Looking Back: Comparative Civ

[padillah]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Double post 7 mins apart, to be precise

I'm, ummm, "using" someone else's WiFi and the signal is "Very Low" so it took a while for me to realise the connection dropped.

Tom P.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Double post 7 mins apart, to be precise

There has been some double posts with 30-60 mins between AFAIK

[Locutus]

There've been genuine DPs that were hours apart, we don't need any black pots or kettles to point that out...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by padillah

I just thought, being an actual history student you would contradict the crap out of that post.

If it's actually correct then great.

Tom P.

Well, the Iroquois can in no wise be considered Mesoamericans, because Mesoamerica means "Between the Americas" just like Mesopotamia means "Between the Rivers." Since only civs in Central America can be considered Mesoamerican, that means that the Iroquois are not, as indeed the Incans are not.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Locutus
There've been genuine DPs that were hours apart, we don't need any black pots or kettles to point that out...

That's why I didn't point those ones out

[Generaldoktor]

This was a darling thread, I gave you all 3 peanuts!

Now, to reality; don't the Firaxis people from time to time throw new stuff in, particularly leaders, to change the game from earlier versions. Example, Hattie for Egypt, displacing "the usual suspects." Therefore the statistically-based leader speculation can pretty much go out the window. (Another thread suggests they really are using Dido for Carthage, for instance.)

Also, doesn't accomplishment somewhat qualify a "civ" for inclusion in Civ? What is the long-term impact of Sumer, Assyria, Ethiopia, Siam, or for that matter, Zulu? Zilch! (Though I will give Sumer credit for some early cuneiform and Siam for some great food!)

Continuing in this vein, I think the Dutch were mostly tossed in Civ3 so they could be in the "Age of Discovery" scenario, which is their 15 seconds of fame; the rest of their history they act mostly as spoilers, for the Hapsburgs, the English and the Portuguese; this last being much more significant than the Gouda-eaters, IMO. (See also old Seventies issues of the American humor mag, "National Lampoon" for details of the International Dutch Conspiracy. If Hitler's out, that manipulative wooden shoe crowd should definitely also be "Raus" and "Verboten!" )

All this suggests to me that this speculation is, not quantifiable, statistically and charitably, very idle

By the way, the "Ancient Med" mod, which I have nothing to do with, other than playing it to death, uses the original, historic names for civs; and is quite popular, though as a mod it is not eligible for sale. So I don't think there's anything wrong with refering to empires by their real names.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
Now, to reality; don't the Firaxis people from time to time throw new stuff in, particularly leaders, to change the game from earlier versions. Therefore the statistically-based leader speculation can pretty much go out the window.

I respectfully disagree. Civ often includes or removes previous leaders based on popular demand . Examples: Cleopatra was a point of contention; they were going to make her black in Civ3 until public outrage, and then people complained that she was a Macedonian Ptolemid, and not a real Egyptian. They avoided that can of worms by including Hatshepsut, a real Egyptian and still a woman. Joan of Arc was put down because she was not a real ruler of France -- just a military leader for a brief time. Civ4 has included lots of leaders just on popular demand. I'm glad to see that the "must-include-each-gender" attitude of Civ2 has been replaced with a "should-include-best-leader" attitude. Peter the Great, Napoleon, Cyrus, Josef Stalin, Augustus Caesar, Winston Churchill, and Qin Shi Huang have all been included by popular demand. In addition, Mansa Musa and Mali have been included instead of the Zulus because they were historically an empire, as opposed to simple warrior tribes. The Vikinigs are back in Warlords beacuse of popular demand.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
What is the long-term impact of Sumer?

Did you just ask that? How about agriculture, writing, metallurgy, pottery, organized military, masonry and great building projects, the wheel, animal domestication, etc.??? The Sumerians were the first to develop all of these technologies on a widespread scale large enough to spread to other civs. Is that good enough for you?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander01
I respectfully disagree. Civ often includes or removes previous leaders based on popular demand . Examples: Cleopatra was a point of contention; they were going to make her black in Civ3 until public outrage, and then people complained that she was a Macedonian Ptolemid, and not a real Egyptian. They avoided that can of worms by including Hatshepsut, a real Egyptian and still a woman. Joan of Arc was put down because she was not a real ruler of France -- just a military leader for a brief time. Civ4 has included lots of leaders just on popular demand. I'm glad to see that the "must-include-each-gender" attitude of Civ2 has been replaced with a "should-include-best-leader" attitude. Peter the Great, Napoleon, Cyrus, Josef Stalin, Augustus Caesar, Winston Churchill, and Qin Shi Huang have all been included by popular demand. In addition, Mansa Musa and Mali have been included instead of the Zulus because they were historically an empire, as opposed to simple warrior tribes. The Vikinigs are back in Warlords beacuse of popular demand.

I respectfully disagree (and agree with Generaldoktor). Hatshepsut was in because she was "new," not because of some statistical model, and certainly not due to popular demand. Same for Washington, FDR, Mansa Musa, Ashoka, Catherine, Peter, Loius, Huayna Capac, and Saladin. I don't remember any "popular demand" for any of them.

[Locutus]

Indeed, a lot of stuff that was changed in Civ4 was changed because it was new and fresh, not because it was popular. Quite the opposite, there were initially a lot of protests from the playtesters when we learned the Legion had been replaced with Praetorian, the Zulu with the Mali, Lincoln with Washington/FDR, etc. And there were a lot more much wackier changes that were either changed back to changed to something else before release.

Of course, that is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever one way or the other for Warlords...

[Adagio]

I want Cleopatra, Joan d'Arc and Lincoln back

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I respectfully disagree (and agree with Generaldoktor). Hatshepsut was in because she was "new," not because of some statistical model, and certainly not due to popular demand. Same for Washington, FDR, Mansa Musa, Ashoka, Catherine, Peter, Loius, Huayna Capac, and Saladin. I don't remember any "popular demand" for any of them.

I'm actually a little surprised anyone did agree with me. ( I was being sort of flippant when I wrote yesterday. Gotta stop drinking those grapejuice-based products before corresponding on the Web. ) I don't think including for novelty and including for popular demand are necessarily mutually exclusive. The way I perceive the process, with no inslide infomashin, of course , is that Firaxis takes a certain amount of public input, but then is also determined to make each Civ product unique. Otherwise, there maybe wouldn't be sufficient reason to for the public to buy the new product. (I really did like Civ3 and probably would have happily played it for a couple more years, if something new and unique hadn't come out, for one example.)

"Popular demand," is only one aspect considered when striving for that product uniqueness. New civs and leaderheads are in turn one aspect of which the popular demand is an aspect of that, if you see my drift. So a few civs get in because of demand, perhaps. (Babylon?) Maybe they change the leaderhead (Hammurabi?) for variety. Maybe a few more get in just to be different. (But I think wishing for Ethiopia might be a bit much.) Maybe a few old standards get in, but they change the leaderhead on them for more uniqueness, i.e. the Lincoln/Washington switcheroo.

I think, aside from position on the real Terra map, which some of us don't even use, some consideration must be given to uniqueness between civs. Are Babylon and Sumer (or Assyria or Hittites) really that different that both (or a number of them) should be included? People who groove Mesopatamia are probably going to be satisfied with one of those; if not, they can go play Thamis' Ancient Med mod and get practically all (I think he omits Sumer,) in an era flavor-rich setting. As far as leaders go, characteristics, now important in Civ4, might be a determinant, i.e. are Washington and Lincoln that different as far as individual characteristics?

Alexander01: Sumer didn't survive too long. They remind me of a "builder" type civ that didn't master the art of imperialist warfare, real life and thus fell by the wayside. We barely know enough about them to extrapolate them in the game. I played them in Civ3 and they did okay there, but somebody here said their powerful early-game UU was completely contrived. I wouldn't object to them being in a game expansion, but wonder why for some that would be a priority?

Everybody: I was kidding about the Dutch. Glad no true Dutchman emerged to chastise me. It was an old satire from the American humor mag, "National Lampoon," where they were trying to ridicule the paranoia about a Certain Other Ethnic Group's alleged plot for world control, by fabricating one about a totally innocuous (in the 1970's at least; Dutch were formally rather bada-s 350 years before) ethnic group. Hah-hah. (Really, I should lay off that grape juice. } Edit: I do think the Portuguese were more important though.

[Gen. Atkinson]

Just a thought, the next expansion is called Warlords yes?
Well this leads me to believe that we'll see the reappearance of Shaka (A powerful warlord in his day) and the Zulus (though they didn't last as a nation their culture has).

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor

Alexander01: Sumer didn't survive too long. They remind me of a "builder" type civ that didn't master the art of imperialist warfare, real life and thus fell by the wayside.

Not true. They were a very longlived civ.
4500-2300 Early Sumerian Culture
2300-2100 Under Akkadian Domination
2100-2004 Ur III Sumerian Renaissance
2004 Elamite Invasion ends Sumer as an independent civ.

That being said, I don't think they should get into Civ4 ahead of the Babylonians.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Not true. They were a very longlived civ.
4500-2300 Early Sumerian Culture
2300-2100 Under Akkadian Domination
2100-2004 Ur III Sumerian Renaissance
2004 Elamite Invasion ends Sumer as an independent civ.

That being said, I don't think they should get into Civ4 ahead of the Babylonians.

Okay, I think I was considering just the early period, when they didn't have many rivals; but 2,200 years is a pretty good run even then. Let's see what the powers that be do; it is still difficult to document them, which is maybe why they aren't in the Ancient Med mod. This criticism that their UU and cities have to be contrived seems somewhat valid, as far as the practicality of including them.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor

This criticism that their UU and cities have to be contrived seems somewhat valid, as far as the practicality of including them.

Leader: En-men-barge-si, Urukagina, Gudea of Lagash, Ur-nammu, heck, maybe even Sargon of Akkad

UU: Um, Donkey-pulled Chariot? Enkidu Warrior was way contrived. What is the Vulture supposed to be?

However, I don't think they're in before Babylon.