civ3 to include a full set of nationalities

[AustralianJeremy]

Australia was left out of civ2, and ctp made a hash of it (misspelling leader's names, and making some really odd choices). Be nice to see us in Civ3.

For leaders: it's a tough one, but i guess Gough Whitlam or robert menzies, and ... i'll try to think of who the female one could be. Natasha?

[MidKnight Lament]

A female choice for Australia's a pretty tough one to make because we haven't really got any stand outs. Natasha would be good for a laugh because she's a popular lady at the moment, but despite what she may end up doing in the future, I think she'd be a bit of a lesser name beside some that come from other civs.

I'm not saying it couldn't be her, because to be honest I haven't got a better suggestion, and Carmen Lawrence always sounded a bit wrong in CTP. It'd be amusing if Natasha got it, but I could understand some people might not feel the same way

[djdhy]

To add to that, can you please add korea? We've got 5000 years of history you know. Longer than the japanese and they were included.....(No disrespect to the japanese)

[Patriqvium]

Sorry all Australians, but...

I hated CTP for many reasons, and on of them was the dummied-out civilizations. They included "civs" that were "created" in the 18th century, with the cost of the historical ones. For me, a unified (for example) Polynesian civilization would fit much better.

djdhy, you're right about Korea. Hopefully, the Korean civilization will be included.

[Pythagoras]

I hear you Pat. Aztecs are a lot more fun to play than "Mexicans." And if you really start out as a "tribe" then we should see Civs like in Age of Kings. For example Goths, Celts, Scots, Picts, Romans (was there really a Roman tribe?), Chinese, Huns, Slavs, Russians, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Sioux, Iroqoius, Anglos, Saxons, Welsh, Vikings, Zulus, Watoozies, Pigmies.. just to name a few.

[stodlum]

I agree AustraliaJeremy, I loved the way I could play as my own country in CTP. The idea of amalgamating Scotland, Ireland and Wales as the Celts is not historically sound.


Who is to say that if things had been different Canada would be a superpower?

[Seeker]

Yayy!! Someone else wants Polynesians!

Ethiopians are good too. Khmers.

Canada: in 1900, PM Laurier predicted that Canada would have a population of 400 million "if the current immigration rate continues".......

[Jimmy Liu]

What about the Americans? They were in all three games and they've only been around for about 200 years. I don't see what's wrong with including Ausrtalia.

[Patriqvium]

This makes even more people angry, but...

I disliked the including of the Americans in the previous Civs. They were added just because of popularity questions, as many people want to play their "own Civ".

I personally think the Firaxis could make a "name evolution" system- the Teutons "evolve" into Germans, the Anglo-Saxons into the British etc. Some civilizations, like the Chinese, would not evolve at all.

[CivAddict #1]

I've seen one of this discussions before and I read a real good solution. The creates could include an option to create your own civilizations. You'll be able to give them a list of 40/50 city names, a tribe color, leader names, tribe name, and maybe the choice of different faces. I believe the last one is possible in multiplayer.
And as for the Australians, I don't think they've got a right to be in the game as long as the Dutch are not in.
The Dutch were the strongest economic power during the 17th century and they exist for a much longer time than the Australians. Wasn't Australia discovered bij Dutchman Abel Tasman.
Even know, despite having only 35000 squared kilometers of land, they are a very strong economic power. I think very underestimated in the rest of the world.
The Dutch were in in CtP, and it was quite realistic. The leaders names were obvious but I must some big cities and had to look op several towns in the atlas to know where to find them.
That's all for now...
Wilhelmus van Nassouwe!!!!!

[NoviceCEO]

Isn't Canada an enconomical superpower?? I think you're forgeting that Canada is one of the top 10 economies (I don't know the exact position) and it has only 30million inhabitants. It (canada´s economy) is about the same time as Brazil's, but Brazil has over 150million inhabitants!

About the thing build your own civ and give city names and stuff, it is perfectly possible doing that in SMAC.

[The Joker]

I like S. Kroeze's idea to include only "original" civs at first. These could be like the Babylonians, the Chinese and the Incas. Then, with the numerous internal conflicts that should be included in Civ3 (check the "Civil wars in Civ3" or my "How to portray the rise and fall of great powers in Civ3" threads for details on how this could be done) breakoffs of the different civs should have realistic names, so if some Teuton cities got independance they could be called the English or the Vikings, an English splitoff could be called the Americans or the Australians, a Viking splitoff could be called the Danes of the Swedish. Numerous of these could be included for each civ, adding a fun element when experiencing these civil wars. I do agree, though, that each civ should be changeable to the player, and it should also be possible to add as many civs as wanted, making it possible to play eccactly the civ you want against exactly the civs you want.

[NoviceCEO]

btw, the Roman Empire was 'born' when the tribes that lived in Roma conquered the other tribes that inhabitated the place that is now known as Italy. It continued conquering more lands with the important defeat of the people from what's the France now (we call that empire as Gália, in portuguese) and continued aquiring land in Europe. It defeated Carthagia and dominated the commerce in the Mediterran. It also dominated a part of Asia and Africa (dominating the Cleopatras' Egypt), including the former colony that is now know as Istambul. The Roman Empire lasted for many years, but several crisis came to it. In its final period, it lacked of good emperors and it had too little slaves, because it couldn't conquer enough regions in the pace it did before. The Western part of the Roman Empire was invaded by Barbarians and it was created the Eastern Roman Empire, which capitol was Istambul (renamed Constantinopla, as it was known by Byzancium those days). The Eastern Roman Empire (also know as the the Byzantiums) lasted for many years, until it was taken (in 1453 if I'm not wrong) by the Turks.


novice

[stodlum]

Of course you should have the optiion to make your own civs, but what about leader pics, start positions, and do you really want to have to give the game 40 cities? I don't see the problem with having real nationalities. If you don't like 'em blow 'em up. Or turn them off.

By the way, some of the civs you mentioned never actually existed as civs on there own, in fact there aren't very many examples of a large ethnic group being one civ. There was never a Celtic Empire, nor a Teuton empire. But Indonesia and Scotland have been separate entities, and thus have empire potential
[This message has been edited by stodlum (edited January 26, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Patriqvium on 01-26-2000 08:11 AM This makes even more people angry, but... I disliked the including of the Americans in the previous Civs. They were added just because of popularity questions, as many people want to play their "own Civ".

Damn straight. I know that Australia has never been a civ in this sense of the word. Sure, the U.S. is a super-power now, but let's face it... they're in there so people can play as their own civ. I agree whole-heartedly.

Fact is, I'm Australian, and I won't be really fussed if we're not included. But it is funny to see everyone get fired up.
Perhaps a wide range of civs should be included with a check box for a particular game to include only historically accurate civs. And I'm talking about the ancient ones here, not the Americans.

Nothing personal of course