Merits of inclusion of historical civs in civ

[Chris 62]

In another thread I started I noticed a comment about the German civilization not being worthy of inclusion in the game. I think that their history is important enough to warrent inclusion. As for who doesn't belong, my first cut would be the celts. They were quite numerous, but rather lackluster in historical terms. The souix would be next,and behind the celts only because they represent the only native americans in the game. The zulus are questionable also, in that their empire(such as it was) only lasted for about 50 years. What does the membership think?

[Smokey tha nuke man]

get rid of:celts,
add:a new sheild color(black, perhaps) with the phonecians, sumarians, and portugese, and stick the canadians or the mexicans somewhere(if we're going to have the americans, why not the canadians/mexicans?)
replace:aztecs w/ mayans

that's about all the changes i would make.

[Prometeus]

Why Celts? Take a look on my website...

[RollinThunda]

yeah why get rid of the celts, there my faveoit civ to play as, i seem to do bettter when i play as them, there good luck for me, probely has something to do with the extra seteler i most always get.

[zyxpsilon]

Since, one can choose who to play against from a list of seven active adversaries... i rather like the diversity of choices we get if we select the ai opponents.
As per "historical" context it is another story; in fact, in 4000 BC there was no >Russians< (for example) but Egyptians were certainly actives adding a coat of wax on THE Kheop's pyramid!!

Who am i to question the design choices of great game programmers?

What only matters is that i can go back into "rules.txt"... make them all "1,1,-1"... and crush their cities one by one with a fleet of Bombers.

Sure, Romans >HAD< to deal with the Celts and others in the real history books. Greeks, too.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think it's also a question of commercial success and target groups.

You MUST have romans or egyptians or greeks in order for the game (named civilization of all things!) to be «catchy».

Plus the game goes on untill the future (like the greeks before during and after the Byzantine -known also as the Eastern Roman Empire - )so you CANNOT leave out people like the americans or the germans or the russians or the english (really why not british?) because you would lower the level of involvement of huge markets and because they play big roles in the world and have big achievements too even if later in history. And civ begins with colossus and goes on to the statue of liberty so things patch up in a way in the end.

Now why the Celts and not, say, the Phoeniceans or the Assyrians or whatever? Maybe because Celts are known to more people than the last two? But this is only a guess.
[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited January 19, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited January 19, 2001).]

[Exile]

I have never been able to understand the inclusion of either the Aztecs or the Zulus as civilizations in the game.

I like the idea of Assyrians.

Where are the Turks? Talk about impact on history.

Salutations,
Exile

------------------
Lost in America
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu

[Gatekeeper]

Cpoulos, et al.:

Why remove civilizations?! I say *ADD* civilizations while keeping the original roster. I am hoping Civ III will do something along those lines.

CYBERAmazon

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Prometeus on 01-19-2001 05:49 PM Why Celts? Take a look on my website...

I'd be happy to check out your site, but were is it? As for why the celts, these people were a VERY loose confederation that lived in northern and central europe. Their druids, or priests did not believe in the written word(feeling it weakend the mind), and as such have few written records. In fact most of what is known of them comes from roman sources, that mostly mention what pests they were to rome. Brave to a fault, their tactics in battle were to stand side by side, screem alot and charge emass at roman formations. Did you know that the gauls are really celts? This disjointed people were swept aside by one wave of barbarians after another till they were no more. And that's why I would dump them, but it's just my opinion.

[Builder]

I dont understand why the Hebrews appeared only in CTP...

[Anodyne]

Get rid of: AMERICANS!! If something's unrealistic, THEY are! I've already deleted them. Also the Sioux and Zulus, as they were really loose and didn't really build cities.

Add:
Phoenicians, Indus-culture (well, this is difficult, since there's not much knowledge left of them, and they're almost the same as Indians), Arabs, Incas, Mayans, Khmer(also not very much knowledge left on these, either), Sumerians(well, they later became Babylonians...), Assyrians

Well, I wouldn't delete the Celts. Although they were loose organization, they still controlled half the Europe, and the Romans really had a hard time beating them, and never throughoutly conquered whole Britain. I think they're far more realistic than the French or Germans.
As I've told before, I have myself edited the rules and city.txt, and deleted: Americans, Spanish(well, they're ok, but I just had to make room for one more civ), Sioux, Zulus.
And added: Incas, Mayans, Arabs, Assyrians.
So, there are 3 civs in America, which is good, and the game seems more realistic otherwise, too. If you wish I'll post the leader names and cities for added civs (well, there already exists those for Arabs and Incas).

And oh, yes, about the Phoenicians: Carthago was actually a colony of theirs, so basically Carthaginians are the same thing. Their starting place is just "really" in Libanon(next to Israel in north).

I also like the idea of adding the Hebrews. It's just too small map for them, with Babylonians, Arabs, Assyrians and Egyptians around. And phoenicians, too...

Oh yeah, I'd also like the Turks. Well, perhaps I'll create the city lists, leaders etc... for the civs I mentioned. We'll just need to get a MUCH bigger map.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 01-20-2001 06:26 AM I'd be happy to check out your site, but were is it?

Cpoulos click on «profile» then «homepage» of Promitheas. Some cool celts senarios! and more

[Paul]

You can save one click: just click on the homepage icon above a person's post.

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Ade on 01-20-2001 09:42 AM and deleted: Americans, Spanish(well, they're ok, but I just had to make room for one more civ),

..and to make room for one more civ, you went on to delete one of the three countries that most contributed to shape the world the way we know it today. Congrats. Your decision really shocked me. I mean, if you deleted the Spanish because you don't like bullfights or because your Spanish girlfriend dumped you, etc, I would understand it. But, deleting the Spanish just because you need room for another civ makes no sense at all.

There are about 600 hundred million people that have Spanish as their mother tongue (this is more than than native English speakers); 27 countries that have Spanish as their official language (I believe there are not so many that have English as an official language), Spain ranks first in properties recognized by the UNESCO as World Heritage Sites... perhaps you might want to reconsider your decision :-)

[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited January 20, 2001).]

[Anodyne]

Yeah, you do make a point, but I want my civ-games to concentrate more on the antique times, and Spain did become big only after the Arabs were driven out of there (Before that it was conquered by the Romans, Celts, Carthaginians, etc...), and that was around year 1200, if I remember correctly.
So, it was a hard decision, indeed, and I might still some day change it back, perhaps deleting the Germans, English or French. But at the moment it suits my campaigns fine.