Civs of the Week

[Tarquinius]

have a feeling the civs of the week are based on CSU

I don't think that is correct; the Chinese CSU is a knight, and it came before the persian CSU which was a Swordsman, and the Romans, with a swordsman CSU too, still have to come. That wouldn't make sense.
I think it comes with the rise of a civ, my order:

Romans
Germans
Japanese
Iroquois
French
Russians
English
Aztecs
Americans
Zulus

[jdd2007]

i have no idea ...

[Stromprophet]

I'm just curious as to why everyone keeps putting the Aztecs closer. They didn't even exist until the 1300's or somethin.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Tarquinius

I don't think that is correct; the Chinese CSU is a knight, and it came before the persian CSU which was a Swordsman, and the Romans, with a swordsman CSU too, still have to come. That wouldn't make sense.
I think it comes with the rise of a civ, my order:

Romans
Germans
Japanese
Iroquois
French
Russians
English
Aztecs
Americans
Zulus

Define Rise of Civ.

The Germans you are talking about? Huns?

They're Slavic, which is inherently Russian. Russians.

I can't recall the Iriquoius being that Ancient though. Is there any record of that?

[Martinus]

Sorry, but anyone who places Russians before French or English (or even Germans) doesn't know a zitch about European history.

[jdd2007]

Sorry, but anyone who places Russians before French or English (or even Germans) doesn't know a zitch about European history.

this is not neccesarily true. they might be basing their order on some other info ...

[Ubik]

The Huns slavic????? give me a break!

Huns: Gathering of tribes started their actions in the late 4th-early 5th century AD, became widely known under their leader Attila. Called "Bipedes Besties" (beasts on two legs) by Latin scholars for their ferocity and rugh manners. Currently, anthropologists tend to believe their origin were the steppes in the east of lake Baikal, but more accurate data presents them as an mongol kin group.

Maybe they had something to do with the early "skythes" too - and, to understand what that means, the Byzantines called the Mongolic tribes (Kutrigurs, early Bulgarian, Hazars etc.) also "Skythes".

And to the "Russian before or after Germany and France..." hmm... well, the first mentioning of the "Russ" in the byzantine literature should be around the 7th century AD. That should put them past the germanic tribes (Alemans, Saxons, Franks) so it should be more accurate to say that Germany and France (they and also part of the English derive from the abovementioned three tribes - Alemans=Germans, Saxons=English, Franks=France - yes, yes, it is much more complicated but it should give you an idea) should be prior to Russia. At least the Franks (legitimate kingdom since the 4th century AD) if not the Germans too.

[Tarquinius]

Define Rise of Civ.

I mean the first sign of a civ with that, for example, that would mean the Roman civ started around 750 b.c.

The Germans you are talking about? Huns?

No, Huns and Germans are not the same, I mean the old German tribes that fought against the Romans.

Sorry, but anyone who places Russians before French or English (or even Germans) doesn't know a zitch about European history.

That is just how you define the civs. I placed the Russians before the English because when I say 'Russians' I mean the people that inhabited Russia after the Vikings. ( from 900 AD - now) When I say 'English', I mean the people that inhabited England after the Normandian conquerers were driven out. (from 1250 AD - now)

Conclusion: I might know a bit more than 'a zitch' about European history

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Tarquinius

That is just how you define the civs. I placed the Russians before the English because when I say 'Russians' I mean the people that inhabited Russia after the Vikings. ( from 900 AD - now) When I say 'English', I mean the people that inhabited England after the Normandian conquerers were driven out. (from 1250 AD - now)

Conclusion: I might know a bit more than 'a zitch' about European history

If you (for some reason) choose to place English civ after the Norman conquerors were driven out, by the same token you could put the Russian civ after the Mongol conquerors were driven out (i.e. around 14th century).

[Tarquinius]

If you (for some reason) choose to place English civ after the Norman conquerors were driven out, by the same token you could put the Russian civ after the Mongol conquerors were driven out (i.e. around 14th century).

You have a good point there, maybe i should switch the English and the Russians.

We shall see how Firaxis thinks about this

[ixnay]

Well, it wasn't the Romans.

Maybe next week.

[Steve Clark]

So how does the Aztecs fit into this sequence. Sounds like a random event to me.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
So how does the Aztecs fit into this sequence. Sounds like a random event to me.

Sometimes it's just fun to do whatever people are NOT expecting.




Dan

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
So how does the Aztecs fit into this sequence. Sounds like a random event to me.

Aren't the Aztec quite undated? We don't know when they appear.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Gramphos

Aren't the Aztec quite undated? We don't know when they appear.

The Aztecs will appear on the map in about 4000 BC if you chose them as a playable civ. And if you chose them as your Civ, you get to define them as you wish. As far as the Civ of the Week, it's just for entertainment purposes only.