Explain to me the popularity of inclusion of the Sioux and Korean civs

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

It depends in part how narrow or broad your definition of Celtic is. The Romans occupied huge tracts of France and Britain, driving the free Celtic peoples into small pockets like Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc. However the Roman rule was always about integration, not dominance. When they pulled back the countries that formed in their wake were still strongly Celtic in orientation, although changed and developed in different ways from the elements that had never endured occupation. Involving the Celts as a single civ, rather than the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Angles and Gauls separately allows you to play a pre- Roman occupation scenario.

[Wernazuma III]

I'm disappointed that there is only one more african Civ in the top 16. I'd say, replace Celts, Koreans and Sioux with Mali, Hungarians or Polish and one ancient civilization, maybe Hittites, Assyrians or Etruscans.
If one wants a "native american" or nomadic civ, Arawak, Mapuche or Scyths or Sarmats are better choices than another north american Civ. One is MORE than enough

The Byzantine are only a blend of hellenistic and roman Civ

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The Byzantine are only a blend of hellenistic and roman Civ

The problem lies into the Civ model of "static" civilization that last monholitic for thousand of years. As S. Kroeze and others well documented on many posts, there are few original proper "civilizations", that mix and divide during history until they become known nations.

I was one of the people that hoped for Firaxis introducing a different model, here, without letting you starting the game right with a Nation like America or Italy.

I would like to see the ability to start from one of a bunch of tribes, join them in one of the 6/8 early HISTORICAL realistic civ, then have the ability to develop my NATION (may be to a Federation of Nation, as USA, EU or USSR).
Every time the game events force me (or give me the opportunity) to split my former Civ or merge it with others, I would have the opportunity to chose a new name for my empire/nation, as happened in real world.

So you can have a realistic starting civ and end with whatever nation you like, fully realistic or alternative, but still related to your original choice for original culture/racial trait.

I understand it doesn't succed in Firaxis because:

1. you need a good history tracking to keep all players aware of the name/country composition change - not really difficult to achieve, IMHO
2. you lost the easy appeal of your nation straight on the game box ("you can play as American since 4,000 b.c., cool" ) - a problem you can partially solve if you have the flexibility to become EVERY NATION you like to be.
3. you can lost the sense of ownership you get if you develop and grow the really same monholitic civ from start to the end - that's the most difficult part, and I have no prove of its success or failure until I can try an immersive alpha prototype of the concept: not likely

Culture is the single most promising evolution of the Civ franchise. I'll see if as actually implemented it really save the game. May be someone will build over culture concept, stretching it to better reproduce the world history (real or alternative) in a credible and enjoyable way.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

I know this ain't any university, but the celts had at least as important role in the history as the romans did. Virtually all that could be called culture was celtic in the Europe before roman times. The celtic peoples spred all around Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and from modern area of Hungary to Germany. . Celts played a huge role in our past circa 3000 - 500 bc. Their cultural influence has been enormous to the germanic and finno-ugrian tribes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.Searches:Hallstat, La Tene

[ancient]

id rather have the manchurians in than the koreans...

[Lung]

Originally posted by yin26

What follows is a brief essay for you all to consider. I will not try to teach you about Korea's history, but instead hope to ask two simple questions: 1) Who do you think "controls" history? 2) How long would it take to get that "control" back if it fell into the wrong hands?

Just a few notes before the essay, prior to Japan's colonial rule, Korea gave to the world: 1) The first moveable type printing press (200 years before Gutenberg). 2) The first rain gauge. 3) The first iron-clad ship (300 years before America). Etc. etc.

That's all fine and dandy, Yin, but why didn't they revolutionise the world? I'll let you answer that, becuase you obviously know more about Korean history than i, but all i see is you replacing a euro-centric view of the world with a Koreo-centric one.

I could go on and on, but will merely state that most of what the people here THINK they know is based on a post-colonial view of history that has yet to be cleansed by truth.

Like what, for example?

You see, i have no problem with Korea being in Civ3, but the problem is that only 16 civs are going to be included, and i think that there are many more civs that deserve to be ahead of Korea.

Being a peaceful nation is admirable, but history is largely shaped by the powerful and aggressive. If Firaxis were to select civs on their niceness, how would they pick 16 civs? There'd be no sign of the Yanks, but Tahitians would be all over te place In any case, if niceness was the rule of thumb, then Civ3 would have no armies, no soldiers, no wars, no expansionism, no fun whatsoever

I personally think the "history is written by the victors" theory is way over-emphasised, because if that was purely the case, there would be no question over history. It is misguided to hold too much faith in that theory, because the victors didn't just write history - they made it. They grew, leading to expansion, then to wars. If they won, they dominated long enough to leave an indelible mark on the conquered long after their demise. Even the biggest warmongers had culture.

It is fair to say that the victors wrote their own history far more than that of others.

It is a testament to Koreans durability to retain their culture through their tumultuous history, but to claim some sort of "cultural superiority" over other cultures which were known more for their aggression than their culture is flawed. For example, the Spanish were terribly cruel and were motivated very much by pure greed, but their impact on human history is far greater than Koreas, for better or for worse. Personally, i think it was for the worse, but that is beside the point.

Of course, if Firaxis weren't so pigheaded about limiting Civ3 to 16 civs, we wouldn't be having this problem

[yin26]

Lung:

I agree with most of what you say, and I think we could both agree that something has to give and one priority has to win over another when so few civ slots are opened. By the way, I NEVER said anywhere that Korea is superior, blah blah blah. What I DID do, however, was to counter the idea that Korea never had or doesn't have a culture on par with some of those selected for inclusion in Civ 3.

People who say that are ignorant or have an agenda.

I will be the first to argue that RIGHT NOW the cultural place of Korea in world history is under a cloud of post-colonial history. I also agree that a euro-centric game should cater to a euro-centric audience. And if you want agressive civs in the game, Korea certainly is a tough choice, though many amazing military exploits took place internally while externally it was usually just a fight to stay alive. Hey, try to survive on a peninsula next to China and see what happens. What I do NOT agree with are ignorant posts about a culture that was and still is profound in the world.

To recap: Firaxis' not including the Koreans makes perfect sense. The reasons many less educated people around here are giving do NOT.

[yin26]

See my definitive Korean reply here.

[Saint Marcus]

It's easy. You want to include the Koreans on the grounds you provided? Fine, but that does mean you have to increase the number of civs from 16 to 64. There are dozens of civs that can make similar, or better claims, than the Koreans.

[Lung]

Originally posted by yin26
Lung:

I agree with most of what you say.....

Damn! Here i am thinking that you had taken the bait, only to find that you largely agree with me!

Hey, try to survive on a peninsula next to China and see what happens

I suppose they think Koreans are Chinese, too? Japan and China for neighbours. Oh, joy!

To recap: Firaxis' not including the Koreans makes perfect sense. The reasons many less educated people around here are giving do NOT.

I could easily believe that!

[yin26]

Lung: I'd replied to you in my Korea thread.