy Roman Empire? It was bigger and was around longer and includes all of those cities and more. Then of course there was the Byzantine empire just to the east of that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Loui
I find it funny that everybody talks about Poland as a new civ, even mentioning the Austrian/Hungarian Empire, but not nominating it.
The Austrian/Hungarian Empire was one of the major political powers in Europe until WW1. I do not vote for another European power to be added, but if there is one it should be Austria/Hungary, not Poland. Then you could even have Prague and Bratislava as cities, plus Vienna as the Capital, Budapest, Graz, Linz, Maribor, Zagreb, Salzburg, Innsbruck...... |
I agree, but I think the reason why no one nominates the A-H empire is because it is largely seen as merely a sum of its parts. Unlike other large, land based, mulit-ethnic empires, such as Russia or Rome, the A-H empire isn't synonimous with any leading ethnic group. (except for perhaps Germans, and they already have a civ) There wasn't an A-H cultural that was shared by all; rather there were a dozen separate cultures held togther by one King. In other words, A-H isn't seen as a civilization so much as a group of dynastic holdings held by German royalty.
I know that the Austrians were very significant historically, but I personally add Austrian cities to the German list, and any city in which I build the Forbidden palace I rename Vienna. There was no group of people that identified themselves ethnically with Austria: they were either German, Hungarian, Czech, etc. Basically, adding A-H as a civ would be like adding a civ and naming it Hapsburg. Germans are ethnically & Culturally distinct. Poles are ethnically & culturally distinct, as are the other Slavs as a whole (thogh a weaker case can be made for a pan-Slav civ than for a Polish civ). The A-H would be like putting Prussia in as a civ, i.e. subsituting a dynastic state for a nation or a civilization. Poland is a separate nation and a civilization in and of itself.
Last edited by Wycoff on 25-07-2003 at 23:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I actually have a list of cities by region. One list for Bavaria, one for Saxony, one for Austria, one for Prussia/Brandenburg, etc.
When I play Germany, I name a central city in a regional areas one of the above names and then name the surrounding cities appropriately. |
I do the same type of thing using a German Atlas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Loui
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cort Haus
Australia? Gimme a break! |
I guess you have an 'al' too much, we were discussing AUSTRIA.
And I guess chosing countries for football championships by merit alone would result in great qualification problems as teams would have to travel the globe to find their counterparts for qualification matches.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Loui
|
|
Oh, ok, sorry.
I guess neither Australia nor Israel deserve their own CIV. Some might say that the US could be used for Israel, but that might be a very biased view of things, I guess.
If we want equal chances (and civs) for all parts of the world the problem propably is in our westerly view of the world and it's history. I studied History myself, but I can tell far less about African or Asian history than about European or even American history. Being from Europe my focus was on south-eastern Europe during the middle ages. I could tell you more about the Hungarian invasian in Europe than about African or South American history as a whole...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Loui
|
|
That would be fair, but who in Asia would watch the WC then ?
Would Japan and Korea, who did very well in the last WC have been able to qualify at all ? They had auto-qualification this time, but what about the next time ?
I guess we need those teams from less football-related countries to make the Europe-vs.-South America Championships called WC more interesting and colorfull.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Loui
|
|
We could make you Brits 'snobistic' and 'footballistic' ;-)
How would you like that ?
Yes, I agree with you that Japas has good chances, unlike Austria :-(, even though our u17 and u19 teams rock !
What traits could we use for Austria ? 'small' and 'unimportant', maybe...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Loui
Oh, ok, sorry.
I guess neither Australia nor Israel deserve their own CIV. Some might say that the US could be used for Israel, but that might be a very biased view of things, I guess.
If we want equal chances (and civs) for all parts of the world the problem propably is in our westerly view of the world and it's history. I studied History myself, but I can tell far less about African or Asian history than about European or even American history. Being from Europe my focus was on south-eastern Europe during the middle ages. I could tell you more about the Hungarian invasian in Europe than about African or South American history as a whole... |
This is a serious problem with Civ, in my opinion: it's western bias. Partially, it's understandable: no African "empire" that we know of was ever built, with enough written records, to compare with European empires... the city-state of Sigilmasa was impressive of course, as was Timbuktu... Ethiopia is a long-standing, impressive culture which is worthy of inclusion, and the Berbers would make a great addition to the game as they have often had an impact on European/Middle Eastern history... then there's the Malinke, the Yoruba, etc... maybe not as important as Rome, but certainly the equals of the Aztecs, Celts and Vikings...
...still, due to lack of memorable written histories, Africa is understandably overlooked. The same is true of the Americas.
But Asia?
Asian history is fascinating and very well-documented. One would be a fool to state that Europe has had more of an impact on history than Asia... sure, the Chinese and Japanese are included, along with the Koreans, but where are the southeast Asians, and for God's sake, where are the Central Asians? It's nice to have the Mongols and Ottomans in there, but the Seljuk, the Turkomans, and the Afghans have all had as much impact on history, arguably more, than the Celts.
If "forgotten people" such as Hitties, Celts, and Mayans are to be included, how about peoples that are still around, if not superpowers?
And, in terms of the Americas, it's good that Incans and Mayans are being added, but there's a whole sleiugh of multi-ethnic nations that have now been established for a long time, and that do play a notable role in history and in the current world's economic sphere, notably Mexico, Brazil, Columbia and Argentina.
Of course, with only 31 civs playable, not all these civs can be included, but insofar as the Portugese and Dutch chiefly contributed to civilization by building overseas empires that didn't last too long - and I do not mean to denigrate Portugese and Dutch culture, only to put them in historical perspectice - and, yes, the different Europeans can all be traced back to Germans/Vikings, it does not seem right to be adding more Europeans at this point.
And, of course, there's always that undeniable but contentious candidate, Israel, which will probably never be added to any Civ because of pressure from various groups (unsubstantiated charge, just my theory), and yet is the "moral" basis of the majority of civs in the game.
Of course, to sum it all up, one might say that the Civ bias is simply a reflection of the audience. I've never seen a breakdown of who exactly plays Civ, but it does seem to mostly be Europeans and European-descended Americans. Still, European dominance of the world constitutes less than 1/12th of written history and will not, clearly, last forever.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-07-2003 22:42
Did I miss something? What is Civolution?
|