Criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III

[Trifna]

Instead of seeing everybody debating of the eligibility of each civ, I propose some criterions applyable to any case:

1- An elaborated culture

Definition of "elaborated culture": A culture of hunter/gatherer that every culture started with isn't elaborated. Elaborated is that the culture has its own ways of explaining things, own theology, its way of doing things.

2- A distinct culture

Definition of "distinct culture": Even if they both made a different kingdom that was very powerful (or not, doesn't bother me), they may have the same culture and in fact both be japanese, or chinese or else. It's simply that a civilisation may have schisms or many parts. Also, a culture that can be covered by annother because she is a simple branch of this other, a division, is in fact part of that other. Of course, each civ is in fact a branch of some original human group, but they need to have taken a different path. This is why there are many European civs: many took different paths due to some envrionmental, cultural arrivals and other reasons.



So these are, I think, the reasons. All the rest comes from these two factors. You like Vikings because of their specific way of doing? Well it's because they are specific, have a distinct culture. You think a civ is great by their wars? Well their wars were maybe something coming from their elaborated way of administrating their people, their strenghts (+ they were specific or they should be included elsewhere).

I think that the "distinctive" factor should be looked at for Koreans, Polls, Khmers, Vikings, and many others. Not all are distinctive, even if they are waging wars against the civ from which their branch is coming. As Babylonians that covers some other more minor generally about-similar civs.

I think that the "elaborated" factor could be looked at with civs such as Polynesians, all Iroquois and Native Americans, all Zulus and Africans (should they be all-in-one?). In fact, elaboration is what makes that a civilisation gradually distinguish as a branch. If it doesn't elaborate enough, it wont distinguish. And it wont become a great culture by itself since only elaboration may achieve greatness, should it be as Japan, China, Greek or other.



In fact, a not elaborated enough civ is simply a seed with no flower design yet. As all civs may start the same way. So if it didn't developed any specific culture yet: it's simply a bunch of humans with too little complex organization. And if it didn't elaborated enough from a mother-civilisation, it's stil part of that mother-civilisation, a branch of it.

[Trifna]

Forgot: anyone has any comments on the criterions? Someone thinks I'm wrong? Any comments accepted AND wanted

[Barnacle Bill]

As posted in another thread, to me the key criteria is "Built cities or ruled (for a significant period) cities they conquered from somebody else". No cities, no "civilization" - any such groups should simply be added to the list of Barbarian tribes in the editor. Certain cultures already included should be purged on that basis to make room for more true civilizations.

[Trifna]

Because an organized group of humans that didn't made war wouldn't be a civilisation?

We see things by pushing an hypothesis to its limit, so let's try it:

Let's say we have... extraterrestrial that are very pacific. They are ultra-organized, telepathic, with a complex hierarchical and social system, and are for the rest in all as humans except they are technologically a lot more advanced and are dog-shaped ( ). They have all the litterature you can imagine, should it be philosophical or else. They are a single civilisation that isn't coming from any other civilisation since the entire 130-IQ-dog species is on a single ship and they never have been culturally separated for DNA reasons that make them similar one to each other.

Would they be called a civilisation if they didn't EVER made any war, escaping from it constantly? I think yes.

1- Its culture is elaborated
2- Its culture is distinctive

Of course, a culture that takes over others may be the demonstration of its elaborateness, having a complex structure permitting organized attacks on someone with a specific goal in favor of the civilisation. And of course, an attack may show a certain distinction between the two enemies (that may or may not be important enough to considerate them as two distinct civilisations).


PS: I like pushing hypothesis to extremes

[ranskaldan]

how elaborate is elaborate? how distinctive is distinctive?

all these are subjective.

I think that the Koreans are really distinctive enough from Chinese or Japanese. Perhaps you don't. I don't think that the Byzantines are distinctive enough from Romans or Greeks. Some people do.

I think that the Zulu are elaborate enough. You don't. I don't think that the (say) Aleut are elaborate enough, a lot of people do. (and just a sidetrack: whaddaya mean that no Native Americans are elaborate? what about the mayans and incans?)

You see, trifna, everyone accepts and uses your definitions. The problem isn't that people don't understand 'elaborate' or 'distinctive', it's that they have different yardsticks for measuring it.

in order to come up with a definitive yardstick for 'elaborate' for example, we need specific factors, like 'city building' or 'agriculture'. i don't know about a yardstick for 'distinctive' however, and no one does. that's why there're so many byzantine-vs-greek and arab-vs-babylonian and mongol-vs-turk arguments all over the place.

[Trifna]

Not everyone thinks all this using culture. Many are looking at it as "which civ got the biggest military", "which had the biggest territory" and other physical things as such.

And about the measurement of "distincitve" and "elaborated", well the more general we want our civs to be, the more distinctive and elaborated we will want to give to our acceptance. After this, discussions are needed to see what civ had which culture, and etc. Then, it would only be a matter of knowledge and evaluating. Measuring.

(and just a sidetrack: whaddaya mean that no Native Americans are elaborate? what about the mayans and incans?)

It was only some exemples of places where the factor was concerned.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Trifna:

I have to repeat ranskaldan's questions:

how elaborate is elaborate? how distinctive is distinctive?

Can try to analize current CIV III civilizations under your criteria?

For instance:
How distinctive is the American civilization from the English?

In other posts you seem to have difficulty in understanding that
two countries, who don't even speak the same language have distinct cultures. How can you distinct two countries that share the same language, when one of them is an ex-colony of the other, and when many times people join them in what is called the anglo-saxon way to do business, to handle the economy, to face military questions, etc. ?

Not that I'm saying that the American Civilization has not an historical ground to appear in CIV. After all, they were a Republic from day one. But other than that, what makes them diferent from, say, Canadá or the United Kingdom?

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna
Not everyone thinks all this using culture. Many are looking at it as "which civ got the biggest military", "which had the biggest territory" and other physical things as such.

City dwelling IS a cultural matter. It has nothing to do with violence, military or amount of territory controlled. It is a matter of a way of life - a way of life which provides a high concentration of specialists. A culture built around cities is a civilization. A culture which has no cities is not. There is lots of room for debating what cultures among those meeting that definition are distinctive enough to be represented seperately in the game, but cultures which fail to meet it only belong on the barbarian tribe list.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Not that I'm saying that the American Civilization has not an historical ground to appear in CIV. After all, they were a Republic from day one. But other than that, what makes them diferent from, say, Canadá or the United Kingdom?

You get a distorted picture if you start the Americans in 4000 BC, and you also get a distorted picture if the English colonize half the world but America in the 20th Century is impossible. Either one is a compromise. In an ideal Civ3, we'd have an event scripting system which would allow the creation of America out of English territory via a Civ2-style "civil war" under certain conditions. As a start, I'd say the English would need to have at least two cities within an area of border, with the majority of the citizens in them English, and that area not on the same land-mass as the English capital, and England had discovered (not necessarily adopted) Democracy. If those conditions exist, there should be a random chance that those cities would break off and form America (and be renamed according to the American city list). Of course, this would require Firaxis to program scripting support of such sophistication.

[Trifna]

Ecowiz Returns:

I know what you mean. I'm just determining the criterions on which should be decided that a civilization is in or out. I'm not talking about which difference we need, but only on WHAT we need a difference. I made this post to go against the criterions such as "this civ is great because it did this, this, this..." and "she was great because here's its history that is very complete and elaborated:...".

[Trifna]

Barnacle Bill:

Cities are a secondary character on which we can try to look if a civilization could be there, but it isn't the criterion by itself and more a consequence of the civilization. A highly organized group will quite possibly build cities (except if environment doesn't permit). But the cities are built because of a certain level of organization, and not opposit. Or then, why do you think cities would be built? Thus, cities aren't the the criterion itself to civilization but a secondary consequence. It's searching the egg and the chicken here.

[ranskaldan]

I made this post to go against the criterions such as "this civ is great because it did this, this, this..." and "she was great because here's its history that is very complete and elaborated:...".

what's wrong with 'this civ is great because it did this, this, this...'? The greater a civ was, the more reason there is to include it. Why do you think we have the Romans, Chinese, English and Russians in civ3, instead of the Slovenes, Evenki, Picts and Karelians? These civilizations aren't inferior in any way by themselves. They simply did less.

Thus both your criteria (distinct and elaborate) and the other one (great events and doings) should be considered when including civs.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


what's wrong with 'this civ is great because it did this, this, this...'? The greater a civ was, the more reason there is to include it. Why do you think we have the Romans, Chinese, English and Russians in civ3, instead of the Slovenes, Evenki, Picts and Karelians? These civilizations aren't inferior in any way by themselves. They simply did less.

Thus both your criteria (distinct and elaborate) and the other one (great events and doings) should be considered when including civs.

Because if a great civ is in fact a branch of another civ, then it should be imputed to the mother-civ and not the branch. they are the same, the branch and the mother. Like Carthage that is simply a continuing of Phoenicians. Or as Huns that some say is a group of Mongols (no idea if it is totally verified). Or as many great countries are in fact the continuing of annother culture, tey are the same. Byzantine is, for many (me included), simply the following of Roman empire.

[ranskaldan]

Firstly, just to get this clear, the Huns aren't Mongols. I've seen too many cases of people getting the Turks, Huns, Mongols and Manchus mixed up.

Secondly, the Koreans most definitely aren't split-off Chinese.

Thirdly, ALL civs are continuations of other civilizations. the Americans are a split-off province of Britain. Britain is a split-off province of Rome. Rome itself is an offshoot of Greek culture. Greek culture has its roots in Mycenae and Crete.

So... we shouldn't include the Americans, British, Romans, and Greeks, right?

Just because a civilization is split off doesn't mean it should be disqualified. If it's just another political entity of the same race (like Byzantines), fine, but other than that (like Britain, Vikings, and even the USA, which you yourself consider a civilization), there's no reason to exclude them.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Firstly, just to get this clear, the Huns aren't Mongols. I've seen too many cases of people getting the Turks, Huns, Mongols and Manchus mixed up.

I dunno... I just said it as an exemple of what some were saying was all under "Mongols".

Secondly, the Koreans most definitely aren't split-off Chinese.

Thirdly, ALL civs are continuations of other civilizations. the Americans are a split-off province of Britain. Britain is a split-off province of Rome. Rome itself is an offshoot of Greek culture. Greek culture has its roots in Mycenae and Crete.

the are all continuations from annother civ? Sure. Here's come the factor "distinctive", which means it needs to have made itself distinctive at a certain degree from where it's coming. The degree needs to be discussed and it wasn't the subject of my post.


[/QUOTE]
So... we shouldn't include the Americans, British, Romans, and Greeks, right? [/QUOTE]

Could you quote me where I said this or soemthing close?! I said that when they were not distinctive enough, I was disqualifying them. I didn't even talked about at which degree they needed to be distinctive. If you think they need to be even more distinctive than British are to Americans, fine, but it's not my point here.

Just because a civilization is split off doesn't mean it should be disqualified. If it's just another political entity of the same race (like Byzantines), fine, but other than that (like Britain, Vikings, and even the USA, which you yourself consider a civilization), there's no reason to exclude them.

They need to be distinctive enough. Should we, instead of Arabs, put all kind of Arabs because that they have an enough degree of distinction? But we have to apply the same degree of distinction everywhere, to every civ. Accepting to divide Arab in 6 sorts and putting all Asiatics under "China" would be silly for exemple, since it isn't the samedegree that is applyed.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna
Barnacle Bill:

Cities are a secondary character on which we can try to look if a civilization could be there, but it isn't the criterion by itself and more a consequence of the civilization. A highly organized group will quite possibly build cities (except if environment doesn't permit). But the cities are built because of a certain level of organization, and not opposit. Or then, why do you think cities would be built? Thus, cities aren't the the criterion itself to civilization but a secondary consequence. It's searching the egg and the chicken here.

The chicken & egg thing doesn't matter - if it doesn't reproduce via eggs, it ain't poultry. It doesn't matter whether cities "civilize" a society or whether a society which is "civilized" builds cities as consequence of being "civilized". What matters is that a "civilization" is a society which possesses cities (however it acquired them). Societies which never did in history build cities (or conquer & rule somebody else's) do not qualify to be considered as civilizations. How culturally distinctive, noble, peaceful, warlike, colonialist, enlightened, or whatever are things to depate about which CIVILIZATIONS to include. If there were never any cities, though, then there was never any civilization to include.