{The List-} Civilizations

[Agathon]

I argued about this in the old "Civilization" forum.

In no way should Israel be a Civ. Nor should any proposed Civ that was not at some time for want of a better term "Imperial". If this isn't the criterion, then we might as well have everyone and I don't believe the programmers want that.

By that I mean a civ which was militarily and culturally dominant over a large amount of territory at some time in the past.

As far as this criterion goes, the Hebrews/Israelis were historical nobodies.

However, the contribution to history of peoples like the Jews and the Scots should be recognized with the addition of "cultural figures". Civilizations that are high on culture have a better chance of obtaining one of these every so often and getting one adds a small culture bonus.

This in my view is the best way of recognizing ethnic groups who never dominated, but have nevertheless exercised a profound influence on history.

Einstein is perhaps the top candidate for one of these as is Karl Marx and so are figures of the Scottish Enlightenment like Adam Smith.

[POTUS]

Judea was powerful. Under David and Solomn, they controlled all the land from Gaza to Northern Lebonon. Sure, relatively small, but the Iroquis controlled about as much, and they were in Civ III.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?

Nothing, unless it comes at the expense of strategy.

[Kuciwalker]

To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues.

And this is the heart of the debate. I'd rather play a game than read a list of historical city names over and over again.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by POTUS
Judea was powerful. Under David and Solomn, they controlled all the land from Gaza to Northern Lebonon. Sure, relatively small, but the Iroquis controlled about as much, and they were in Civ III.

No they did not. That is religious mythmaking, not historical fact. Whatever these people did (if they actually existed) did not make them a dominant imperial power. We might as well have some of the other minor ancient Civs, but there would be too many.

The Iroquois were the dominant power in their region at the time - the Hebrews never were.

The Jewish contribution to world history does not fit well with the kind of game civilization is. Yet, given their contributions to culture and history, it would be churlish to leave them out (same goes for the Scots) - hence a "great figures" feature would recognize their achievements and fittingly so.

[Brent]

Nonplayable tribes

How many of these should there be? Possibly include Israel and Judah separately in nonplayable form. If there's a huge number, maybe each of the 12 tribes separately. Moab, Ammon, Midian. Go to some effort to cater to upgrading these to playable status in the editor.

Traits

What if the designers include civs with name lists and we provide the traits for the civs we want to use?

Israel

I wouldn't be upset if Israel is left out for PC reasons. It may even be better to leave them out entirely than to give them minor status. I'd like to have them in with full status, but I'm okay with whatever they do on the subject.

Cultural Figures

We could have Cultural Figures that historically belong to an unincluded tribre, either assigned to a closely related civ, or given to civs regardless of any connection.

[Kirastos]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III



The muslim regions of Iberia were definitely neither "Arab" nor "Spanish".

But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab.

In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kirastos
But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab.

But only very few inhabitants were proper Arabs. The conquerors were largely Berber. Arabic is the language of Quran, thus it was adapted as a dominant language.

In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World.

That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...

However, sure I admit that my list is debattable and your arguments are as good as mine, it's always a personal view, which factors one considers more important in picking a civ or lumping it together with another one etc. It's just that I've discussed civ-lists for so long now, that my list is quite polished by arguments and counter arguments, though they obviously and hopefully never will cease.

[Kirastos]

I like pretty much the idea of ethnic influence. But I see two issues:

-- first how are you going to divide the influence of a minority that contributed to two or more civilizations? The Jews for instance have contributed in both Arab and Western cultures. Should we separate the Jews as Ashkenazis and Sephardic? The former mostly contributed to the West in terms of scientific and western issues (Einstein, Marx, Freud) while the latter got involved with the Arabs in medicines, art and philosophy (the most famous is Maimonide, who was also Saladin's personal medic).

--second, what about 'major' ethic influence? Europe has and is influencing (and it's a euphemism) the entire world in our days in every culture. How are you going to implement that without having to automatically capture a city if it falls under your cultural influence like in Civ 3. Could we have in a same civ two cities, with a general cultural background, but each has been influenced by two other different culture, wich in turn have their own cities influenced by the culture with the two cities (are you still following?).
Actually this could happen in border areas, and if the mixture is so tight, well border cities of each neighboring culture would secede from their mother nation and form a new one by themselves (a bit like Cyprus but I'm not sure if it is a good example).

Another thing is, could we have genocides or ethnic cleansing to get rid of the influence of a minor ethnic culture? (that supposes that two influences might not be compatible, or include negative effects in an influence). If we do that with the influence of a major ethnic culture, that should create tensions if not a war between the two civilizations (eg, Greece and Turkey).

[Kirastos]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...

I don't think the Berbers could really be considered a civ because they were mostly nomads or agrarians (they never had one common language nor a writing). The thing is, in Morocco, I think the only areas where you can find "pure" blood would be in the rural areas. Whereas in the cities, even if people might claim a Berber (which is divided in incredebly numerous tribes) or Arab descent, everybody is mixed and the tendancy is to more and more mixture.

Actually I think we could make an exception for Morocco and add it as a civilization of its own (with a mixture of Western, Roman, Phoenician, Arab-Muslim, Andalucian, Berber and Jewish influence) separate to the Arabs (which is true in the real world). Now do we make Morocco and Andalucia the same civilization? That's another debate...

[Brent]

Latin America

Maybe the Aztec civ can change its name during the game to Mexico. Maybe the Incas could become the Peruvians. Would this require European immigration?

Cordobese

The Cordobese are growing on me.

noncivs

Groups that can't justifiably be called Civilizations should have a chance to become such, such as the Berbers and many Native American tribes, the Fremont would be nice.

Lists and Consensus

Do we want to continue with separate lists from individuals? Do we want a core list of the civs that the most people agree upon, and maybe other lists that some but fewer agree upon? Does anyone think there should be fewer than 20 civs?

Varying Detail of Civs

Should the civs from Civ1 be more important than all the others? Should they automatically have more leaders to choose from? Several UUs? Should the civs from Colonization be especially detailed in the important aspects of that game? Including the native tribes? Should the Civ2 civs have higher status than civs introduced in Civ3, and the Civ3 civs higher than ones that haven't been in any main Civ game?

Importance versus Uniqueness

Should some small, weak, unpowerful civs be included because they are more interesting? Maybe have an expansion devoted to them?

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse

What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?

Expensiveness relative to the return on gameplay.

[ok]

[polypheus]

Late Starting Minor Civs

In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.

This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.

Obviously it would be no fun to actually be one of these Civs so any Civ you chose would automatically be a "Major" Civ. Of course perhaps for fun or challenge you could operate a Late Starting Civ if you want (maybe tie that in with Diff Level so in Diety, you are automatically put in the position of our RL Aztecs).

For this to work, you'd need to make some fundamental changes. You'd need a very large map and you'd need to put in place "barriers" (distance to friendly territory, attrtition in hostile terrain, oceans, etc) so that you wouldn't be able to make contact with the "Africa" and "N/S America" backwards Civs. You'd also need to have a large number of Civs, mi nimum of 32 with maybe 6 of these playing the role of backwards Civs.

Then you'd be able to simulate exploration, colonization, exploitation and conquest of the New World, scramble for brand new resources and luxuries, etc.These far flung colonies would also make good use of concepts such as "rremote" culture that might rebel against you thus starting brand new Civs just like in real history.

[Kuciwalker]

Varying Detail of Civs
Should the civs from Civ1 be more important than all the others? Should they automatically have more leaders to choose from? Several UUs? Should the civs from Colonization be especially detailed in the important aspects of that game? Including the native tribes? Should the Civ2 civs have higher status than civs introduced in Civ3, and the Civ3 civs higher than ones that haven't been in any main Civ game?

No, all civs should be (relatively) equal, though I can see how it would be difficult to get as many Iroquois citynames as German or English, and they should DEFINATELY be equal in terms of the actual game (don't make some civs better than others).

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Late Starting Minor Civs

Originally posted by polypheus
In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.

This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.

I disagree strongly with this idea. Yes, the Aztecs and Incans were latecomers, but latecomers compared to other civs in their regions, like the Olmecs or Moche etc., similar to how Mongols were latecomers in the Old World.
The "backwardness" of civs came from their isolation and thus lack of exchange. This is already implemented in the Civ concept, as players in remote parts have less contacts.