{The List} Civilizations ver. II

[Heresson]

II think Italians are more essential than Germans

[Niptium]

Well, me thinks that, Romans should become Italians at the Renaissance via an event that lets you chose.

[Heresson]

No, the Roman civilisation should turn into Byzantine one.
But for game purposes, we can have it this way; Romans turn into Italians, Greeks into Byzantines and then Greeks again,
Sumers turn into Babylonians or Assyrians and then into Arabs,
Hittites turn into Turks (hm...), Celts into French guys,
and so on

[Brent]

Native American civs to me are very interesting. The game is about rewriting history, and giving Native Americans and Africans a chance to dominate the world is a fun way to do so. If the game focuses only or mostly on Europe, it's too much like real history for my tastes. I think we need a large variety of civs so more people can find the ones they want. I hope the civs you want are in as well as the ones I want. I think it does make sense to have more Europeans than Americans, Africans, or Asians, but not overwhelmingly. I want the Americans, Africans, and Asians to have more civs, maybe about twice as many, and the Europeans and Middle Easterners can each have more than the others. I don't understand why you don't want many Middle Easterners. You seem to be focussing too much on modern times. The middle east was very important in ancient times. What I would like to see borrowed from Colonization is the Native American groups, but playable like the Europeans. I would not object to a united Tribal African civ or a united Tribal American civ.

Egypt can turn into Arabia and back to Egypt.

Here's a duality of modes suggestion: one with real world civs with static traits, and the other with ficticious civs whose traits are determined by circumstance. And if you develop random civs that you like, you can give them their own static mode.

[Heresson]

What about Escimo civ? They have their own, unique culture...?

[Brent]

I would not object or complain about an Eskimo civ, but it's not on my list. It would be interesting to have a civ specially adapted to arctic terrain. Why should a group have to be a civ in real life to be a civ in the game? If it would be interesting enough in the game. Rewriting history...

[Niptium]

Eskimos now !

Man, you have to live everywhere but not in North America to paint a pretty portrait of the Natives and their contribution to History.

Except for the Aztecs and Incas, every other nation in the pre-Columbian era were pre-summerian primitive. I wouldn't even call the Sioux, the Hurons and the Iroquois civilized by any means. They fought with bow and arrows and the only technology they had besides the fire and such weapons is the agriculture and that's exceptional to the Iroquois. They didn't have any alphabet or any form of written down language. Eskimos had their own way of life (and still do, thanks to motordriven ski-doos) but they are nowhere near being important then and especially now.

I have an enormous respect for Amerindian rituals, and culture ; Québec recognizes the Cris, the Montagnais, the Mohawks, the Eskimos, etc. as nations but when a nation has a population less than 50 000 and is no where near having the same capacity as the surrounding political nations (Québec, United States, Canada ) you can't help but have a clearer picture of their relative un-importance in History. Europeans clearly have an anachronic opinion of Amerindians. I can assure you there is no leather- clothed, feather-wearing-woo-hoo chanting Amerindians in North America anymore. You will never see an Amerindian hut downtown Montréal, Boston or Cleveland.

[Heresson]

I didn't say Eskimos were a great empire or civilisation...
C-mon... Even I can't be that dumb...
But it'd be interesting to have such a strange civ.


Imagine Eskimo seal cavalry conquering Washington...

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Niptium
Eskimos now !

Man, you have to live everywhere but not in North America to paint a pretty portrait of the Natives and their contribution to History.

Except for the Aztecs and Incas, every other nation in the pre-Columbian era were pre-summerian primitive. I wouldn't even call the Sioux, the Hurons and the Iroquois civilized by any means. They fought with bow and arrows and the only technology they had besides the fire and such weapons is the agriculture and that's exceptional to the Iroquois. They didn't have any alphabet or any form of written down language. Eskimos had their own way of life (and still do, thanks to motordriven ski-doos) but they are nowhere near being important then and especially now.

I have an enormous respect for Amerindian rituals, and culture ; Québec recognizes the Cris, the Montagnais, the Mohawks, the Eskimos, etc. as nations but when a nation has a population less than 50 000 and is no where near having the same capacity as the surrounding political nations (Québec, United States, Canada ) you can't help but have a clearer picture of their relative un-importance in History.

Can we say 'Eurocentric'?

[Niptium]

Yes, but, it's true.

[Heresson]

It is... But civilisation is not only technology. It's also art, language, rase...

[Niptium]

Yes but technology plays a major role in arts, politcs and language.

Without writing, bronze working, etc... arts are relegated to colouring carpets and little wooden statuettes.

Without writing and philosophy, politics are confined to tribal leadership and despotism.

Without mathematics and writing, the language is limited to a very regional, poorly organized and a mediocre vocabular.

Cavemen and Amerindians were closer to each other before the european contact than the Amerindians and the Summerians (wich is is still like, what ? 4 000 years before 1492 ?)

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Niptium
Yes but technology plays a major role in arts, politcs and language.

Without writing, bronze working, etc... arts are relegated to colouring carpets and little wooden statuettes.

Without writing and philosophy, politics are confined to tribal leadership and despotism.

Without mathematics and writing, the language is limited to a very regional, poorly organized and a mediocre vocabular.

Cavemen and Amerindians were closer to each other before the european contact than the Amerindians and the Summerians (wich is is still like, what ? 4 000 years before 1492 ?)

Well, there's no point in arguing with narrow-mindedness.

[Niptium]

Well, when you are going to study in political sciences like I do at the Université de Montréal, we may have some arguing back and forth that will be worth somethin'. No need to be that stiff dude !

[punkbass2000]

Well, I won't be in Montreal, but I was an Honours Arts major at Waterloo, Ontario. I suppose we could argue, but it is difficult to do so without predefined criteria. I think ours differs vastly. IMO, every civilization has its own merits, and none can be considered any more or less important than another. I recognize that you have somewhat acknowledged this, but you still seem to maintain that some cultures are more important based such linear criterions as technology, world effect (which is, again, based on rather western concepts) and other, IMO, minute aspects of life. I mean, come on, no alphabet? So what? Sure there's practicality, but there's more to life. Some would argue that all your points are in fact contributors to the detractors from the quality of life in the modern world, causing the previously unheard of mental epidemic (yes, yes, I was a Psych major).