Comparing Civ Lists: Civ3, AoE2, Rise of Nations, etc.

[siredgar]

As there have been a slew of Civilization-like games coming out recently, I wanted to compare their Civ lists--

Civilization 3 (16 civs):

Americans
Aztecs
Babylonians
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Japanese
Persians
Romans
Russians
Sioux
Zulu

Age of Empire 2 (w/ expansion pack, 18 civs):

Aztecs
Britons
Byzantines
Celts
Chinese
Franks
Goths
Huns
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Persians
Saracens
Spanish
Teutons
Turks
Vikings

Rise of Nations (not released yet, 18 civs):

Aztecs
Bantu
British
Chinese
Egyptians
French
Germans
Greeks
Incas
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Nubians
Romans
Russians
Spanish
Turks

Apparently, we've been ripped off by two civs. Therefore, any proposed expansion pack for Civ 3 should have two more civs than intended.

Comparing the lists, it appears that the Koreans, Mayans, Mongols, Spanish, and Turks are included in Age of Empires 2 (albeit w/ expansion pack) and Rise of Nations, but not in Civ 3. Furthermore, Empire Earth has a whopping 21 civs included in the original game.

This is outrageous! I demand two of these civs be sent to me immediately by priority mail!

[Ribannah]

But we have Barbarians!!

You might want to list Colonialism, too.

[Locutus]

Pah! 16 civs, 18 civs, child's play Compare that to my upcoming History of the World mod for CtP2:

0. Barbarians
1. Spanish
2. Portuguese
3. Romans
4. Italians
5. English
6. Celts
7. Vikings
8. French
9. Dutch
10. Germans
11. Austrians
12. Russians
13. Polish
14. Greeks
15. Arabs
16. Hebrew
17. Phoenicians
18. Turkish
19. Byzantines
20. Persians
21. Babylonians
22. Assyrians
23. Chinese
24. Indians
25. Khmer
26. Thai
27. Mongols
28. Japanese
29. Koreans
30. Australians
31. Egyptians
32. Ethiopians
33. Malians
34. Maya
35. Inca
36. Aztec
37. Americans
38. Canadians
39. Brazilians
40. Argentinians
41. Iroquois
42. Sioux
--- extra civs (can't be selected in new game screen by default but can be opponents) ---
43. Swedish
44. Magyar
45. Minoans
46. Goths?
47. Serbs
48. Sumerians?
49. Hittites
50. Tibetans?
51. Shang
52. Harappans
53. Annam
54. Indonesians/Javans
55. Polynesians
56. Aborigine
57. Nubians
58. Beninians
59. Zimbabweans
60. Inuit
61. Anasazi
62. Mexicans

(Minor changes still possible but not too many)

[Ribannah]

Bah! You left out the Tuareg.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Ribannah
But we have Barbarians!!

What do you mean by that?!!

[siredgar]

Locutus, can you play all of these civs at the same time? Also, are each of the civ's characteristics detailed?

I played CTP1 and it kind of sucked. How is CTP2?

[Beren]

The comparisation with AoK is false, because it only deals with the Middle Ages. By the way: the game concept is totally different: Vikings and Huns perfectly fit the Barbarian role they have in Civ3. In AoK they had to make a seperate civ for it.

Main goal: have Locotus's mod in Civ3. Huge map, 63 civs. That'll be cool!

Still: more civs!!!!!!!!!!

[siredgar]

???

[siredgar]

The Vikings and the Huns did have their own civilizations, albeit in looser terms compared to other civs.

Anyhow, if I want to play a Scandinavian power like Sweden or an Eastern European power like Austria Hungary, I'd like to have the option of using these civs.

As I recall you included the Mongols on your most wanted list in a another thread. So, they're not "barbarians", according to your definition???

[Beren]

Yes, Mongols are Barbarians. At least they were. However, they created an empire that stood. Though they pillaged cities, they held lands. I am somehow reluctant to put the Mongols in, but they were so important. They were so big, that you simply cannot exclude them.
In the Middle-East, for instace (the Il-Kahnate), they held a large quantity of land for a large periode of time.

OK, I'll admit: the Vikings can be included, but the Huns is a step further along the road and I don't feel like including them, though I am happy with every extra civ.

Conclusion: Mongols were not really civilized and I feel reluctant to put them in, but they were such a big power, that it is worth reconsidering.

[siredgar]

If we are taking space into consideration, then according to your personal list you'd have the Spanish, the Swedes, and the Dutch included in Western Europe ALONG with the English, the French, the Romans, and the Germans. Do you know how small Western Europe actually is or has your European mindset inflated your sense of proportion? It's about the size of Greater Manchuria, which by the way was conquered by the KOREANS (which you do not include in your list) for a long time.

And yet, only the Russians and the Greeks for Eastern Europe? If Europe is going to be that crowded, then I'd expect at least the Huns or the Poles to be included to represent that part of the world, too.

[Locutus]

Ribannah:

Originally posted by siredgar
Locutus, can you play all of these civs at the same time?

You can play with up to 32 civs at the same time in CtP2 (although I've never actually done that myself, my poor old P200 64MB can't handle that ).

Also, are each of the civ's characteristics detailed?

As far as civ-specific characteristics go, they're less detailed than Civ3, that's true. There are 9-10 city styles (i.e. Egyptian cities look a bit like Pyramids, Islamic cities like Mosques, Romans like temples, etc - I think Civ3 has 5 for 16 civs?), every civ has a male and female leader and 50 cities, and there are 7 main personality types for AIs (but I'm thinking about adding 1 or 2 more; and personalities change a bit in the game as well, depending on terrain and stuff).

Although there are 'Great Leaders', they (at present) don't have a unique name (let alone several per civ) like in Civ3 (I might add that in the future, but it's a LOT of work).

There are no CSAs, because I'm strongly opposed to the whole concept: IMHO it's a core idea of the whole civ-philosophy that all civs start out equal; most (but not all) people in the CtP2 forum seem to agree with me on this so we don't have CSAs in CtP2.

Unique units exist in modified form: instead of being tied to a single civ, they are tied to technology, terrain (civs with a lot of cities in the jungle get Elephants, civ with a lot of cities on the coast get Longship) and chance. I may add religion to that list once I have that concept worked out in more detail. So one game the Romans have Legions, a next they might have Elephants, but they *are* the only civ with that unit.

Religion is a new concept I'm introducing: at some point in the game people will have to choose a religion and this influences diplomacy, has some minor CSA-like bonuses, affects what units/buildings/wonders/etc can be built and has a bunch of other characteristics. Again, people can choose, so it's not tied into a civ like Civ3's CSAs or UUs (so the Arabs aren't necessarily always Muslims), but in the course of a game it *will* make your own civ more unique from the other civs in that same game.

Basically, Civ3's civs are more unique but CtP2 HotW will 'compensate' by having a lot of dynamic in-game features such as religion, elite units (the CtP2 version of UUs), wonders visible on the map, random events, etc. Which approach works best is a matter of personal taste, I suppose.

I played CTP1 and it kind of sucked. How is CTP2?

Well, I personally think CtP1 and 2 and the best games ever Why did you not like CtP1? Did you dislike concepts like PW, stacked combat, unconventional warfare? If so, you'll probably won't like CtP2 either. If you were annoyed by lack of balance, bugs, etc, you could well like (modded) CtP2, but in that case even modded CtP1 (try downloading MedMod 4.13 sometime if you still have the CD and feel like giving the game another shot) could well appeal to you.

[siredgar]

Thanks for the reply, Locutus. It sounds intriguing. I may look into playing your mod. I'm assuming it has the option to specify player starting locations and I can download a real world map (in standard or large size)?

Can you tell me more about CTP2? I know I can just do the research myself, but I'm sure you know the game really well. For example, how is diplomacy and trade compared to Civ3? Do they still have those futuristic units and strange game concepts (i.e. from what I remember they had lawyers)?

[Locutus]

Well, I guess that when I'm done (which might still be a while, dunno, real-life is rather demanding for me these days) I could throw in a bunch of maps as well, earth and otherwise. CtP2 players generally aren't big map/scenarios players but including it might encourage them to start doing so more...

I could fill a book with everything I know about CtP2 but I wouldn't want to go too far off topic here. Repost the question in the CtP2 forums and you'll get a much more elaborate response from me and others... I'll keep it short and say that in modded CtP2 (very little people play unmodded CtP2 so I won't even bring it up), diplomacy gives you somewhat less options that Civ3 but the AI is IMHO extremely good, almost human in it's reactions often... and we're still working on making it even better. Trade is perhaps a bit simplistic when compared to Civ3, but I've been looking in ways to make that better too (we've been looking to make something similar (but better) than Civ3's strategic resources for quite some time now, but no satisfactory system has been found yet). Yep, future units still exist and unconventional warfare (laywyers and stuff) as well, but it has been toned down a little. And of course the most important rule of CtP2: if you don't like it, change it. Disabling the future age or all unconventional units can be done in a matter of minutes.

[Giovanni August]

[size=1] Originally posted by Locutus [/size=1]
3. Romans
4. Italians
5. English
6. Celts
18. Turkish
19. Byzantines
21. Babylonians
22. Assyrians
25. Khmer
26. Thai

How did you manage to put these civs in the game without an horrible overlapping in the capitals???

Saluti