No Spanish Civ????

[Buck Birdseed]

I don't see the significance of time periods, I really don't. Just because farming was developed at different times in different parts of the world doesn't make each and every discovery of it equally worthy.

[yaroslav]

I think that Spain must be in

First of all, I beg your pardon because my english is rather bad (I am Spanish), and this is my first post!. I can be wrong but I think that we must be in Civ. Al-Andalus is very important in the European history. Also, the colonization of America is other good point. I think that Spain's Supremacy run from the late 15th to medium 17th. From 10th to 14th and in 18th, Spain was a powerful country, but not the most powerful.

Only from the 19th to the late 20th Spain is not very important...

Also I think that Portuguese must be in too... Iberians powers lead to the Discovery Age.

Again, I beg your pardon because my english is rather bad. I know that others put it with more wisdom and poetry than I, but I need to do. And I agree with Jay Bee, this is not nationalism.

PS: Example of Spain's importants war and battles are Lepanto (the defeat of a powerful Turk fleet), Bailen (The first battle that saw a Napolenoic army defeat), San Quitin (perhaps the most important victory, and are many, of Spain's army in France), The war in Morocco (If I don't remember it wrong, the Allies study a naval invasion in this war for Normandia in WWII).

[lord of the mark]

this is great - one person cites famous conqistadores as Spanish heroes, another calls them "scum". Spain is pitted against teh Zulus. Charges of unimportance, historical backwardness and decline fly. Charges of political correctness fly.


Why not have Zulus AND Spaniards AND Arabs and so forth?
Why not have 60 or more civs available?
Because they all have to be BALANCED cause of the CSU's and special abilities.

Is it worth it?

LOTM

[Lord Magnus]

Re: Re: No Spanish Civ????

Originally posted by technophile
I lost my interest as soon as Firaxis took out the plasma rifles!!!

I agree

But getting back on topic why doesn't Firaxis put a ton of Civs in Civ3 like CTP had? Sure lots of nations will have the same special abilities but at least it'll stop all the "Why wasn't [insert nation here] included in Civ3" complaints.

[Eddin]

NO SPANISH???????? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's horrible!

*above post contains a mild amount of sarcasm*

Oh well... just a little more work for our great Jesús Balsinde. Consider that to be his first mod

And anyway... Spanish weren't THAT big. Might as well add the Dutch or Portuguese. Especially the Dutch were more important for a longer time.

Anyway, I think they've done well. The number of civs pro continent has been balanced (instead of slaughtering eachother in Europe)

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Eddin
And anyway... Spanish weren't THAT big. Might as well add the Dutch or Portuguese. Especially the Dutch were more important for a longer time.

Anyway, I think they've done well. The number of civs pro continent has been balanced (instead of slaughtering eachother in Europe)

I see the thread has continued to serve as a beacon for Spano-philes mildly moaning that their greatness has not been recognized. That's a shame really, because there is more to this.

The true issue here is that:

1) the number of full-blown, firaxis-approved, fully-animated civs is extremely limited, probably for the sole reason that "animations in pre-rendered 3D are so much work".

2) the history of the world is being 'adjusted' by the Firaxis team for various reasons including ignorance (maybe), bias and gameplay considerations.

Instead of 'requesting' that Civ X or Y be included, it would be wise to ask for the tools necessary to really make your own Civ --including animations and all, and the ability to make this into a handy mod pack for easy distribution. Lastly, Civ creation efforts from Firaxis would be a nice add-on! Or perhaps they can sanction some mods like was done with Half-Life.

[Jay Bee]

I see the thread has continued to serve as a beacon for Spano-philes mildly moaning that their greatness has not been recognized. That's a shame really, because there is more to this.

No. What's a shame is that some people have decided that the above was the thread message and ruined it accordingly with their moronic posts.

You hit the center of the nail in #2. That's exactly what I would have liked the firaxis people explain to us. It's somehow relieving to see that at least someone got the message right.

About #1.... well, that to me is laughable. If I understood correctly you are saying that they will not present a fully finished product because it's so much work. Wouldn't have been more logical to keep the 21 civs appearing in Civ2? If for some technical reason that couldn't be done, they could have posted a 2-liner explanatory note on the FAQ of their flamboyant new site.

Finally, this was not a thread requesting any inclusion/exclusion (at least that was not the intention of the poster who started it). It was a thread complaining about the apparent lack of objective reasons for the exclusion. A bit different. What you're saying about them providing us with the tools sounds good, but is totally unrealistic imho.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Jay Bee


No. What's a shame is that some people have decided that the above was the thread message and ruined it accordingly with their moronic posts.

You hit the center of the nail in #2. That's exactly what I would have liked the firaxis people explain to us. It's somehow relieving to see that at least someone got the message right.

About #1.... well, that to me is laughable. If I understood correctly you are saying that they will not present a fully finished product because it's so much work. Wouldn't have been more logical to keep the 21 civs appearing in Civ2? If for some technical reason that couldn't be done, they could have posted a 2-liner explanatory note on the FAQ of their flamboyant new site.

Finally, this was not a thread requesting any inclusion/exclusion (at least that was not the intention of the poster who started it). It was a thread complaining about the apparent lack of objective reasons for the exclusion. A bit different. What you're saying about them providing us with the tools sounds good, but is totally unrealistic imho.

Re: point1 - I'm saying exactly that. Why should they remove civs that were already serving well in Civ2? Were there any gameplay problems? No.
What is a problem though, is to make elaborate leader, hero and other animated 3D artwork for so many civs. I see no other reason to limit the choice of civs.
Apparently, this is a laughable thought to you. In that case, I'm very much interested in your take on the reasons why.

Regarding the tools I spoke of - I too think that is probably too much to ask. Why? Again because the fancy 3d booha graphics prohibit customizability and versatility. The good looks come at a steep price.

[Buck Birdseed]

Aww, served well in Civ2, eh? As faceless, pointless, samey carbon copies of each other, that's how. I know! Let's double the number of species in StarCraft, I mean, sure it's perfectly balanced for three species, but six would give people more options so it doesn't matter if all the individuality and personality dissapears. Let's just change a jpg here and there and people probably will think they're completely different, tee hee.

Guys, it's a Design Decision. If you don't like it, this is really not the place to complain, because it's already in.

[Jay Bee]

Grim, what is laughable to me is to blandish a "it's so much work" excuse not to do something. If there are technical problems then that's an entirely different matter. Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough on this particular point. I was not attacking your take on this at all.


Snap, okay, thanks for stating the obvious. What we are questioning is just the reasons for that design decision: why 16 and not 21? What difference does this make (apart from being 'so much work')? Call it casual, useless talk if you wish, but inquiring minds always want to know

[Buck Birdseed]

*shrug* You have to have a cutoff somewhere. I probably would have put it at 14 myself. However, I'm sure they've laboured with every possible number while writing the design docs. I don't think its pure coincidence. Anyway, that was vaguely adressed at LOTM and the rest of the "64 civs!" crowd.

Now, back to the real issue- is Firaxis willfully distorting history? Hell Yeah! I'd personally be pretty bored with a game that only contained a select number or Eurasian civs and measured them exactly upon how much impact they had in real history. This isn't real history. It's a game where there needs to be a place for history's great rivals, it's underdogs, it's exotic quirks, it's ancient remains. It's my firm belief that Firaxis has carefully measured out each civ and asked- is this a fun civ? Will it appeal to our target market? Does it present enough unique features to have a lot of personality? Is it, ultimately, essential for the feel of a Civ game? Did the doubling of the amount of civs in Civ2 really change things for the better, and was the inclusion of this civ really a good thing? I think firaxis has done a decent (though not perfect) job of picking civs with a lot of gameplay appeal.

[Waku]

BTW, What's the point of including English and Americans, everyone knows they are the SAME culture, everyone knows that the 13 colonies were England, and everyone knows Britain is today another State of the USA.

[Tingkai]

A major problem with not including a Spanish civ is that it seems like a stupid marketing move. It alienates a gigantic market. For us Civ fans, that means fewer games sold and less profit to finance Civ 4.

Including the Zulus is not about being politically correct. I would think that it is a wise marketing move targeting black people.

Similarly, Japan is likely included as a culture for marketing reasons even though its impact on world history is relatively minor - just over 100 years.

I'm not saying that the design of Civ 3 is driven just by marketing considerations. I'm just saying that marketing is a consideration.

[Jay Bee]

Tingkai:

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Aww, served well in Civ2, eh? As faceless, pointless, samey carbon copies of each other, that's how. I know! Let's double the number of species in StarCraft, I mean, sure it's perfectly balanced for three species, but six would give people more options so it doesn't matter if all the individuality and personality dissapears. Let's just change a jpg here and there and people probably will think they're completely different, tee hee.

Guys, it's a Design Decision. If you don't like it, this is really not the place to complain, because it's already in.

Aaah, yes! Let's have TWO civs. BLACK AND WHITE. How's that for tasteful opposites?

I *like* abstract civs. I don't want a civ to become a sort of puppet with a clown's nose or a witch's frown. I want civs to be unpredictable (not that they were in civ2), not marionettes to some ill-chosen doctrine. I don't like thinking "oh, there are the germans...they are not expansively inclined, thus I can safely trash their frontiers." -I want to be able to test my opponents out, to observe them, and *then* act accordingly.

Of course, you're also massively wrong on the notion that there is a mgic number 14 or 16 that somehow allows 'colorful play'. I do not see why there can't be any interesting characteristics for a few more civs. Also, it's not just the number. It's the choice too.