Civs in Civ3: Conquests

[Kaos XIII]

Believe Me! It's been confirmed that the Dutch and Portoguese are in. You just have to pay attention to all the little wink smilies. Hopefully there are 2 civs left and not 1, that are yet to be unconfirmed.

[statusperfect]

Nuclear Master> Carthage is north-african.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Kaos XIII
Believe Me! It's been confirmed that the Dutch and Portoguese are in. You just have to pay attention to all the little wink smilies. Hopefully there are 2 civs left and not 1, that are yet to be unconfirmed.

It might as well be 7 new civs since the game has a hardcoded limit of 31 civs + barbs.

[Tassadar500]

Woops. Didnt mean to put them in. Was a typo. Well it was Gamespot that said only 7 civs? I think it will be 8 because that's what Atari said.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Ok, the Dutch and Portugese are in. :sigh: I know we've seen the leaderheads, but is it definite that the Hittites and Sumerians are in? Is it possible that these are scenario-specific leaderheads?

[Panag]

hi ,

, indeed if Israel is not going to be in , then a couple people shall mod a civ , its practically done , but lets hope we dont need it and the Israeli's are in

have a nice day

[bobbo008]

"If this is the case, I'm dissappointed... not that they didn't contribute to history, but how Eurocentric can you get? And in terms of gameplay, how more crowed can "Europe" get?"

I think with most people playing the game of European decent, they just want to cator to their audience. And when you think two hundred years ago that Europe basically controlled all of the land in the world with their colonies, it makes sense. When I play world maps, I will do things along those lines, such as France in West Africa and Spain in South America.

another point is that it is easier to relate to. Basically, I'm annoyed when civilizations that havent existed for quite some time are intercepting my stealth bombers, such as the Babylonians.

If you still dont like it, look on the bright side: maybe in 20 years there'll just be an EU civ.

edit: and we must not forget how centered on the Middle East the game is, as well. While Europe is crowded with civs, the civs in the Middle East just overlap each other way too much. For example: Egypt, Babylon and most of the Ottoman Empire could just be in the Arabian civ. This isn't to say that Egypt doesn't have a place in the game, it's just its quite hard to play the game when its like this, at least for me. Sorta like how Rome can have Byzantium and the Ottomans can have Istanbul

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Some of that overlap bothers me as well, and the tendency of the Celts and Carthage to survive to the modern age and be huge, whup-ass empires also is quite irritating. Still, I am of European descent, entirely, but I'm also an (amateur) historian, and with no particular bias (except that I'm quite partial to China), and to the European domination of the world, I must say: yes, Europe did dominate the globe for hundreds of years. But hundreds of years is a small amount of time when written history as a whole is examined.

I have nothing against the Dutch and the Portugese. The more the merrier. But it's the neglect shown to the rest of the world that bothers me. The Turkmen have had a large impact on the history of the world... it's arguable that the Uighurs have had as much impact as the Dutch... the Berbers of North Africa certainly had as much impact as the Celts.

Now, the Portugese DID colonize notably. And I know Atari/Firaxis/Whomever can't alienate a mostly European fan base. Still, it just isn't right. That's like saying the homosexuals can't get married because America was founded on "Christian" values. The statement's true, but what it implies is negative.

And one other twist, sort of contrary to the rest of my argument: Civ could use more civilizations for the Europeans to ANNEX, which is what they did to achieve their dominance after all. What of the Punjabis? The Nez Perce? The Khivans? etc. Putting in more "forgotten" or conquered civs gives more opportunity for the evil-minded civ player - and let's face it, "evil"'s a big part of the appeal of this game - to conquer, slay, enslave, etc.

[Wycoff]

What gets me is that they are bringing in the Sumerians and Hittites. I hope that they aren't going to be standard civilizations, because I feel that they are far too small. I think that Babylon, when interepreted loosely, is sufficient to represent the tribes of the ancient near east. After all, doesn't the Babylonian civ include about half of the Sumerian cities? I don't know this period of history that well, but maybe, since the Hittites adopted much of the Babylonian culture, and the Babylonians adopted the Sumerian culture, all of the groups could simply be labeld Sumerian. Or, since the Hitties conquered all of the ancient Mid-East, they coould just be called the Hitiites. In otherwords, though I know that it is historically incorrect, couldn't all three be seen practically as the same culture?

Wouldn't including the Hittites, Sumerians, and Babylonians be like including the Franks and the French? Why not add the Lydians, Chaldeans, etc.? Why not add the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, etc. To sum up, it bothers me that such redundent civs (from the viewpoint of the average 21st century person) are picked in place of Mali, Khmer, Poland/West Slavs, and other, more diverse cultures.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Wycoff
What gets me is that they are bringing in the Sumerians and Hittites. I hope that they aren't going to be standard civilizations, because I feel that they are far too small. I think that Babylon, when interepreted loosely, is sufficient to represent the tribes of the ancient near east. After all, doesn't the Babylonian civ include about half of the Sumerian cities? I don't know this period of history that well, but maybe, since the Hittites adopted much of the Babylonian culture, and the Babylonians adopted the Sumerian culture, all of the groups could simply be labeld Sumerian. Or, since the Hitties conquered all of the ancient Mid-East, they coould just be called the Hitiites. In otherwords, though I know that it is historically incorrect, couldn't all three be seen practically as the same culture?

Wouldn't including the Hittites, Sumerians, and Babylonians be like including the Franks and the French? Why not add the Lydians, Chaldeans, etc.? Why not add the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, etc. To sum up, it bothers me that such redundent civs (from the viewpoint of the average 21st century person) are picked in place of Mali, Khmer, Poland/West Slavs, and other, more diverse cultures.

Sumerian and Egpy culture go father back may-be as far back as 12000 BCE(Before Common Eras) which mean they are petty old. They found writing in Egpy that goes back to
pre-first dynastic peroid than there was 3 pre-dynastic peroid and the writeing was just as sophiate and complex as the dynastic writeing and there is good evidtion that Egpy was than united kingdom.

The orginate Sumerian where different group of people who die out for than unknow reason it wasnot military in natural they pass they culture on to their friend who live with then near-by the Babylonians.

[Heresson]

Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid.

[Master Zen]

The Byzantines better be in it or I'm going to be one pissed of customer!!! Byzantines rule!!!

[Panag]

Originally posted by Heresson
Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid.

hi ,


*sigh*

and now you are going to tell us how much we are going to get to the last dollarcent , and then some-one else is going to write all the technological research that the US gets for free , ......


or some-one is going to point out how the US could not build or research about an abm and used Israel to do so anyway , .....

then someone is going to point that there is for each Israeli a jew or Israeli in the good old US of A and that those people pay taxes in the US also , and then some-one is going to calculate that the portion of what those people pay , only small fraction goes to Israel as "aid" , or some-one with knowledge is going to say and point out that most of that money has to be spend inside the US of A , so the us gains twice , ......


can we please keep this game related , ....... thanks in advance

[Sheik]

Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid

oo oo I know, let's take all the civilizations out of the game! You see all these civs at one time were a new nation. Why they succeeded or failed can be very complex. To say Israel shouldn't be included because they get US aid is like saying the US shouldn't be included because we got French help during our revolution. Your arguement is complete rubbish.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Heresson
Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid.

Even if it were true, what does it have to do with a game and why are you boring us with politics. This is a game thread and nothing in it is real do you not understand that much?