Which Civ2 Should Be Out Of Civ3?

[D4everman]

Hey Techwins, its really not worth the effort. Obviously, he's got an almost american grasp of "spin control".

[Fidel]

d4everman, ever the peacekeeper

[Trdi]

Originally posted by D4everman
Hey Techwins, its really not worth the effort. Obviously, he's got an almost american grasp of "spin control".

Well, it's not fair towards me, but ok, if you would get with this post what I wanted to do....

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by TechWins

I'm sorry to all those people who voted for the Americans because you are jealous people.

Dear TechWins,

I would like to give you three pieces of good advice:

• Do not organise a poll when you cannot live with the results!
• At least try to understand the huge difference between a 'Nation state' and a 'Civilisation'!
• Do not automatically assume people are jealous or want to hurt you, when they hold a different opinion about some issue!

Your behaviour seems to me rather immature; no offence meant.

When casting your vote please leave a post of why you voted for that particular civ to be out of Civ3.

And I would like to add that you did ask yourself to motivate our answer. I will not do so, since I presume it will only make you more angry. And by now I have already countless times explained why the Americans are NOT a civilisation, though they are the dominant economic AND political power of the twentieth and probably also the twenty-first century.

Would you consider Venice -which was for about 500 years the dominant economic power of Europe and a political Great Power too- to be a civilisation? And what about Austria-Hungary? Or Prussia? Or the Papacy? Or Athens?

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[Miznia]

My thoughts

To start with, I think Americans should (and will) remain, just because when you play the game it feels more like you're playing a nation. I'm not even sure what it would mean to play as a "civilization..." But the game would be incomplete without America.

I think I voted against Carthage. Did they really own all those cities that they get in Civ2?!

I'm also against:
Sioux. I do prefer the Iroquois, but I'm worried because they'll start close to the Americans, I think.
Celts, Persians, Vikings. In other words, I think the only good civs they added to Civ2 were the Japanese and possibly the Spanish.

Yeah, the Japanese: You gotta love 'em. (Of course, I'm a Japanese major.) Just imagine if Japan won WWII and held onto their whole empire. Wouldn't that have been a sight to see?

Zulus have to stay in because they're cool. I can appreciate that Mali or Songhay might be better, but we've all grown up on Zulus, right? The first hostile civ I ever encountered in Civ1 were the Zulus. ...Maybe we could make the "African" civ a linguistic name, like "Bantu," which includes the Zulus.

Aztecs have to stay in, too. How can you not like the city names?!

Rename "English" to "British." I know I'm not the first to suggest that, but... the English didn't kick ass until they were the British, am I right?

I want to have:
Turks! Or I'd settle for Arabs. But I want to be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Dutch, because they were in Colonization.
Portuguese, because they should've been, and because I want to play Brazil.
Where are my Incas?! Why Sioux, or Iroquois, instead of Incas? Is it because the Andes on the map are too close to the Pacific for there to be any room?

Miznia

[TechWins]

S. Kroeze,

What you quoted was a joke. Maybe I should have put a smiley or something next to it. Actually I probably shouldn't have even said it at all. On another topic, I can live with the results, I just don't like people bashing my nation. Plain and simple. Good day now.

[Footie Mad]

Re: My thoughts

Originally posted by Miznia

I want to have:
Turks! Or I'd settle for Arabs. But I want to be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.


Miznia

Actually the Turks were REAL close to being in Civ 1, they are even in the manual as a civ!

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Re: My thoughts

Originally posted by Wille


Actually the Turks were REAL close to being in Civ 1, they are even in the manual as a civ!

True, I still got the manual. And they were replaced with the Germans (apparently on the last minute). There was a separate prospectus (leaflet? - broshure?) of 2 pages where the German civ and Frederick were discussed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


[*]At least try to understand the huge difference between a 'Nation state' and a 'Civilisation'!

I in fact posted a thread entitled "states versus civilizations" in which i discussed the differences. It is clear that while the game is ABOUT the process of "civilization" the protagonists are STATES. "civilizations" do not have foreign or defense ministers, capitals, or armies, nor do they make alliances,have forms of government etc. these are all charecteristics of states.

Indeed haveing civs as protagonists would be difficult not jsut for the gameplay reasons implicit in the above, but because of the lack of clear boundaries among "civs". America is not a distinct civ? Its what, part of the english civ? What english civ? For a thousand years the language of science, philosophy and much other high culture in England was Latin. From the middle ages right on up to Sir Isaac Newton. While poetry and fiction went first to English, John Milton wrote poems in Latin, as well as English. The language of the "english" court from 1066 well into the 1300's was Norman French. Shakespeares sonnets were influenced by the Italian sonnets of Petrarch, many of his plays had plots taken from Italian literature. Indeed much of Elizabethan high culture was taken directly from the Italian renaisance. Enlightenment thought in 18thc England (and English speaking Scotland - and AMerica for that matter) was heavily influenced by the French enlightenment. these are jsut the highlights. Clearly there was no distinctive "english" civ.
And you are correct, there was no distinctive "american" civ - but not because America was Enlgish - in many cases America took influences directly from France or Germany, influences ignored or of lesser impact in England. America is not a distinct civ, because it is simply a part of "western civilization" - but the same is true for English, French and Germans.

However grouping into larger civs doesnt solve the problem, it only introduces new controversies - is russia part of "slavic civ" along with poland, czechs, etc - or part of "orthodox civ" with Byzantium, south slavs, but excluding "western" poland and czechs. Is japan part of Chinese civ (like Korea and Vietnam) or is it too distinctive? Is mexico spanish and thus western, or is it Aztec (as many mexican intellectuals in 1920's and 30's claimed)

I think it best that we simply leave it that civ protagonists are states, not civs, and that in the case of non-western civs they are selected to take states which were important representatives of their civ - so for example we get babylonians only, and they must stand in for Assyrians, akkadians, etc. But since civ2 is a "western" game, designed in that hub of western civilization, baltimore, maryland (im not kidding folks - terrific collection of late Monet's at the museum, Johns Hopkins Univ - founded as a German-style research university, etc) it allows for several western states - french, germany, english, spanish, and americans. Should venice, austria-hungary, etc be in - well YES, if there were room (which there would be if not for CSU's )
but they had to stop somewhere - and since spain dominates the west in the 16th and early 17th c (apologies to Dutch golden age) the French in lates 17th and much of 18th, the english in late 18th and throughout 19th, the Germans challenged for world power from 1900 through 1945, and since america has been "supreme power" since 1945, these are logical powers to include.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Would you consider Venice -which was for about 500 years the dominant economic power of Europe and a political Great Power too- to be a civilisation? And what about Austria-Hungary? Or Prussia? Or the Papacy? Or Athens?

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

Hmm. Austria was never supreme power on its own - even at its height, under wallerstein, it was still more or less a junior power to Hapsburg Spain. Prussia IS Civ3 Germany, as the discussion of CSU's and german "charecteristics makes clear - it is the bavarians, saxons, etc who have been left out . Similarly Athens (and the culturally Athenian hellenistic states) IS Greece - again it is Sparta, Corinth etc that are neglected. The papacy is unque - insignificant as a territorial state, but powerful politically based on its role in the catholic church - it doesnt really fit the civ mold of a great power, influential though it was.

Venice on the other hand - an excellent example of a powerful naval/trade based republic - perhaps THE model for the Republican form of government in Civ2. and while it was not politically dominant during its golden age (1000-1500) the other states that were are already in based on their later histories. ANd there are no post-Roman empire Italian states - so YES, YES, YES - Venice SHOULD be in - and the USA too, of course

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Re: My thoughts

Originally posted by Miznia

I think I voted against Carthage. Did they really own all those cities that they get in Civ2?!

Miznia

Go play Steve Hartel's "Ataxerxes" scenario. yes, they held the entire north african coast, from Libya to Morocco, Southern spanish coast, sardinia, balearics and malta, and part of sicily.
(scenarios are the last refuge for historically minded civers )

LOTM

[SSBLoveU]

I vote the Mongols, and I would change the name of the Barbarians to Mongols because of historical reasons . . .

A Pleistocene Age Outline by SSB LoveU (maybe I ought to edit this again)
All dates are B.C.
1000000-75000 First four Ice Ages
75000-40000 Post glacial age
40000 Palestine Paleolithic Culture
18000 Nile Paleolithic Culture
10000 Nile Neolithic Culture
9000 Turkestan Bronze Culture
5000 Nile Bronze Culture
4500 Susa and Kish Civilization
4241 Egyptian Calendar
4004 Adam and Eve
4000 Badarian Culture
3800 Crete Civilization
3600 Sumerian Civilization
3500-2631 The Old Egyptian Kingdom
3200-2200 Akshak, Urnina of Lagash, Urukagina,
2900-2200 Lugal-zaggisi, Sargon I of Akkad, Elamites
2200 The Chinese Civilization
2375-1800 The Egyptian Middle Kingdom and Joseph dies
2169-1703 I & II Babylonian Dynasty
1800-1600 The Hyksos Domination
1580-1100 The Egyptian Empire
1300 The Aztec Civilization
1200-1000 The Canaan Conflict
1100-947 XXI Dynasty: The Libyan Kings
1000 The Indian Civilization
1000-600 Golden Age of Phoenicia & Syria
947-720 XXII Dynasty: The Bubastite Kings
850-745 The Theban Kings
725-663 The Memphite Kings
745-663 The Ethiopian Kings
605 The Battle of Carchemish and Valley of Megiddo
606-538 Babylon
538-331 Medo-Persia
331-146 Greece and Carthage Destroyed
146-A.D. 476 Rome
(All Dates Now A.D.)
376 Huns ride across Danube
395-1000 Boundary Between Eastern and Western Empires of Rome
570 -1400 The Middle Ages
570 -632 Mohammed
1000-1522 Explorers, Vikings, Marco Polo, Mongols and Columbus; New World
1500-1900 British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, North & South Asia, World Governments
1900-2000 World War One and Two, United Nations

[TCO]

Re: My thoughts

Originally posted by Miznia


Aztecs have to stay in, too. How can you not like the city names?!

They are unmemorable and unpronouncable.

[Miznia]

Hmm...

Actually, GP, maybe you're right. Last night, because of this thread, I started a Civ2 game as the Aztecs. I don't mind "Tenochtitlan," but it can get pretty bad after that.


Actually, I knew that the Turks were almost in Civ1... But presumably they would have been dark blue like the French, which would've been intolerable to me. Anyway, I hope they adjust the dark blue a bit... I have a hard time reading French/German/Viking city names.

...So, with 16 Civs are they going to have eight colors but seven players? I'm thinking that they'll keep all the 14 civs from Civ1 because they aren't any really bad ones in the bunch (russ rom babyl zul chin amer eng grk ind mong fre ger azt egyp), and they'll add Iroquois (because we've seen them in, right?), and just one more.

That's pretty plausible, don't you think? I hope that the 16th civ is Japan. You can't in good conscience only have one East Asian civ.

[Sabre2th]

Actually, the Japanese are more or less confirmed (leader anim.). I don't know about the Iroquois.