XP civ overlap.

[Bisonbison]

Re: Bisonbison... oh jesus...

Originally posted by Rosacrux
OK, before constructive criticism takes the lead, I should return you this: If you fail to construct a certain history-based criteria system for your version of the civilizations included in game wishlist, you are an incompetent moron.

What you're demanding is not A history-based criteria, but A CERTAIN, meaning YOUR, history-based criteria. I happen to disagree on the criteria, and you resort to a lot of pointless character assassination. All I asked was for you to step forward and either constructively criticize my arguments or to provide your own counter-arguments for me to examine.

"An incompetent moron"? "An incompetent moron"? All I'm doing is disagreeing with your selection criteria and I'm an incompetent moron? I have a selection criteria which is implicit above and explicitly stated in other posts.

For those not interested in putting the pieces together themselves: Certain areas of the globe are underrepresented and certain areas of the globe are overrepresented in the release Civ3 list. I hold that significantly stronger case must be made in areas of overrepresentation, and we must simultaneously consider the possibility that certain civs from overpopulated regions have been covered by precursor or post-facto civs already included in the game.

The most deserving civs, therefore, come from areas with no representation whatsoever, such as South and Central America, Western Africa and the entire Pacific region including Australia, New Zealand and New Guniea. That is my criteria. Was that so hard to figure out while you were supposed to be laughing your ass off at my historical innacurracies? Am I typing in a foreign language here, or are you just hoping to beat up on someone today?

I did not address the civs in my order of preference, but in the order of ranking from the poll in this forum. so if you want to scream that you are right and the Arabs are obviously the most deserving civ you might want to also scream at the dozens of voters who have put the spanish in first place and the mongols in second.

If you'd taken the time, before personally attacking me, to look at some of the previous posts I've made in this forum, you'd see that our XP lists are very similar. I will only list 7, cause those are the only ones I really feel strongly about, but I expect and hope for Spanish, Mongol, Viking, Inca, Phonecian, Mali and Maya civs.

The Arabs still don't make my list because I still don't see them as necessary. Let me reiterate what I posted at the top of this thread:

Well, folks, I have to say I'm not impressed. I mean I know the Arabs were hugely important and all, but they're not giving us anything that we couldn't concieve of as latter-day Babylon/Persia. If Persia, Babylon and Egypt are all sharing the middle east, surely we can admit that the area's pretty well full.

In my mind, the Persians initially take the Arabian Peninsula and areas stretching east towards India, while Babylon stretches north, from Iraq towards the Black Sea, running into the Greeks in and around turkey and finding the mountains around the Caspian sea not worth the trouble. Meanwhile, the Egyptians do their North Africa, Ethopia, Egypt thing. At some point around 700 AD, the Persians or the Babylonians discover monotheism and begin to kick butt, rushing across North Africa, pushing into Spain uniting most of the middle east and so on and so forth.

Those are your Arabs. A latter day Civ3 civ. They're well covered already, and, in my opinion, a little too politicized to make it into the game.

There we go - a latter day civ3 civ, just like the Americans should be a latter day British civ. I'm not trying to disparage the beauty or power of Arab civilization. I'm just saying that this is something that intelligent people can disagree on. Apparently, Rosa, you're not willing to make the same concession. And if you'd like to call me a moron, I'd like you to give me details, not excuses and juvenile games.

[Ribannah]

If geography were the only consideration, we could simply divide the planet into 16 regions and name 16 imagined civs after the regions. Among them there would be a single tribe called the Europeans. But that takes half the fun away.

In addition, remember that we can't play with more than 16 civs at once.
So with an expansion pack and more historical civs added, we would simply select from the available 24 or 32 and make sure for ourselves that certain regions aren't too crowded. Or we would play on a local map instead of a World Map and have plenty of room for Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Arabia, Carthage and more.
Or, we would play on a random map, and would still love to put in those civilizations which we consider historically worthwhile, and interesting to mimic (or not) their unique way of life.

[ranskaldan]

Certain areas of the globe are underrepresented and certain areas of the globe are overrepresented in the release Civ3 list.

So? Why does it matter? Are we playing every single game on the Real World Map?

we must simultaneously consider the possibility that certain civs from overpopulated regions have been covered by precursor or post-facto civs already included in the game.

The Arab civilization is NOT a result of the Egyptian or Babylonian civ. How MANY times do I have to say that?

I expect and hope for Spanish, Mongol, Viking, Inca, Phonecian, Mali and Maya civs.

You are contradicting yourself here.

According to your logic which excludes the Arabs:
Spanish - shouldn't be in. The Spanish civ is a result of the interaction between Roman, Germanic, and Celtic civs. Since we already have Romans and Germans, Spanish shouldn't be in. Besides, Europe is overcrowded.
Mongol - shouldn't be in. Their starting position is too close to the Chinese. In addition, since they conquered China for a time (the same way the Arabs conquered Persia), and the Chinese are in civ3 (like the Persians), so the Mongols shouldn't be in.
Viking - The Norse is a Germanic civilization, and we already have Germans. In addition, Europe is overcrowded.
Phoenician - Too close to Babylonian and Egyptian civs.
Maya - Too close to Aztecs. Besides, they are both Mesoamerican civs with very similar features.

Do you see how your logic of 'Arabs are actually latter-day Egyptians' and 'Middle East is crowded' excludes almost any civ?

[Rosacrux]

Ranskaldan

Couldn't say it better myself

[Dr. Nick]

Antarctica is underrepresented! We demand a civilisation of Penguins!

[ranskaldan]

well said!

[orange]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
The Arab civilization is NOT a result of the Egyptian or Babylonian civ. How MANY times do I have to say that?

You just don't get it BisonBison....have whatever views you want. But if you're going to back it up with "The Arabs are just a latter day Babylonians/Egyptians" expect to recieve some counter-fire and some "you're a moron" posts.

Those are your Arabs. A latter day Civ3 civ

...is simply false.

[ranskaldan]

Ok, to sum it up. Bisonbison, you have offered 2 reasons why the Arabs should not be included.

1. Overcrowding.

The same reason would eliminate the Spanish, Dutch, Maya, or Phoenicians. Do you really want to divide the Earth into 24 equal-area regions and assign a civ each? The development of civilization on Earth was uneven.
And I don't see how overcrowding would become a problem unless you play on the real world map.

2. The Roman-Italian and Russian-Soviet analogy

As I have said many times, the Arabs are not the result of the Babylonian or Egyptian civs. You simply cannot use the Roman-Italian analogy here. There is no orderly Egypt ---(develop into)---> Arab evolution.

Of course, you can argue that the Arabs have replaced the Egyptian civilization. Well, the Spanish have replaced the Aztec civilization too. So we shouldn't have the Spanish because they are a 'latter-day Aztec civ'? Don't be absurd.

Another argument you have is that the Arabs are sufficiently represented by the Egyptians, Babylonians and Persians. Great. Now are you going to say that the Spanish have been represented by the French, Germans and Romans? Or maybe the Mongols have been *gasp* represented by the Chinese, Indians and Persians?

At some point around 700 AD, the Persians or the Babylonians discover monotheism and begin to kick butt, rushing across North Africa, pushing into Spain uniting most of the middle east and so on and so forth.

The Persians and Babylonians 'discovered' monotheism??? When did that happen?
More like the Arabs discovered monotheism, and then conquered Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Bisonbison
#2 - The Mongols

Again, another perfectly sensible XP civ. As it stands in standard Civ3 Asia, the Japanese represent Japan and Korea [and I know that the former came from the latter, except for the Anu], but the Chinese have almost all of East-central Asia to conquer. Traditionally there were forces to exert pressure on China from the north, and that pressure is perfectly embodied in the Mongol civ, which we can imagine as having very little tech or culture, but a large enough number of cities to pour out their mounted bowman UU, which struck with near impunity from China through Russia and the Middle East to what is now modern Poland. Alas, despotism is not a good government with which to build a far-reaching empire, and the lack of roads or rivers (or much of anything but grass) in the mongol homeland meant little science, and that meant no monarchy or republic advance, and that meant too much unhappiness and real quick cultural reassimilation of their conquered cities. Soon Eurasian tech levels put another Mongol empire out of reach of hordes of horsemen.

Japan representing Korea would be like Rome representing Greece, or something like that. The Koreans deserve to be an expansion pack Civ. They're in the expansion pack for Age of Empires II and quite fun to play. Also, see Yin's thread. Any civilization with a thread that has that many posts and views deserves attention.

[Caesar2760]

Noone, least of all bisonbison, is claiming that there is any cause-result relationship between the Babylonians or Persians and the Arabs. However, he is saying that the main area of Arabian, or at least Muslim import (Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, & Iran) is represented by the Babylonian and Persian civs. We really can't say that there is either a Babylonian or a Persian civilization in the world today; the lands of both would be included in a Muslim civ. However, starting with the premise that there is both a Babylonian and Persian civ, and that, more than likely, at least one would still be alive today, we come up with the notion that the Babylonian or Persian, at some point, became the Muslim (IN GAME TERMS ONLY). Perhaps this was through a civil war, or a period of anarchy, or after a decline.
Let's just presume that a civ game is started, with the single parameter that history must be followed as closely as CivIII allows. The Romans conquest much of the Meditteranean world. Perhaps the Spanish still exist as a tributary ally (I do believe some parts of Spain were still, in name, independant, especially in the Northeast). I agree with his suggestion as to the French and Germans. As for the Persians, they can be presumed to live on in Iran, as the Parthians. The Phoenicians are completely defeated, if indeed they are put in in the first place (or maybe they hold some independance and reemerge as Israelis [again, no cause-effect]). In any case, the Babylonians lose their holdings in Babylon, but do manage to keep the poor regions of Arabia. As Rome collapses, they expand a bit, and with a timely discovery of some useful tech, they explode on to the world scene. It's as realistic as Civ gets.
Now, I will make a disclaimer. If, indeed, the goal is to represent very powerful civs throughout history, and we are not to presume that the game is played on a real world map, then of course the Arabs deserve inclusion. I also would support the addition of some central European group to represent all the various groups residing there throughout time, although it would be difficult to choose which incarnation of them to choose (Magyars?). Anyway, that's what I have to say. No name calling, please.