16 civs, yet only 5 cultures???

[Bereta_Eder]

Mr Fun,

Clash of Civilizations is full of unfounded assumptions and it has too many loose ends and contradictions and absolutes to be a point of reference.

The guy who wrote it was the one who masterminded the containment policy of USA towards the Soviets. His theory proved succesful but when the cold war was over he became of no relevance to the State Department of USA.

He came back and wrote this book hoping to get back. But he based his theory on the international scene that existed in the first half of the century... and is therefore full of flaws because the international system has changed so much.

He nevertheless persists on his theory which is not good for him because he became a folkore figure in the State Department. (no I'm not a spy in USA I just like to be informed of things like that )

Both USA and EU policy makers do not have use of his theory but most of them respect his legacy of the containment policy in the cold war.

[Footie Mad]

A thought just crosed my mind.....what I really would want to see in civ 3 and that bothered me in civ 2 was the fact that I didnt feel as if I was at war with someone. A peace treaty could be signed after a single turn and my relations with the civ would be as good as with any other. I want my wars to be great historic events and they should leave scars for generations, not be forgotten in a couple of years.

[MrFun]

But the author IS correct!

To me, it looks like the world is becoming more divided along civilizational lines rather than beween ideological lines. He cites numerous examples of international events that have already happened that shows this civilizational effect.

[Bereta_Eder]

Such as?

[Captain]

Does anyone know if these distinct cultures are for graphical purposes only or are they part of the 'culture' rating concept? Or are they a completely separate idea?

I hope this does not mean that one civ shares the same culture as another players because of only having 5 to share among 16. If two players share the same 'culture', does this make assimilation easier?

[MrFun]

Paiktis, if I find the time, I will create a thread on culture and civilization in the off-topic section.

laters

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by MrFun
But the author IS correct!

To me, it looks like the world is becoming more divided along civilizational lines rather than beween ideological lines. He cites numerous examples of international events that have already happened that shows this civilizational effect.

Yeah, but then he can't explain why the US would intervene in Bosnia, and if it were written more recently, he'd be dumbfounded over Kosovo too. But the basic premise of the different civilizations is pretty good. you were quoting the # in the modern day though, Orthodox, Western, and Latin American are all offshoots of Classical, and I don't see why you have both Sinic and Buddhist listed?
I brought the idea of similar culture for nearby civs up back in the pre-list days, I can't recall if it or anything like it made it in, but I'm excited nonetheless.

I wouldn't be so inclined to say that England is as different from Germany as it is from India, I mean they're in the EU, they speak similar languages, mostly similar values, plus England's descended from Germanics. An Englishperson would be much more at home in Germany than India, I would imagine.

[Nemo]

ahhh!! I see the light

Thanks all, I now see how it is possible. Sort of how in the world there are hundreds of countries but only a handful of truly distinct cultures. There is (for a rough example) European, Asian, North American, South American, Australian, Middle Eastern, Mediteranian, and Affrican cultures ... but within each there are several countries. And I can see through history, how a similar culture does not mean that taking over one's neighbor of a like culture will result in the willingness to subside to the conqueror. This is very great that they are implimenting in this way, now that i understand how it might be related to the real world. This game is going to be deeply realistic...I can't wait!

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by Captain
Does anyone know if these distinct cultures are for graphical purposes only or are they part of the 'culture' rating concept? Or are they a completely separate idea?

I hope this does not mean that one civ shares the same culture as another players because of only having 5 to share among 16. If two players share the same 'culture', does this make assimilation easier?

I believe that they are mostly for graphical purposes, to differentiate the looks of the cities. However, if they are used for other, gameplay purposes as well, the idea slightly bothers me - how do you divide the 16 nations in Civ III into 5 distinct cultural spheres?

One division would be Western/African/Middle Eastern/Asian/Native American, but this would mean that most of the civilizations would belong to Western culture and the other ones would be used only by one or two civs each, and all the other cultures would be too generic. Another one would be to further divide the Western civilizations into several cultures (Classical/West European etc.), but in this case, if there are only five cultures in all, you might very well end up combining various peoples from vastly different parts of the world such as America and Africa into one, generic 'Native' culture, which definitely makes no sense at all. The problem is that half of the nations included in Civ (at least the French, Germans, English, Spanish, Americans, Russians, Romans and Greeks) belong to a single, Western culture, and only a handful of non-western civilizations is included. Anyone have a suggestion as to a good division into five cultures?

[Bereta_Eder]

Ok, I'll give it a try.

1. European - American
2. Asian
3. American Indian
4. African
5. Classical Age?? (roman, greek?)

or?

1. Stone age!
2. Classic
3. Medieval
4. Industrial
5. Modern
??!!

[Al'Kimiya]

I think there are four types of cultures with four civs in each, and a fifth culture for barbarian/minor civ.

"western style" - american, english, french, german
"classic style" - romans, greeks, egyptians, babylonians
"oriental style" - indians, chinese, russians?, mongols
"native style" - zulu, aztec, iroquois, ?

[MrFun]

Actually, native would apply to any continent or island, with any people. For instance, the original inhabitants of the British Isles would also be natives.

The original inhabitants of Volga region in Russia would be natives too. And so on, and so on . . . . .

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by MrFun
Actually, native would apply to any continent or island, with any people. For instance, the original inhabitants of the British Isles would also be natives.

The original inhabitants of Volga region in Russia would be natives too. And so on, and so on . . . . .

Yeah, I didn't really come up with a good name... "misc style" sounded a little awkward

[Quartz Dragon]

Originally posted by MrFun
There are really nine main civilizations in the world today:

1) Western
2) Latin American
3) African
4) Islamic
5) Sinic
6) Hindu
7) Orthodox
8) Buddhist
9) Japanese

This is the author's simplified paradigm. One can make it too complicated by pointing out that there could be more, but in my opinion, these nine civilizations make the most sense.

I don't know what the author was thinking, but this is a list of both general cultures, very focused cultures, and cultures so broad they shouldn't even be here. Orthodox what; judaism, christianity, islamic: every major religion has its orthodox believers, and they all seem to hate the other religions (witness Bosnia, Kosovo , Nazi Germany [kind of], Iraq/Iran)

[Iskandar Reza]

these cultures are more than just city representation, right (architectural style)? what about unit types? are culture A's archers the same as culture B's archers?