Cultural groupings

[ajbera]

According to the color-coding on the Civ abilities chart posted by Firaxis (http://www.civ3.com/devupdate_civspecific.cfm), America is grouped with Aztec and Iriquois, creating a North American culture group, which is weird.

One of the first things I'll do is change the American culture group to that of the European nations (England, France, Germany) to indicate common heritage. It's been said that you can negotiate more favoarbly with civs who have a culture similar to yours:

From the Gamestar interview (http://www.gamesweb.de/index.php?sit...ew=641&seite=4):

How will different governments govern trade - are trade alliances between similar ideologies easier to maintain?

Jeff (Morris): To a certain degree. Culture has a far bigger impact though, where culturally similar civilizations are more likely to make gracious agreements. Also, if your culture is far better than theirs, they will be more flexible in what kinds of arrangements they'd find acceptable.

America and the Western European nations have the most similar cultures (IRL), and are strong trade and military allies because of that. Some of the other countries may also have to be shuffled (in my game, anyway.) Just wondering what y'all thought of this.

[Sarxis]

I agree that putting the U.S. in a culture group with Iroq and Aztec seems a little weird, but its for game balance reasons I'm sure. Afterall, having Iroq and Aztecs around during the same time as the U.S. isn't historically accurate, but we are rewriting history here.

I do agree, however, that the U.S. has more in common with the European nations today than it does with any other regional cultures.

[Akron]

Good point! Could this determine architecture? I hope not, as the Americans should not have architecture similar to the Aztecs.

[red_jon]

Hopefully they have changed the US to a European style.

[Mister Pleasant]

and if the Americans are part of the iroquois/aztec culture, we can probably use the much-touted editor to change this.

Actually I would put the US and most new world nations in the special category of post-colonial nations as opposed to European nations. Nations like US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Brazil, etc. really are very different from both their Euro colonizers or the indigenous people from the past. Each is characterized by racial tensions arising from the colonial and slavery periods, marginalized indegenous peoples, and so on.

[Dr. Nick]

The again, Europe is a problem in itself. How do you simulate the slav vs german cultural problems that there were, for example, before and during WWI?

[ajbera]

Ideally, IMO, the culture groups would be:

1) American & Western European
2) Greco-Roman/Meditteranean
3) Eastern European/Slavic (includes Russia)
4) Oriental
5) Middle-Eastern
6) Native American (includes Iriquois and Aztecs)
7) African

You could, to accomodate the 5 groups, blend #1 and #2, and #6 and #7 (to form a tribal/primitive culture group, but that denigrates the civs involved.) Anyway, when I alter the game to suit my tastes, I'll do as above, grouping 1 & 2 and 6 & 7 (assuming a 5 culture limit.)

[Ironwood]

One thing that needs to be realized is that it's difficult to group all of history into 7 groupings. One has to pick and choose, and I suppose one choice is as good as another (though I can imagine some horrible choices). It'll be really cool to utilize this for scenario purposes, though, since there, you can narrow your scope. For example, were I to make a WWI scenario, this is how I'd group it:

Anglo: Britain, US, Canada, Australia, associated colonies.
Germanic: Germany, Austria-Hungary, associated colonies.
Slavic: Russia, Serbia, etc.
Romanic: Italy, France, Spain, associated colonies
Turkic(sp?): Ottoman Empire, other muslim caliphates
(I named them "Turkic" since this is, after all, a Eurocentric war)
Oriental: Gross oversimplification of China, Japan, etc.
Everything Elsian: Gross oversimplification of everything south of the US and the Sahara (except South Africa: Anglo)

Were I to do a more present day grouping, I'd do this:

Anglo: Same as before, possibly including India
European: Combination of Germanic and Romanic, plus maybe Japan
Slavic: As before, plus other "slavic" countries
Islamic: As Turkic, with border shifting, etc.
Chinese: China Proper, plus Vietnam, N. Korea, etc.
Latin American: Everything south of the border.
African: Sub-saharan, maybe including South Africa, maybe not.

Were I to do a "Roman Imperial" era one (like the Rise of Rome in Civ2), I'd do this:
Hellenic (possibly including Rome), Celtic, Germanic (they just don't go away, do they? ), Phonecian (Carthage), Jewish (gotta give them their own grouping), Persian, Egyptian. Not too sure about those last two, but you get the idea.

once again, I write a really long post that likely won't get read for that very reason. I really gotta start narrowing my own scope.

[jsw363]

I wonder if you'll be able to randomize the cultural associations. So that you're not always playing with the same civs against other civs. I am not sure that I like the connections between culturally similar countries. Wars break out most often between countries that are contiguous anyways, so how much will this similarity of culture affect gameplay?
I'd also group the US with the Europeans. Americans have much more in common with Europe than the Aztecs...

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Jingo
hey crackwhores, the civ-spacifics show the different culture groups.

well, that was harsh.

gonna go check 'em out now

[Mister Pleasant]

>>Mister Pleasant looking at Civ Specifics table<<

This is why an editor is included. Although, I have to admit that its pretty close to the way I'd do it myself. Think of it this way

Classical: Greek, Roman, Egyptian
Asian: Indian, Chinese, Japanese
Euro: England, France, Germany, Russia
American: US, Aztec, Iroquois

But this grouping puzzles me: Zulu, Babylonian, Persian
Fine, Persian and Babylonian go together, but Zulu?

Got me on this one.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Jingo
aw comeone, i did the rolleyes. just cause im a crazy kid who find a loophole to get around the FUCKING, yes, i said FUCKING, swear filter doesnt mean i mean anything.

I think I found the same fucking loophole

[player1]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I agree that putting the U.S. in a culture group with Iroq and Aztec seems a little weird, but its for game balance reasons I'm sure. Afterall, having Iroq and Aztecs around during the same time as the U.S. isn't historically accurate, but we are rewriting history here.

Firaxis said that similar cultures strat one near others, so they wanted Amercans to start near Iroquois and Aztec.
Still looking the screenshots, I think that they made it hybrid:
-statrs near other American Native cultures
-has European style outlook

[JellyDonut]

I'm gonna stop the circumventing shit and talk about culture groupings now, at ajbera's request:

I think the US was grouped in with the Iroquois and Aztecs to make it so the groupings are about even in the number of civs in them. So that since culture groupings make civs like each other better, the Iroquois aren't at a disadvantage. I would prefer, though, that the Americans be grouped with the Europeans and that the whole idea of similar cultures being less harsh to one another be scrapped, for aesthetic's (and historical accuracy's) sake.

[Morley]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
>>Mister Pleasant looking at Civ Specifics table<<


But this grouping puzzles me: Zulu, Babylonian, Persian
Fine, Persian and Babylonian go together, but Zulu?

Got me on this one.

c'mon that's ****ing (sorry, couldn't resist ) easy. Where the hell else do you put them? Plus, the numbers come out about right this way.