Criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III

[Ecowiz Returns]

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.

Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones).

Directly to the threads question:
In my opinion, some criteria are important:

One - did this recognizable group of people (be it Cultural Group, Ethnic Group, Country... whatever) leave a mark in the Human History that had a general efect in all Humanity or in the turn of events that made World Hystory?

For instance: Greeks (Democracy), Romans (Roman Law), Chinese (Tipography,Confucionism,Budism) , French (French Revolution), Babillons (Writing - one of the first), Egiptians (Medicine)... Portuguese (Navigation Advances), Americans (so many reasons...) ...

Two - did this group of people once ruled over a relatively big territory?

For instance: Chinese, Mongols, Greeks(Macedonians), Romans, Persians, Aztecs/Incas, Zulu, English, Spanish, Portuguese...

Three - did this group of people have made important, still registred contact with other civilizations, marking their Hystory?

For instance: Japan and Germany (for the wrong reasons), Spanish, English, Portuguese, Dutch (all colonial empires, actually)

Four - Would it be fun to play with them (the "What if Scennario")?

I believe every group of people one would like to be the leader of and try to rewrite World Hystory with and "see" what would happen is a good one.
That is why we must have all WWII major countries. That's also the only reason I understand (with much effort, tough) the presence of the Iroquois (or other noth-american native nation, for that mater).
That's also why they leave you the oportunity to custom your Civilization in Civ and CIV II.
That's why I play with the Portuguese almost everytime!

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns


Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones).

Actually, that would be ideal if the game program was sophisticated enough to support it. See Europa Universalis, or better yet EU2. However, with a limit of 16 civs (or maybe 32 after the editor patch, according to the guys poking around in the .bic structure), there is absolutely no room for cultures which never had cities during their entire independent political existence. I would also exclude those who reacquired political independence as part of the post-WWII decolonialism and inhereted cities built by their former colonial masters, but never had any cities during their pre-colonial independence. Of course, all decolonized nations don't fall in that category, but much of sub-Saharan Africa does.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


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.

Boy! But this is dogmatic! Why do civ need cities to be civ? Because they wouldn't if they wouldn't have cities!!! Give me an argument, or I'll constanbtly say the same thing. Go read my exemple using the extremes of alien-doggies and try to say me what goes against it. Maybe I'll see your argument that way...

[pumph]

Originally posted by Trifna

Why do civ need cities to be civ?

The key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, speaking for the situation here on earth (I'm afraid I don't understand your space-canines argument), such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself.

Now, one can insert here the point that agricultural surplus can of course be obtained by conquest or enslavement, and that cities need not be permanent: felt tents can suffice as well as stone. So the Mongols are doubtless in (there are excellent historical accounts of their cities), while Australian aborigines are not (mere hunter-gatherers).

Your concept of "elaborated culture" is insufficient by itself, without rooting it in some kind of economic definition, to do the job you have set for it. I think, though, that you are probably hinting at something like the division of labor. But how much of a division would suffice?

It is interesting to note that all the first true civilizations - those in the Near-East, at Mohenjo Daro and in China - all involved irrigated agriculture. That is to say, centralized control (eg the central granaries of Mohenjo Daro) grew out the need to develop and maintain the irrigation projects and also to distribute the production of those projects, a very significant division of labor indeed.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by pumph


The key factor is economics, or at least mode of production. To have a civilization you need to generate and concentrate a surplus over and above subsistence. Now to generate the surplus you need agriculture, which excludes hunter-gatherers, while to concentrate it you need an administration, thereby implying centralized control. Finally, speaking for the situation here on earth (I'm afraid I don't understand your space-canines argument), such centralized control appears to mean a city with the capability of defending itself.

Now, one can insert here the point that agricultural surplus can of course be obtained by conquest or enslavement, and that cities need not be permanent: felt tents can suffice as well as stone. So the Mongols are doubtless in (there are excellent historical accounts of their cities), while Australian aborigines are not (mere hunter-gatherers).

Your concept of "elaborated culture" is insufficient by itself, without rooting it in some kind of economic definition, to do the job you have set for it. I think, though, that you are probably hinting at something like the division of labor. But how much of a division would suffice?

It is interesting to note that all the first true civilizations - those in the Near-East, at Mohenjo Daro and in China - all involved irrigated agriculture. That is to say, centralized control (eg the central granaries of Mohenjo Daro) grew out the need to develop and maintain the irrigation projects and also to distribute the production of those projects, a very significant division of labor indeed.

I know this

[Trifna]

[why did that post posted itself??? ]

I know this, but I was saying that it isn't the fact that there were some cities itself that was making that there was a civ, but that there was an elaborated enough culture distinct from others. Cities are a secundary exterior factor to the definition of "civilization".

[molly bloom]

It seems always to be the fate of the nomadic/semi-nomadic cultures to be traduced by the city dwellers; out go the Mongols, Maasai, and so forth, in favour of the civilizations/cultures that most resemble ourselves....

http://csen.org/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/genghis/index.html

https://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/09/cov_27feature.html

https://www.gonomad.com/happenings/0009/douzfest.html

https://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/ANCINDIA/ARYANS.HTM

https://www.alaskaone.com/welcome/cultures.htm

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Trifna



Boy! But this is dogmatic! Why do civ need cities to be civ? Because they wouldn't if they wouldn't have cities!!! Give me an argument, or I'll constanbtly say the same thing. Go read my exemple using the extremes of alien-doggies and try to say me what goes against it. Maybe I'll see your argument that way...

That your alien-doggies are total peaceful is irrelevant. That they are totally different is irrelevant. If they built cities, peacefully, distinctively, they'd be a "civilization". If they didn't build cities, no matter how peaceful or distinctive, they would not be a "civilization", just peaceful & distinctive barbarians. Don't get hung up on the word "barbarian" - it doesn't necessarily mean violent or ignorant, just that their culture for whatever reason doesn't/didn't have cities.

Look, I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more. Civ(1-3) is a game of managing cities. However YOU want to define the word "civilization", the game(s) models a "civilization" as a collection of cities. Therefore, whether or not you like the idea of making city-dwelling a requirement for the title "civilization" in general historical discussions, it is utterly impossible to model any society that has no cities as a civilization in Civ1-3. If you put them in the game as a civilization, they will have cities in the game. If they didn't have cities in real life, then you haven't modelled them very well, have you? If you want "no city civs" to be possible, lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


That your alien-doggies are total peaceful is irrelevant. That they are totally different is irrelevant. If they built cities, peacefully, distinctively, they'd be a "civilization". If they didn't build cities, no matter how peaceful or distinctive, they would not be a "civilization", just peaceful & distinctive barbarians. Don't get hung up on the word "barbarian" - it doesn't necessarily mean violent or ignorant, just that their culture for whatever reason doesn't/didn't have cities.

Look, I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more. Civ(1-3) is a game of managing cities. However YOU want to define the word "civilization", the game(s) models a "civilization" as a collection of cities. Therefore, whether or not you like the idea of making city-dwelling a requirement for the title "civilization" in general historical discussions, it is utterly impossible to model any society that has no cities as a civilization in Civ1-3. If you put them in the game as a civilization, they will have cities in the game. If they didn't have cities in real life, then you haven't modelled them very well, have you? If you want "no city civs" to be possible, lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4.

Would have been nice that you would be able to not put such as "lobby Firaxis to add them in an expansion or Civ4", "However YOU want to define the word "civilization" or "I'm not going to argue symantics with you any more". Sure, go with irrational comments somewhere else when someone doesn't have the same opinion... I don't espescially like that 3/4 of assertions don't have an argument and that i have to guess them for the other...

[Ecowiz Returns]

I, for one, clearly understood Bill's comment: if it doesn't have cities, you can't use it to play Civilization III (or I, or II, for what that matters).

Bill put it in a clear reason why having cities is an indispensible condition for a Civilization to appear in Civ III: all Civilization Games require you to manage cities! The only "Civilization" in the game that do not require cities are the Barbarian (and even they conquer cities, in the game).

Trifna's dog-like civilization could be a "Barbarian-like" (meaning, without the capability to buid cities) technologically and cultularly evolved civilization, but not one we could play with. Maybe one should be able to customize the Barbarian tribes, giving them other names (certainly not "dog-like Civ" ) and some degree of technological development and cultural power. It would be interesting to see one of my cities convert to the "dog like civilization side" though. (Of the topic: is it possible to loose a city to the Barbarians due to cultural reasons?)

So, I believe Bill's answer, though not what Trifna might have expected, is a clear, direct, practical answer. Due to Civ's gameplay, an eligble civilization must have cities.

By the way, what do you think of the criteria I proposed?

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
I, for one, clearly understood Bill's comment: if it doesn't have cities, you can't use it to play Civilization III (or I, or II, for what that matters).

Bill put it in a clear reason why having cities is an indispensible condition for a Civilization to appear in Civ III: all Civilization Games require you to manage cities! The only "Civilization" in the game that do not require cities are the Barbarian (and even they conquer cities, in the game).

Trifna's dog-like civilization could be a "Barbarian-like" (meaning, without the capability to buid cities) technologically and cultularly evolved civilization, but not one we could play with. Maybe one should be able to customize the Barbarian tribes, giving them other names (certainly not "dog-like Civ" ) and some degree of technological development and cultural power. It would be interesting to see one of my cities convert to the "dog like civilization side" though. (Of the topic: is it possible to loose a city to the Barbarians due to cultural reasons?)

So, I believe Bill's answer, though not what Trifna might have expected, is a clear, direct, practical answer. Due to Civ's gameplay, an eligble civilization must have cities.

By the way, what do you think of the criteria I proposed?

Yes, maybe it was Bill's thought... If it's the case, then, I guess that the idea from the list to incorporate the possibility of nomadic civilization could (if it is possible to implement...) be the best way. But if not, well we have to stay within the restrictions of Civ III, beeing obliged to suppose that civilizations one day would nevermind build cities. It's like these other Civ paradoxes that cause problem, such as civs that all start at 3000 BC and stay til end. I guess a better system could be managed (don't ask me how, I'm not Nostradamus), but you're stil obliged to make "as if" til then. We're working into a structure (Civ III), thus limits when we incorporate reality/realism in it. And about the dog-like civ, I propose they have "Bull-dog" as UU

Bill, maybe I did'nt understood you completely, but, following your statement, doesnt every current country qualifies as a Civilization? I don't recall any XXth century country that hasn't a city in it, whatever small (and some of them, with no special civilizational attributes have particularly large ones).

Directly to the threads question:
In my opinion, some criteria are important:

One - did this recognizable group of people (be it Cultural Group, Ethnic Group, Country... whatever) leave a mark in the Human History that had a general efect in all Humanity or in the turn of events that made World Hystory?

For instance: Greeks (Democracy), Romans (Roman Law), Chinese (Tipography,Confucionism,Budism) , French (French Revolution), Babillons (Writing - one of the first), Egiptians (Medicine)... Portuguese (Navigation Advances), Americans (so many reasons...) ...

Two - did this group of people once ruled over a relatively big territory?

For instance: Chinese, Mongols, Greeks(Macedonians), Romans, Persians, Aztecs/Incas, Zulu, English, Spanish, Portuguese...

Three - did this group of people have made important, still registred contact with other civilizations, marking their Hystory?

For instance: Japan and Germany (for the wrong reasons), Spanish, English, Portuguese, Dutch (all colonial empires, actually)

Four - Would it be fun to play with them (the "What if Scennario")?

I believe every group of people one would like to be the leader of and try to rewrite World Hystory with and "see" what would happen is a good one.
That is why we must have all WWII major countries. That's also the only reason I understand (with much effort, tough) the presence of the Iroquois (or other noth-american native nation, for that mater).
That's also why they leave you the oportunity to custom your Civilization in Civ and CIV II.
That's why I play with the Portuguese almost everytime!

About these creterias:
I have to say it makes me think
But I'd say that it's a little like in SMAC: you have different ideology and one wins by taking over others. Here, it is cultures. With my criterias, all cultures that are of the same ideology (more or less, since not a single country is the same) are classed under the same banner. Byzantines AND Romans made great things, but they are both Romans. So Romans made even more great things under their branch called "Byzantines". Of course, in History, some ideology made more than some others. China's way of thinking took more place culturally speaking than Iroquoi's or else. So Civ becomes a war against ideologic factions. The German way of thinking, the French's, the China's, Japan... Like Rome that extended around all Mediterranea.

So when I apply on your criterias which forms many civs, I may regroup some of your civ because considered of similar culture, thus under the same banner (civ). They are the same. There isn't 300 general ways of thinking, and that's why there isn't 300 civs even if there's 300 countries. And when I play a civ that didn't made as much as others, I just say to myself that under certain condition, she may have made more and expanded (like Sioux in Civ II). And about civs there for fun, well I bless the... editor... well... what it may be someday... I know some people that played as Quebec or other. I'll play as Dog-likes

Did I answered well? I'm sleepy today, so just say where I didn't if so hehe

[LoD]

Re: General criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III

Originally posted by Trifna
[...]
I think that the "distinctive" factor should be looked at for Koreans, Polls, Khmers, Vikings, [...]

Hmm... intriguing name, Polls. Never heard of them. Could you enlighten me in this matter?

Perhaps they have invented polls?

[Trifna]

Re: Re: General criterions for eligibility of a civ to be in Civ III

Originally posted by LoD


Hmm... intriguing name, Polls. Never heard of them. Could you enlighten me in this matter?

Perhaps they have invented polls?

Well the guys coming from Poland as you may have guessed... English isn't my primary language, so you'll excuse me.
Let me look in my French-English dictionary... Pole!

Now we're all happy as turkeys and I hope you'll have a nice xmas!!!