Gamespot's C3C civilization profiles

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Then again, there were better choices for Civs than Byzantium, which, paired alongside Rome, is going to look fairly absurd... but I guess I'm being hasty to judge.

I agree. There are other civs they could have chosen before Byzantium. The same goes for adding Sumer, which is redundant considering Babylon is already in the game.

I would have liked to see Ethiopia, Mali, a southeast Asian civ, and/or an Indus Valley civ instead of those two.

[History Guy]

Ethiopia, surely.

However, I think the one civ that most deserved to be in this pack (and, frankly, PTW as well) was: Israel! There is no excuse for leaving them out of Conquests!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by History Guy
Despite the fact that the Hittites were a poor choice in the first place (what are those guys thinking about not sticking in Israel?!), the attributes are good and so it seems is the UU.

I have to disagree on this issue, I think the Hittites were a decent choice and score higher as a dominant civilization than Israel.

[Fatwreck]

Originally posted by Spiffor

IIRC, you can build your UU even when you can build more advanced units. But I play with modded rules, so I may be wrong.

yeah that´s how it works I think...

[History Guy]

GF,

The influence that the Hittites had on world civilization is pitiful, really. We don't even know that they were the first to smelt iron, as suggested above. They were just the (less-successful) Mongols of the Bronze Age.

The Israelites influenced civilization, arguably, more than any civ included in this X-Pack. This is rather hard to deny.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by History Guy
However, I think the one civ that most deserved to be in this pack (and, frankly, PTW as well) was: Israel! There is no excuse for leaving them out of Conquests!

Panag is here any minute now

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The only thing the Israelites contributed was religion (generalization) and they are hardly mentioned by other civilizations at all. Except "in so and so year some slaves (ancient foreign word for Israelites)".....

The only records we have of the Hittites is from all of the OTHER civilizations. They were important enough that the Babylonians and Egyptians wrote of their conflicts and interactions with them.

If not for Religious contributions the Israelite civilization might never have been mentioned.

[Saint Marcus]

I'd pick the Khmer over the Israelites.

[raen1978]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
the English weren't that commercial. they ought to be industrious (industrial revolution started in England), or better yet, Expansionistic.

I agree with you, The Dutch were more commercial than The English, even Portugal was. And the industrial revolution fits well with the English, I dont know why they changed that....

[Arnelos]

Does everyone so easily forget Napoleon's characterization of England as "a nation of shopkeepers" and the frequent characterizations of England over time as a more commerically-minded nation than the rest of Europe? If one starts to consider British figures who have had an impact on history, does not Adam Smith come to mind?

What of the fact that the British "ruled an empire upon which the sun never set" which spanned colonies around the globe and from which they successfully harnessed profitable international trade? That they actually did so speaks to what the commercial trait actually does, allow for a higher percentage of trade to be useable in a large and sprawling empire.

It must also be remembered that while the Dutch were the dominant commercial power in Europe up to the mid 17th Century, the English stole that domination from them and from that point on were the dominant commercial power of the region. By the late 18th Century, it wasn't just the first signs of the Industrial Revolution that lended England its dominance, but its power in commerce and trade!

The seafaring+commercial combination in the game perfectly lends itself to the power of English commerce as an island nation. In fairness, one might argue that the Dutch should be commercial and seafaring as well, but there should be little denying that the English should be the foremost holders of that trait combination.

When combined with the English UU, it just makes a ton of sense.

[raen1978]

Originally posted by Arnelos
(...)

The seafaring+commercial combination in the game perfectly lends itself to the power of English commerce as an island nation. In fairness, one might argue that the Dutch should be commercial and seafaring as well, but there should be little denying that the English should be the foremost holders of that trait combination.

When combined with the English UU, it just makes a ton of sense.

Good text I agree with you but the only problem here is that in civ3 they dont want to repeat traits, and Industrial fits well to the english and agricultural not so well for the Dutch.

But we edit, no problem

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I still think an option to CHOOSE your your first trait or have it be assigned based on your terrain/playstyle after the first 10 turns and then your second one assigned at a predisignated time would be more realistic. Most civs adapted to their environment and or beliefs.

[WarpStorm]

Actually, a scheme where your actions determine your trait might be interesting.

[Randolph]

Predetermined traits are not something that is going to change. People really need to stop complaining about things like this. Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that Civilization has nothing to do with actual history.

When gameplay buts heads with historical realism in civ development they always go with gameplay. If you want sacrifice gameplay for realism look elsewhere. Complaining that England has the wrong traits is like arguing that there is something wrong with Chess because bishops really can't move ten times faster then kings. Civ is a game with some quaint similarities to actual history; it is not a historical simulation.

I certainly hope that Conquests stick to what civ is good at, being a fun and challenging strategic game, and leaves historical simulation to titles that do it a lot better. From what I have heard it looks like they are doing just that.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Actually, a scheme where your actions determine your trait might be interesting.

I'd advise you check out www.stonetosteel.com