Which Civs should be added after PTW?

[Odin]

Many civilizations are hybrids. The Spain example was a good one. Spaniards are a mix of North African, Celtic, Bausque, Visigoth, and Arab culture. Rome was a hybrid of Etruscan (which were not Indo-European! ); The Latins, who were a group from central Europe; and Greek.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Well, perhaps Indonesia should not be added. It is, after all, a "newish" nation, probably in the first stage of Historial Development, or perhaps the Second. Still, the polynesians could be represented.

I don't wish to get in a snitty argument with you, but I still object to the presence of the Celts and the lack of more of the turkic peoples from central asia, more native americans, more african states (which are CERTAINLY old enough to be included, if that's a major criterion...), oceanic peoples, aborigonies, and the tamil peoples.

Of COURSE American should be included. But if a bunch of long-gone nomads are going to be in the name (not that they shouldn't be), I don't see why the world's most populous Muslim nation should be excluded.

hi ,

indonesia , ....

well we could let the nation be born out of some civs ( Firaxis this is really needed !!! ) or we could put the dutch up there , ..... the map does look a bit empty there , ....

aboriginals should be included , thats for sure

and maybe a special civ in the pacific ocean , ....

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well, perhaps Indonesia should not be added. It is, after all, a "newish" nation, probably in the first stage of Historial Development, or perhaps the Second. Still, the polynesians could be represented.

I don't wish to get in a snitty argument with you, but I still object to the presence of the Celts and the lack of more of the turkic peoples from central asia, more native americans, more african states (which are CERTAINLY old enough to be included, if that's a major criterion...), oceanic peoples, aborigonies, and the tamil peoples.

Of COURSE American should be included. But if a bunch of long-gone nomads are going to be in the name (not that they shouldn't be), I don't see why the world's most populous Muslim nation should be excluded.

[XarXo]

Man, what I have to do for you understand that if USA is in the game is just because:

1.- Usa has a militar power never seen in history before
2.- They controlled the politics, cultures, and definitively, the life of millions and millions OUT of their country (by putting Saddams and Pinochets everywhere).
3.- They created and rule the world economical basis

And this is just 3!

Countries like Indonesia doesn't have the history background to help them to become civvish, or the exploding-in-history point that have USA.

Zulus and Iroquois are just for "full" empty areas, Celts represent specially a mix of Gauls and insular celts, or better, the original western europe inhabitants (germanics, franks and the others come from scandinavia, urals, siberia or sahara).

Europe was quite empty, why? Glaciation. Look that the biggest ancient cultures (olmecs, china, ganges, persia, babylon, sumeria, egypt, greeks...) emerged in the northern area of the equatorial line. We should ask WHY.

If we check the south, we find deserts, jungles, oceans... people gone to north while the nordic people gone further north for maintain their nomadic based on cold weather life.

Your civ sure will be here if Civ was more Call to Power.

This second game ended in teh first version at 3000 AC, and 2300 in Call to Power II, so including these new nations was possible and understandable.

Just time is what you need

BTW: I have an own civ, Crown of Aragon, with more than 1500 years of history, our language is spoken by more than 10 millions and we are quite rich, so... Why not us? Because I recognize that we are a civ, but not enough time an important one. That's all. My civ now is borning: Europe.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by XarXo
Uh oh, another "put my country here" thread...

Roll your eyes all you want. I'm not demanding that my country, Ireland, be put in Civ. I wouldn't be that interesting in playing as Ireland.

When? Indonesia was a colony that when reached independence it became what is now. I only remember Brunei as an old and independent country in this area.

Indonesia is probably becoming a civ, but large territory doesn't create one (look Kazajstan, and this one is more civvish-smelling than Indonesia, almost for me).

If not Kazahkstan, then perhaps Turkmenistan or Tranoxiana should be represented in Civ, to represent the Western Turks, in my opinion. Indonesia should be represented, or polynesia. The mixture of Bhuddism, Islam and Hinduism here, along with ancient animist beliefs, place-names, etc., is unique enough to warrant inclusion in civ.

I see some "hidden" ideas here, well...

???

Iberians is not at all the same as germanic or frank-burgundians. Iberians is a mix of people that come from Sahara (that one was drying) and mixed with basques-aquitanes and other tribes. They became a bunch of ancient and small states, then rome come and invaded them. "Spain" became a civ when it conquered large territories and expanded the castillian culture. Germany is a mix of people from the actual germany plus denmark plus western poland (they stayed here before polish). In these times, hair, skin, langauge and all was really different, when Rome come everyone mixed (remember: Racism is only an excuse for people that doesn't recognize the truth that mutimixing is better for reforce genetically humans, and this knowledge is pretty old if we see that humans mixed dogs, cats, horses and whatever for "perfectionate" them).

By this reasoning, the Indonesians should definitely be included, along with most of the modern Latin states. Spain isn't just Germans; it's a mixture of all the groups above you mention, now with a national identity. I'd hardly argue that the El Salvadorans see themselves as Guatemalans, despite the fact that they are of a similar "mix" in terms of ethnicity, religion, and culture. They are distinct now, even though they derive from a mix.

If you think the Spanish are worth including due to their rich mixed heritage, then why not other "hybrid" cultures?

Indonesia has about 160 languages. Irian Jaia is more Papua New Guinea than Indonesia. Is just another mix-and-match state, like Centroafrican republic.

Furthermore, I point to Spain's numerous separatist movements as proof that non-monolithic cultures already have been included in Civ. If Spain's ok, why not the Congo? Nigeria? You name it.

At all. Romans are the mix of a pseudonordic-alipinian tribe (etruscans) plus northern african-greek tribes creating in the center the main area (lazio).

As I said in another thread, in 100~500 years probably we will see Civs in South America (this is, creating large empires and everything...).

I'm not sure about that. But their cultural contributions to the world already surpass those of the Celts and Mongols.

Celts? What about control all europe but south area by 300~400 years?

And what about the fact that the Celts were themselves divided and not united by any one king, leader, etc? If "rule" over an area is to be the basis of the game, then should the Celts even be included? They certainly did not constitute a "nation" in the modern sense... they didn't even build cities, just settlements and encampments.

In "Latinos" countries I only see the mix of the native cultures (the one that I defend and I think that must be restored) in front of typical local iberian culture that have been enlarged. For example, in the spanish state there are about 5000~7000 different dancings, each small town has their own dance with their celebrations and parties, food...

It seems like you are very fond of Spain, and perhaps from good reason. Spain's culture certainly is fascinating. Still, it is not superior, from an outsider's view, to many Latin American cultures, and it is quite distinct, including in cuisine and pronunciation of language. Perhaps you are Spanish, and hence your denigration of Latin America. But it is unwarranted and unfair.

I am a white American, and I do not assume my country's culture is superior to any other. But many have made this claim. Were I a Jew, could I rightfully claim that Israel possessed the greatest culture on Earth?

Inclusion within Civ should be on the basis that a group has influenced history notably. All the civs in the game have done this, and on this basis, Mexico, Cuba, Columbia, the Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., should be added.

If we can't add them all, that's certainly understandable. But to include long-dead cultures in the game and deny the contributions of living cultures to history being made is folly.

[XarXo]

Uh oh, another "put my country here" thread...

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have been "civs" throughout history.

When? Indonesia was a colony that when reached independence it became what is now. I only remember Brunei as an old and independent country in this area.

Indonesia is probably becoming a civ, but large territory doesn't create one (look Kazajstan, and this one is more civvish-smelling than Indonesia, almost for me).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth From a Southeast Asian or Latin American point of view, what's the big difference between England, France, Germany and Spain? It's all a bunch of basically white people with the same sort of language and a history deeply rooted in Christianity and racism.

I see some "hidden" ideas here, well...

Iberians is not at all the same as germanic or frank-burgundians. Iberians is a mix of people that come from Sahara (that one was drying) and mixed with basques-aquitanes and other tribes. They became a bunch of ancient and small states, then rome come and invaded them. "Spain" became a civ when it conquered large territories and expanded the castillian culture. Germany is a mix of people from the actual germany plus denmark plus western poland (they stayed here before polish). In these times, hair, skin, langauge and all was really different, when Rome come everyone mixed (remember: Racism is only an excuse for people that doesn't recognize the truth that mutimixing is better for reforce genetically humans, and this knowledge is pretty old if we see that humans mixed dogs, cats, horses and whatever for "perfectionate" them).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Though perhaps "Javanese" should be used instead of "Indonesian," SOMETHING should be used...

Indonesia has about 160 languages. Irian Jaia is more Papua New Guinea than Indonesia. Is just another mix-and-match state, like Centroafrican republic.

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Look at those Europeans. Sure, they conquered a bunch of stuff, but they're all basically derived from the same groups of people whom the ancient Romans (for some odd reason considered the most civilized people, along with the Greeks, ever, even though they lingered behind the East in almost every measure of both culture and conquest) called "barbarians". Goths, Angles, Saxons, etc. These people, along with some Vikings, went on to become Normans, Franks, etc., and eventually, British, French, and Spanish. Don't forget that "Germany" is younger than the United States of America.

At all. Romans are the mix of a pseudonordic-alipinian tribe (etruscans) plus northern african-greek tribes creating in the center the main area (lazio).

As I said in another thread, in 100~500 years probably we will see Civs in South America (this is, creating large empires and everything...).

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Why not add Brazil, Columbia, Venezeula, etc.? Their culture is quite unique. Their music, food, and dress is distinctive. So they haven't conquered yet. They could, if and when they "get their act together". A united Latin America could be one of the most powerful empires of man's history!

What did the Celts leave behind, besides a bunch of bronzeware?

Celts? What about control all europe but south area by 300~400 years?

In "Latinos" countries I only see the mix of the native cultures (the one that I defend and I think that must be restored) in front of typical local iberian culture that have been enlarged. For example, in the spanish state there are about 5000~7000 different dancings, each small town has their own dance with their celebrations and parties, food...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Both Indonesia and Malaysia have been "civs" throughout history. From a Southeast Asian or Latin American point of view, what's the big difference between England, France, Germany and Spain? It's all a bunch of basically white people with the same sort of language and a history deeply rooted in Christianity and racism.

Though perhaps "Javanese" should be used instead of "Indonesian," SOMETHING should be used...

Look at those Europeans. Sure, they conquered a bunch of stuff, but they're all basically derived from the same groups of people whom the ancient Romans (for some odd reason considered the most civilized people, along with the Greeks, ever, even though they lingered behind the East in almost every measure of both culture and conquest) called "barbarians". Goths, Angles, Saxons, etc. These people, along with some Vikings, went on to become Normans, Franks, etc., and eventually, British, French, and Spanish. Don't forget that "Germany" is younger than the United States of America.

Why not add Brazil, Columbia, Venezeula, etc.? Their culture is quite unique. Their music, food, and dress is distinctive. So they haven't conquered yet. They could, if and when they "get their act together". A united Latin America could be one of the most powerful empires of man's history!

What did the Celts leave behind, besides a bunch of bronzeware?

[XarXo]

Indonesia is very different from Malaysia too, and by far more habitated, big, old, culturally interesting, rich...

Why they aren't in the game? Because the aren't civs. They are states that contains some cultures and history, but doesn't had an important position in the Test of Time, and this is the requirement for become a civ: A large empire (Rome) or a large explosion of wars (Mongols).

If you say that they should be in the game for full Americas, better put Aymarás, Chibchas, Karib, Arawak, WaranÃ, Arawkan, Maya...

Only Brasil, almost for me, has some civvish smelling. Iroquois? Not a civ for me.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

No way. Spain is very different than Columbia, and Portugal is VERY different than Brazil.

[XarXo]

Including Spain and Portugal seems by far enough.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Wow, you make it sound so easy. You should join the State Department, or a think tank.

I think those are good, except I would ditch the incas and go with some modern Latin states (such as Brazil, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, or Argentina)

[XarXo]

An easy answer for an easy question: Incas, Polynese, Thai, Khmer, Ethiopia and Ghana.

Optional: Israel, Portugal, Netherlands, Magyar and Lithuania/Poland.

[Aias]

Poland, Israel, Australia, Canada

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I think maybe we should start a whole new thread just to talk about the potential of "unique terrain bonuses for individual civs".

Anyone agree?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Centauri18
Speaking of irrigation, we need farmland again, in mmy opinion.

hi ,



, it would be intresting to see a trait that gives some civ's more food on certain terrains then others , .....

if we bring farming back in we have to reset the current food value on the terrains or we end up with cities size 75 , ......

have a nice day