To start with, I am one of those people who wants to see zillions of tiny Civs/Peoples at the beginning of the game. Civs would be defined as peoples who were agricultural / sedentary in nature. Other peoples would be pastoralists, as mentioned above, who would tend to have no respect for your borders, and be militarily quite capable, as well as mobile. They could become Civilized by conquering a Civ, and going over to a more sedentary way of life. The rest of the map would be filled with hunter/gatherers, who would not necessarily have too much effect on the game.

I would like to see the game work in various scales as time marches on. The first cities would be built on a single square, and draw resources potentially from the surrounding 8 squares. This scale of development would be called a city, and your Civ could have several, though the inefficiency and potential for civil war would increase as you added more of them. A city would be limited to building only the most basic level buildings, such as a Granary, a Temple, a Barracks, a Marketplace and a Library. Cities would be able to produce single military units as well.

At some point your Civ would develop the (Governmental) technology and the infrastructure to advance to a larger scale government. This form of governent would be called a Kingdom (I'm sure there is a better term), and would rule over an area of 9 by 9 squares, or the area which it would have taken 9 cities to rule previously. You could not merely throw a Kingdom up in the wilderness, but would have to establish it by building a palace in an existing city. A Kingdom would eliminate a good deal of the inefficiency and potential for civil war that nine seperate cities would have, and additionally would be able to construct higher level buildings, such as Banks, WoWs, Universities etc.

Kingdoms would be able to create a new unit, the Army, which would be an administrative unit which would be able to stack up to 9 units together and use them in a coherent manner. While units would only deny the square that they occupied from the enemy, an Army would in effect occupy 9 squares (like a ZOC), and would be engaged by any attempt to move adjacent to it. A stacked combat would then occur, perhaps like MoM on a seperate tactical map.

Another scale of government / military could exist above the Kingdom / Army, but the ideas already outlined should suffice to describe it. The advantages to this system of varying scales are several. Firstly, they tend to more realisticly portray the events occurring in the game. Secondly, as your empire expands, they would cut down on the amount of micromanagement necessary. They would also tend to limit empires to more historically tenable areas, through limitations imposed by civil wars and rebellions. One political unit is relatively safe from these sort of events, while each additional unit creates a much more difficult management problem, up to the point where a vast empire is continually racked with civil conflict, and must let go of certain areas, or quickly upgrade it's system of government.

On to other subjects. I really agree with the point made previously regarding food and specialists. Food is really underrated in the current Civ game, at the expense of trade. I would like to see a much more extensive use made of specialists, and have more types of specialists available. I would use a more sophisticated city screen to assign the various groups of people to their jobs. (Like Colonization) Here is a partial list of what I have in mind:

Farmers: Assigned to a square in the city radius to grow food. No prerequisite.

Woodcutters / Miners: Assigned to a square to harvest resources. No prerequisite. Can work the same square as a farmer if the square also produces resources.

Craftsmen: Assigned to the build queue area initially (later to factories etc.) Converts resources into shields. No prerequisite.

Priests: Assigned to the temple. They produce a little bit of science, and the first priest causes one unhappy person to be content. (Up to two priests with Mysticism) Prerequisite, a temple.

Soldiers: Assigned to a Barracks. A segment of the population sufficient in size to man and maintain one (professional) military unit, provided that the requisite weaponry has been produced initially.

Sages: Assigned to Libraries. Produces knowledge.

Merchants: Assigned to Marketplaces. Produce taxes and luxeries, and increase productivity of commodities through superior (market based) distribution.

Bureacrats / Magistrates: Assigned to Palace / Courthouses. Produce tax revenue, and reduce corruption (inefficiency).

Slaves / Construction Teams: Assigned to squares within the city radius to improve the terrain by building the usual mines, roads, irrigation, fortifications etc.

Anyway, you get the idea. Buildings don't provide anything (except upkeep costs) on their own, they have to be manned by specialists. The more advanced the type of building, the more productive the specialist working there. Population working squares advances in productivity based on tech, as well as the presence of certain specialists.

The way to carry all of this out is to reduce the amount of food necessary to support one person to 1. This will double the growth rate, and quickly provide the population necessary to man the buildings in the city.

Something I really liked from SMAC was the idea of supply crawlers. These are units dedicated to the extraction and transportation of a commodity from an area outside of a city radius. I would limit them by forcing the unit to be built like a settler (ie it costs one population). There productivity would be divided by the number of turns it would take for them to move back to the city from there production square. Thus, your fishing fleets could take advantage of that fish square just outside of the city radius, at least until they were destroyed by an enemy fleet, or your city was so closely blockaded that their productivity dropped to zero.

Finally, the trade system in Civ needs to be totally revamped, including trade within a city (trade arrows), between cities of the same Civ, and between different Civs. How many times have you been frustrated by having a city which produces a ton of food, but no shields next to a city which has the opposite problem. Even though these cities might be linked by a RR, there is no way to conduct the obvious exchange in Civ II. (Even producing a food caravan takes forever in a city with no production).

I would like to have a system where you can instantly trade commodities between your own cities. My idea would work something like this. You would have two commodities, Food and Resources. Cities could trade their surplus on a one for one basis, minus inefficiency and subject to the same distance modifiers as the crawler. Caravan units, and / or ships would be required to conduct the trade. When the railroad is built, it will greatly increase the scope of trade potential, allowing workers to only utilize the most efficient squares in their city radius.

If trade between two cities is not efficient enough, or if an oversupply of one commodity is not matched by another, commodities could be sold at the rate of 2 for one gold, or bought at the rate of 2 gold for 1 commodity. Thus, it would be better to trade whenever possible, but cash can be used when necessary.

7.Latin
8.Byzantine
9.Islamic
10.Indian
11.Mayan
12.Inca
13.Russian
14.Germanic
15.Korean
16.Japanese
17.Anglo-Saxon(Arguable?)
18.Southeast Asian

Latin culture is so IMPORTANT to be in No.10
Byzantine culture,too
Islamic->Do not ignore them!
Indian-You gave too low rank for this civ
Mayan desrves in No.11
Inca deserves in No.12
Russian Civ's influence is great!
Germanic Civ's influence, too. Especially in European languages.
Korean-How come you miss this hermit-Kingdom?
Japanese-Why after Korean? Long time ago, they were much weaker and smaller than Koreans(bC450~)
Anglo-Saxon Why them? For some, they maybe barbarian civ. But since you included Germanic Civ, They deserves to be in the ranking(disagree?)
Southeast Asian is more important than Sub-saharan.

I think its important to stress the point that it was never my intention to rank civilizations. I dont believe in the concept of a ranking of civilizations. I started -as you probably noticed- with the oldest and perhaps most hallowed, the Sumerian, and continued first in chronological order, gradually abandoning this "logical" order and just considered the map from west to east. I didn't try to pass judgment.
Perhaps I should have continued in chronological order. In that case the Indian civilization, starting ~800BC, should be mentioned much earlier than the Latin/Catholic civilization, which in my opinion didn't get off before the rise of the papacy and the decline of Byzantine influence in the west(~800AD?). Byzantine is certainly older.

I have to admit that my knowledge of Korean history is practically non-existent. Most historians pondering the subject of these civilizations, McNeill, but also Fairbank and Reischauer, treat them as an offshoot of the Chinese civilization, like the Vietnamese too. The Japanese, about whom I happen to know a lot more, started also as a branch of the Chinese civilization, but developed from the tenth century in a totally different direction. Even McNeill, who is much more selective in discerning only seven individual civilizations, gives them that much credit.
It was not my intention to slight the Koreans. Did they develop a religion of their own making? Is their culture radically different from the Chinese?

First of all,I should have known better about the way you made the list so I will withdraw that ranking stuff anyway.

About Japan & Korea:
Much of the current commonality among East Asian countries is due to the extraordinary influence of the early-developing Chinese civilisation on its eastern neighbours,particulary the diffusion of Buddhism and Confucianism into the early states. This is not to say,however,that the later societies growing out of these states were carbon copies of China and lacked their own unique natures. One of the reasons for Japan's ascendancy in the modern world is her unusual development of a complex merchant economy and middle-class culture during the pre-modern Edo period(1603_1868). In fact, Japan's historical relations with the outside world can be mapped in pendulum-like swings from active solicitation and absorption of foreign culture to periods of isolationist incubation leading to the development of a rish and infinitely refined native culture. Such isolationism also took periodically on the Korean Peninsula, with the pre-modern Choson period(1392-1910)being popularly called the 'Hermit Kingdom'. Only in recent times(1868-World War I and during the post-World War II period) has Japan looked to the West during her phrases of foreign receptivity. Before this, China was natural magnet for Japan,Korea and all other peoples of eastern Eurasia.

The crucial period of active importation and adoption of Chinese ways occured in the 6th and 7th centuries. The contemporaneous goverments of the Korean Peninsula(Shilla) and the Japanese Islands(Yamato) both looked at the time to the sui and Tang Dynasties on the China Mainland for administrative system, and after which they could model their new states. Among the items borrowed were the grided city plan of the Tang capital, the regional admistrative system, and code of law.

One fallacy is to think that such countries as 'China', 'Korea' and 'Japan' existed in those earlier periods. They did not. The East Asian landscape was much more politically and culturally varied especially in China mainland and Manchuria and Korean Pennisula. During the Late Zhou, seven states emerged as major rivals:Qi,Qin,Yan,Qiao,Wei,Han and Chu. The period ended with the Qin's conquest of the others in 221 BC and the proclamation of a united Qin Dynasty(221-206BC).Korean culture and infulence existed in Manchuria and the Pennisula. After the destruction of old Choson(2333BC-108BC)by the army of Han Dynasty,the Koreans got splited into several kingdoms.(Puyo,Koguryo,Okcho,Tongye,Samhan) and Koguryo conquered all kingdoms except Samhan and controlled Whole Manchuria and Northern Korea. Later Packje and Shilla emerged from Samhan then it became known as Korean version of three kingdoms(Three kindoms in China:Wei,Wu and Shu)

Another fallacy is to think that the flow of cultural influence was all unidirectional from China Mainland eastwards to the Peninsula and Islands. It was not. constant interaction linked smaller areas of East Asia, and within those spheres, contact and exchange was multi-directional. Moreover, there was considerable influence thoroughout the ages from Eurasian steppe region and from Southeast Asia.

Finally, it is wrong to think that all areas were constantly in touch so that development occurred in concert. It did not. Just as in historical times, there were periods of intense interaction and periods of relative isolation between these geographical areas(China,Korea and Japan). By treating the cultural histories of the modern East Asian countries together,it is possible to gain a sense of the mosaic of early peoples,cultures and polities which cross-cut what are now modern national boundaries. Although each East Asian nation today claims portions of the mosaic for its individual history and interest, the ancient entities belong to no one and nothing other than their own time and place. Therefore it is better to be echewed to say either Japanese and Korean civilisations are Offshoots of Chinese Civilisation.

Thanks.

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 12-25-1999 12:30 PM I cant resist the temptation of including a historically correct list of the Great Civilizations of History. Most people identify a civilization with a nationality; I'm not against a national element in the game, but everyone should understand the enormous difference separating these concepts. 1. Sumerian/Babylonian 2. Egyptian 3. Indus/Dravidian 4. Chinese 5. Greek 6. Roman 7. Mayan/Meso-American 8. Inca/Andes 9. Byzantine/Orthodox 10. Latin/Catholic 11. Islamic/Near Eastern 12. Germanic/Protestant 13. Russian/Slav 14. Indian/Hindu 15. Japanese 16. Tibetan 17. South East Asian 18. sub-Saharan civilization?? Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic. Those asking for Hunnish or Mongol civilizations absolutely miss the point: those were the barbarians!

And yet another thread about which civs to include!
I'm still not convinced by the Koreans. In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.

Some mp people don't like goody huts anyway.

quote: In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.

S. Kroeze
I wouldn't say I'm an Oriental expert but I'll will tell you as far as I know.
McNeil is my favorite historian too but that goes as long as he describes only Western civilisations. He is not an Oriental expert is he? I would not refer to him if I were to describe about Oriental civilisations. It will be like asking to Peter Connoly about Samurai warfare.(inappropriate reference)

Fairbank,though I think, has better understanding about East Asia than McNeil, is still a China specialist isn't he?
Reischauer's experience as an ambassador serving in Japan made him quite a Japan specialist but that does not mean he has overall understanding about East Asia as a whole. I'm not questioning their credibility as historians(they are all respected people)

The problem is most of their works are largely borrowing of other's works which is especially true about the case of Korea.
And most of work done about Korean history are almost exact replica of "Chosenshi" which
is written by Japanese historians(such as Hatata Takeshi)who are influenced by the works of World WarII Colonialist historians.
This Colonialist movement(Shokuminshikan-Undo)began when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 under strict guidance from the military government and the purposes of the movement
were quite clear: 1.Glorifying Japanese history(as being unique). 2.Justifying the annexation of Korea by changing Korean history as a crap to avoid any international condemnation(as mere variant of
Chinese culture->a destined colony).

Nazi Germany tried to do similar things during WWII for the Arians as destined high-culture and slavic civs as destined inferiors but ended up unsuccessful because their works began after they occupied poland then intensified after the operation Barbarossa so the length of the works 6 years was not enough. Futhermore, allied forces' efforts to putting down these kind of activities were quite timely and determined.

US force which occupied Japan made no move on this kind of things and many Japanese historians were free to maintain their stnads.
We will have no idea how much damages this kind of activity done to Korean history unless Japan releases its dark secrets.
So why not ask to Koreans themselves? Well Korea began its own archeology since 1970 and many of critical archeological evidences are still in Japanese hands thanks to 40 years of colonial rule.
That's why many Western historians ask Japanese to help to describe Korean history during 70~80s just like McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer and many others.

If you study Japanese history carefully you can find swift change of what they are saying about Korea.
I will give one example "Mimana" debate. During 50~60s, When Korea was in ruin from the Korean war,Japanese historians
claimed Shilla,Packje and Kaya(7th century Korean states)were all under Japanese rule as colonies. During 70~80s,When Korea began its own archeology, Japan began to deny Shilla and Packje as their former colonies but still claimed Kaya as their former colony then named Mimana.
During 90s, Korean archeologists and historians bitterly debated with newly found evidences to nullify the Japanese claim.
Now even many Japanese historians say Mimana is utter nonsense. Professor Ueda suggests Kaya was some sort of protectorate of Packje-Yamato alliance agianst Shilla aggression not a direct Yamato colony. There are so many cases just like this waiting to be discovered and debated but that
seems long way ahead as long as Japanese government is not very cooperative.
This outdated Japanese version of Mimana was adopted into Age of Empire(Microsoft)and Microsoft got complaints from the Koreans then changed its products for Korea by merely deleting Yamato campaign.(see game company can be wrong too) Therefore if you want more accurate info about their history try the most recently published books because it keeps changing by time.

Since it is difficult to find Western historians who are specialised in Korean history it is better to ask to Koreans themselves. But depending solely upon only one source can be quite dangerous step when you describe Oriental civs since their sources differ greatly in detail when they deal with same events/incidents.

I will give one example "7years of war"(Japanese invasion to Korea)

About Ming intervention
Japanese source says Ming army was defeated twice by the Japanese ground force and lacked martial spirit.
Chinese source says Great Ming army once sent to Korea to save its vassal crushed the Wa(Japanese)army and returned with glory.
Korean source says the first sent Ming army was so small in size so defeated by the Japanese. Second contingent were Ming's Royal regulars which won the siege of Pyongyang but later ambushed by the Japanese at the valley of Byockje.

About Korean naval might
Japanese source says Japanese did not have proper warships to fight the Korean fleet and
values Yi sun-sin as master tactician and Korean fleet as the strongest in the Orient at that time.
Chinese source never mention about him nor Korean navy but Ming's naval victory against Wa fleet.
Korean source says Yi sun-sin invented turtle-ship and saved Korea.

About atrocities
Japanese source says Ming army commited greater atrocities than the Japanese.
Chinese source never mention about atrocities.
Korean source says both(Chinese & Japanese) committed atrocities against civilians.

About the ending of the war.
Japanese source says Hideyoshi's death saved Korea and possibly Manchuria from Japanese onslaught.
Chinese source says Hideyoshi's death saved the Japanese army from total destruction since his death gave an
excuse to the Japanese to withdrew.
Korean source says even before Hideyoshi's death, the Japanese army already lost the war.

See how different the so-called source can be. That's why careful cross-examination of sources from three sides are required to have more correct picture of historical events when we talk about Oriental history.
I sincerely ask you to read about Korean source too so you can have more balanced opinion about Korea.
And check whether they think about themselves as variants or the unique. I remember when Fairbank describes about Korea, he uses the Chinese sources and Reischauser uses the Japanese sources when he talks about Korea.

McNeil went even further by faithfully adopting only Chinese source when he describes about the 7years war he mention "Ming's naval tech so great when Ming sent its fleet to engage the Japanese and they sank even few Portugese galleons." In fact, Portuguese never intervened the war(check Portugese/Korean/Japanese sources pal ) and he failed to mention Korean naval technology and its fleets' decisive role for the victory. He said Chinese ship design greatly influenced the Japanese design throughout history. Was it? really?
According to the Chinese source it seems but both Korean and Japanese sources tell different story. Until 9th Century, Japan had only one ocean-going vessel called Kudara-sen(150 tonnes)Kudara means Packje(One of three Korean kingdoms)in Japanese and During 6~7th centuries Packje was powerful naval empire ,constructed many ocean-going vessels and dominated sea trade in that region.(now that explains a lot)
16th century Japan warship design was actually influenced by the design of the Koreans. Only Korea had cannon-armed fleets at that time and under the leadership of Admiral Yi, invented many revolutionary warships such as Turtle-ship(Ironclad)and Pan-oak(Korean version of "man of war")After the first war, the Japanese learned from the concept of arming ships with cannons(this time they used Portugese ones)and ramming device.

Since we know the so-called source can be quite self-serving for anyone's own national interest, without hearing from one side and only hearing from the other can be quite hazardous for true understanding of any nation's history.

Korean culture

Korean religion.
Sounds like a show off but I have to tell you I've been these three countries(China,Korea and Japan)and I learned little bit of Mandarin,Korean(south)and Japanese(Kanto).I studied their general histories with some specialisation with martial arts/military/ceramics histories.

According to my observation and study, they(Chinese,Korean and Japanese)are all different and unique people with distinctive cultures. Since we are talking about Korea I will focus on that.

McNeil also failed to notice the secular trends of Korea towards Confucianism and labelled Korea as nation with religon:Confucianism. Hahaha The Koreans,even Yi-dynasty Koreans, did not perceive Confucianism as a Religion but rather a source for virtuous code of conduct that explains why there is no single shrine in Korea for worshiping Confucian but with thosands of Buddist temples. It's like an accepting principles of the Bible without necesarilly believing the God or Jesus.

Koreans' primary religious life can be described as Buddism plus Mu-sok. Mu-sok which basically is polytheism(thousands of gods)with characteristics of nature worshiping and generally practised by female sorceress named Mu-dang.(some similarities with Shinto)While Koreans' primary religions have been changed from Buddism to Christianity, Mu-sok still survives within Korean's religious life today as being the supplementary by occupying the grounds of superstitions/taboos,etc. If you ask any Koreans what is Mu-dang they will tell you what it is.

Korean alphabet
It is true they adopted Chinese charater for their writing system during 4th century AD but later they develop their own writing system called Han-gul and many linguists say it is the most sceintific writing system. As a minor civ it is quite an achivement I think. Japan still uses its supplementary writing system called Kana along with Chinese charaters(Kanji)

Others
Korean dishes have no similarities with the Chinese and Japanese ones(I love them all especially Japanese one)

Korean traditional wearing has no similarities with Chinese and Japanese ones(They are all beutiful)

Korean folk tales have no similarities with the Chinese ones but some similarities with the Japanese ones.

Tradtional Korean architecture, though look similar, vastly different from Chinese and Japanese ones such as castle and fortress design(I don't remember all the jargons told by the tour guide now sorry)

Traditional Korean housing uses distinctive features of centralised heating system named On-dol(Can't be found from Chinese bedroom and Japanese Tadami)There were only two ancient civs which used centralised heating system Roman and Korean civs. Fairbank failed to recognise this great invention by criticising the Koreans, people sleeping on the floor.

The list goes on and on but I will stop here.

Some minor points
Reischauer also failed to notice both China and Korea went through feudalism by saying only Japan had one. Zhou dynasty China was actually supported by many feudal lords. Late Shilla and early Koryo had feudal lords named Ho-jock and their clan titles were
hereditary.

Warrior elite class appears Shilla prior to samurai of Japan and called Hwa-Rang and acted under strict code named Hwa-rang-do. During the three kingdom period of Korea, Yamato had no specilised warrior elite class. Also some suggest the ancient Korean word "Saulabi" is the origin of Samurai. "Saul" in ancient Korean mean "fighting" and "abi" means father or man so the word meant "fighting father" or "fighting man". This theory becomes more probable because to Japanese the word "Samurai" has to be used as a whole otherwise it means nothing which strongly suggest the foreign origin of the word. Even in modern Korean, "Samu" means "fighting" but Japanese use "Kenka" or Tatakai" as a word for fighting. "Bushi" is a word from China.

This earlier existance of warrior class in Korea and the word Saulabi and Samurai all helps to us to reach the conclusion Samurai class in Japan actually came from Korea and when this class was replaced by scholar class in Korea, Japan consolidated more for this warrior class.

Japanese cultural debts to Korea is not new things to say and even McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer know about them but lack in details.

"Tea cermony" and "Zen culture" are actually from the China and Korea also developed these as its own called "Da-do" and "Son". So don't make too big deal about these OK?

These Korean influence to Japanese culture are strongly supported by the evidences of massive influx of migrants from Packje and Kokuryo(Two Korean kingdoms) Yamato created special districts to settle these migrants in Satuma and its surrounding regions of Kyshu and Kai,Shinao and considerable part of Kanto regions. These influx of people to Yamato was a hugh boost towards more civilised society.

Kokuryo's territory was that of Manchuria so people are quite aggressive,tough and full of martial spirit. Packje was a naval empire so its people are truely seafaring ones and highly artistic and have good sense of commerce. These two Korean kingdoms' peoples' characteristics are inherited as Today Japanese people's dual characteristics.(while kind and peaceful but on the other hand aggressive) Actually I think there is no point of dividing these two people(Korean & Japanese)because they share same ancestors which Japanese bitterly deny.

Yayoi culture which is prior to Yamato too was under great influence from Korea. Bronze culture and Rice farming introduced by the Koreans. I think that's why many Japanese historians deny Yayoi as thier first culture.

Jomon culture is quite popular with Japanese historians and they want to see this as thier first culture but its too primitive to be seen as civilised culture.(stone age)

I think I talked too much maybe I wanted to release my strees from the exams. Well I don't know.

I certainly don't think your post is too long. I think its highly informative and intelligent. As I admitted before:
I have to admit that my knowledge of Korean history is practically non-existent. And it was absolutely not my intention to slight the Koreans.

But I have become a bit suspicious about the national prejudices of some posters here claiming their nation is unique and should be included among the civilizations of CivIII. As you will have noticed there clearly is an Australian lobby and an Austrian too. Someone even maintained that those Austrians actually are Celts, no Germans,(?!?) while the Hungarians could be considered part of them. I cant take such distortions of historical truth seriously.

Since I am not campaigning for a Dutch civilization (which nonetheless has far greater historical importance than the Australians) I'm not arguing too serve nationalistic distortions of reality. To no avail I tried to make it clear that Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!! Following McNeill I think its religion that in the end holds a civilization together. Unfortunately many posters only consider the political structure of the present moment and seem to think that history has ended(!).

I think there should be some human inhabitants occupying Australian continent whether it is Aborigines or Australian. and other empty part of the World too should be occupied by some local tribes thus easy expansion will never be possible.

Austria was once occupied by Romano-Celtic tribes until they were overwhelemed by Germanic invaders. Today most of Austrians are direct descendants of these Germanic tribes not the Celtic ones. If Austrians claim their ancestors are only Celts it would be like English people denying their Saxon/Norman blood.

I will never disagree with you the important role of Dutch civilisation during the exploration era.

Although I fully agree with you on the definition of civilisation as culture bloc or major cultural source, the game is not very faithful on this and I rather say the rule is broken long time ago since they(game developer)tried to represent civilisations as political entities not as culture blocs.

The evidences are everywhere. For example, look at the city name or leader name. German civilisation in the game is not a resentation of Germanic civilisation itself but a Germany as national entity. Dose it include Holland,Denmark or Austria? No I have never seen any Dutch,Danish nor Austrian city names appear within German civ city name box and Fredrick can't represent Germanic civilisation as a whole(he is rather a German national figure)

Now Firaxis has two choices:

1. make it clear that a civilisation is a civilisation and represent it as the strict text-rule and reduce number of civs so they can be fit into the true definition of civilisation.

2. or go on with the broken-rule tradtion of political entity as civilisation and add some more national entities.

I don't think Firaxis will choose the first option for the development for CivIII and You and I have to accept some suggestions made by other people to include their own nationalities. It is truely difficult to draw a strict line since nations varies in size and their importance greatly. It's like the argument of who can be armed with nuclear arms and who can not-->(USA-Russia-China-India-Pakistan)

General study of Korea? I can only recommend that it is best to actually go there and have a look with your own eyes rather than reading some books which might have been distorted by somebody. Don't miss Kyoung-Ju(ancient Korean capital)as your primary site.
Since my study is confined mainly to military history so fragmented in some ways and I still have to learn a lot more about general history of Korea(Remember I am still learning not lecturing )

in empty places there should be a spontaneous poping up of civs allowed .

I hope all is well? I have missed your contributions. I especially liked your proposal in the Civ III Units Workshop thread. Do you still visit here?

I can't say you have convinced me, but at least you have decreased my resistance to a political interpretation of the Civilization concept since it seems inevitable nonetheless. As you said:

quote: Now Firaxis has two choices: 1. make it clear that a civilisation is a civilisation and represent it as the strict text-rule and reduce number of civs so they can be fit into the true definition of civilisation. 2. or go on with the broken-rule tradition of political entity as civilisation and add some more national entities. I don't think Firaxis will choose the first option for the development for CivIII and You and I have to accept some suggestions made by other people to include their own nationalities. It is truely difficult to draw a strict line since nations varies in size and their importance greatly. It's like the argument of who can be armed with nuclear arms and who can not-->(USA-Russia-China-India-Pakistan)

Now lets assume Firaxis makes a clear choice for the second possibility -after all, everyone should prefer a clear choice above the muddled situation we have now- and interprets a Civilization as political entity. Immediately another problem arises.
To put all readers on the way I foresee, I'll copy a list of empires, which were at some period of history a dominant power, from the game 'History of the World', quite an enjoyable game, related to Risk. In this way I can save myself the responsability for this list. Yet I think the designers did make quite intelligent decisions. They divided history in seven epochs.
(NB: I put their capitals in brackets; barbarians don't have a capital in this game, how realistic! I corrected some obvious mistakes.)

I Early Civilizations, 3000-1400BC
Sumer (Kish)
Egypt (Memphis)
Crete (Knossos)
Indus/Dravidian (Harappa)
Babylonia (Babylon)
Shang dynasty (Anyang)
Hittites (Chattushash)
Aryans

II Antiquity, 1400-450BC
Assyria (Ninive)
Zhou dynasty (Hao)
Phoenicia (Byblos)
Vedic republics and kingdoms, a.o.Kosala (Shravasti)
Greek cities (Athenai)
Sarmatians
Carthago (Carthago)
Persian empire (Persepolis)

III Classical Antiquity, 450BC-300AD
Celts
Macedonia (Pella)
Magadha (Pataliputra)
Han dynasty (Chang'an)
Xiongnu
Roman empire (Roma)
Maya (Tikal)
Sassanian empire (Ctesiphon)

IV Early Middle Ages, 300-750AD
Guptas (Pataliputra)
Goths
Huns
Byzantine empire (Constantinople)
Anglo-Saxons
T'ang dynasty (Chang'an)
Islamic caliphate (Mekka)
Khmer (Angkor)

V High Middle Ages, 750-1300AD
Frankish empire (Reims)
Vikings
Fujiwara dynasty (Heian)
Holy Roman empire (Aachen)
Cholas (Tanjore)
Song dynasty (Kaifeng)
Seljuks
Mongols

VI Renaissance, 1300-1550AD
Ming dynasty (Beijing)
Timurids (Samarkand)
Inca empire (Cuzco)
Aztec empire (Tenochtitlán)
Otoman empire (Istanbul)
Portugal (Lisboa)
Spanish empire (Madrid)
Safawid empire (Isfahan)
Mughal empire (Delhi)

VII Modern, 1550-
Manchus (Beijing)
Russian empire (Moskwa)
United Provinces (Amsterdam)
France (Paris)
British empire (London)
United States (Washington)
Japan (Tokyo)
German empire (Berlin)

I really think they did excellent work. Yet the problem emerges immediately: Civilizations we like to imagine as indivisible and monolithic, like China, India and Persia, turn out to be politically intermittent. After all many Chinese dynasties didn't follow one another without temporary disruption of political unity. So when Firaxis persists in this direction, a Rise and Fall structure becomes unevitable, or they should abandon historical resemblance all together. I'm looking forward to your comments.

anytime such a thread pops up I feel very uncomfortable about myself .

Asking I Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli Civilization is too much . but is it too much . I know the last sentences aren't clear but they just represent the huge question mark in my mind . can such a nation that made a great impact ( I hope you agree with me ) like the hebrews ,disappear and then reappear ? is there any way to simulate it ? should Firaxis even bother ? at first I was pretty sure that yes . but now , with threads piling in my mind , I am not so sure . answers ?

Just some quick notes after reading your thesis on Korea

Korea had been a Chinese vassal for quite sometime. At least it was during the Tang Dynasty. I don't know when did it become independent, though.

"The Koreans,even Yi-dynasty Koreans, did not perceive Confucianism as a Religion but rather a source for virtuous code of conduct that explains why there is no single shrine in Korea for worshiping Confucian but with thosands of Buddist temples."

Just because you find somebody's statue in a shine in the Orient doesn't mean he or she is a god (or goddess). For example, Lord Pao (a madarin during the Sung dynasty).

In China Confucianism is a secular philosophy for the most part. The mainstream never had him deitified. A saint, maybe, but not a god.

"Mu-sok which basically is polytheism (thousands of gods) with characteristics of nature worshiping and generally practised by female sorceress named Mu-dang."

"Mu-sok" sounds freightfully Chinese. The Chinese character "mu" refers to those who have supernatural powers. Originally it was used to refer to those who use a variety of methods -- such as drilling holes in tortoise shells and then burning the shells over fire -- to foretell the future. This meaning is very old and dated back to the Chou dynasty or even earlier. Later it was expanded to include those who claimed they could drive out evil spirits and bring in good fortune.

"Sok" in Chinese refers to "skills, methods, or techniques." It carries a connotation of "not enlightened" or "not proper." "Tao" would be used instead to refer to something grand, perhaps on a cosmological scale.

"Zhou dynasty China was actually supported by many feudal lords."

Some contend that they were more like slave owners. An any rate, Fedual lords were there during the Warring States period. Even during the early Han dynasty there were these "kings" who were the equivalent of fedual lords.

""Bushi" is a word from China."

It is?

""Tea cermony" and "Zen culture" are actually from the China"

quote: the game 'History of the World', quite an enjoyable game

Interesting. Do you know any site that has this so I can download?

quote: So when Firaxis persists in this direction, a Rise and Fall structure becomes unevitable

Don't get me wrong I voted for the idea and still like it but one thing that bothers me is the implementation of it into the game. I don't have any problem with the Rise status of my empire but how you going to simulate a falling? Political division within a empire can be the best example as far as I can think. But what about an empire that still maintains territorial integrity but cripples inside for other various reasons? Bigger percentage of corruption or falling productivity regardless of what form of government you have perhaps? tell me more on this please.

Another thing that has to be sacrificed is that an advanced diplomacy feature of the game if the term of civilisation becomes strict. Many civilisations have interacted with its nearby political entities whatever they were barbaric or civilised. Local tribes,nomadic hordes,minor civs and major civs all have helped to shape up the world that now we know and they all deserve some kind of historic represenation within the game for fun & reality's sake.

Dalgetti

I don't have any problem with Hebrew civ appears in the game but things like once it's existance comes to an end then re-emerge after some time can be very difficult to simulate I guess.

Urban Ranger

quote: Korea had been a Chinese vassal for quite sometime. At least it was during the Tang Dynasty. I don't know when did it become independent, though.

Korea starts as Choson then annexed by Han(4th centruty BC)Wu-Ti's army that settled 2 province(Lo-lang & Tai-feng)along southern Manchria and northern Korea. While Lo-lang still held much of northern part of Korean peninsula, various enthnic Korean kingdoms emerged as Puyo,Koguryo in Northern Manchria and Okcho,Tongye in Northern and central Korea and three han kingdoms in Southern Korea. Kokuryo destroys Puyo,Tai-feng and finally the Han chinese stronghold Lo-lang then rapidly expanded its territory which include whole of Manchria and northern Korea. The three Han kingdoms gradually evlove as Pack-je,Shilla and Kaya then Kaya was annexed by Shilla thus opening the era of Korean version of three kingdom period(Kokuryo,Packje and Shilla)and amazingly the Chinese version of three kingdom(Wei,Wu and Shu)too was very close to the time period of the Korean version. Let's see hmmm Shang-Zhou-Warring states-Chin-Han-Three kingdoms-Northern/Southern dysnasties-Sui-Tang.....
it was early Han dynasty period when Korea was annexed then late Han to Three kingdoms when Kokuryo began to interact with China so as far as I know it is basically during early Han to late Han not until Tang that parts of Korea was settled as Han provinces.

For the Confucianism, yes I agree with you. A idol worshiped at a shrine does not always mean a religion is being practised. China has the both views(though close to secular one)about Confucious but in Korea, it is percieved strictly secular.

The word "Mu-sok" has the chinese origin due to the Ancient Koreans' usage of chinese characters as their writing system but the main practice of it does not come from China but Northern Asian style shamanism/nature worshiping. The word Shinto too has the chinese origin but again it too does not have any relationship with Chinese style shamanism. If you see any of Mu-dang(sorceress)'s practice such as "Gut" you will see the difference.

quote: Some contend that they were more like slave owners. An any rate, Fedual lords were there during the Warring States period. Even during the early Han dynasty there were these "kings" who were the equivalent of fedual lords

Yes, you're right. In fact, any dis-unity period of Chinese history is full feudal lords.

"Bushi" is a word that is pronounced in Japanese style based on Chinese characters.

Hebrews are partly to blame for Christianity and Islam, but this accomplishment was more due to the location than the state as a whole. Their country was neither large nor influential and overall nothing more than a minor state.