civ3 to include a full set of nationalities

[Caesar the Great]

I think there should be one for indonesia, possibly Colombia, and a few from Africa.

Just to be fair Luxemborg

------------------
Its normal to be weird here and weird to be normal~ Brain

___
CtG

[NoviceCEO]

Are you kidding Caesar? Colombia??

[JamesJKirk]

I understand that the Holy Roman Empire was essentially Germany, and I'll even say that it was, since the nation-state hadn't come into thought or being as of yet. But, to use the old cliche, it wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire. It was a weak confederation that after a while just became a place the Hapsburgs tried to exert more influence over. So that's why I said 1871 as the Germany date.
But, I do totally agree that not all civs should start at the same time. By the time European colonialism had reach these areas, parts of the Americas and the Pacific hadn't reached the minimum technological level that one of our "civs" start off with nearly 6000 years prior. so there definitely should be more of a randomness to that.

[Atahualpa]

JamesKirk: Then again, you will need a lot more civs!
About Germany: Germany had history before 1871 though. They were united once, I believen Heinrich II or something like that. Fact is, that Germans exist a lot longer than other so-called civs.

Ata

[stodlum]

S. Kroeze, what's wrong with playing Nicaraguans and Jamaicans?

There's probably a parallel universe where they rule the world, and this game is all about rewriting history.

[JamesJKirk]

Colombia was the country freed from Spanish rule by Simon Bolivar. It included present-day Colombia, Panama, Venezuela and Ecuador. they broke up into their respective countries fairly quickly, except Panama, which didn't become "independent" until the US wanted to build a canal there, and the Colombians wouldn't let them. Anyway, I have the Gran Colombians as a civ in CTP, and I don't mind them being there, if you play on a world map, there needs to be weight away from Europe anyway

[Cadorna]

How about a somewhat different aproach: In the beginning each player simply chooses a "race", lets say Asians, Indians, Red Indians, South- Central- North-Europeans, Aborigine, Pygmae (sorry for the spelling), Indios, Africans, Arabians, etc.
Each could have slightly different advantages/disadvantages. For example arabians/africans could be adapted to the desert, pygmae could build irrogations in the jungle, north-europeans could have something similar for tundra... Then the civilization itself would get its own 'face' while playing, for the player makes certain choices... It should also be possible that every player is european, all the others would be minor civs that have been suggested by numerous people elsewhere. The minors, in my example even european minors should still exist, would "provide" cities to conquer, or allies that finally could be "integrated" into the players civ. Thereby the game would be much more interesting, IMHO that is.

[NoviceCEO]

JamesJKirk, I know what you're talking about, believe me, I'm a South American.

But Colombia never reached anything. It was a Spanish colony, that never reached a big status. It had a great leader - Simon Bolivar - which dreamed about a united and free Spanish America, but died without seeing his dream come true. After that, it never reached any status to be acclaimed as a great civ.

By the way, the Colombian era you refer to happened after American Independence and Colombia's history is kinda brief.

If you were talking about Incas, and their home was Perú, if I'm not wrong, then I would totally agree with you. As they were one of the few original inhabitants of the Americas, along with the Aztecs and the Mayas. One last thing about Incas, have you heard of Machu Pichu?

About the topic, I think the game should be a little bit accurate with your opponents, but that doesn't mean your own civ should be accurate. Why not the world's largest 18th century superpower living in the Saara?

[S. Kroeze]

Dear JamesJKirk,

From 962AD until about 1250 the German Empire was a formidable one, no doubt about it- taking stock of the fact that all power was very limited in those days, absolutely nothing in comparison with the modern nation-state. The emperor was considered the highest authority in western christianity, having great power in Germany, Italy, Burgundy and considerable influence in surrounding countries like France, Bohemia and Poland.
The dynasty of the Ottones saved this part of Europe from the onslaught of the Hungarians. The empire expanded rapidly eastwards during this period, subjecting many Slav people. Temporarily they even controlled the church, selecting the pope and acting in all respects like the equal of that other emperor, ruling the eastern part of the Roman world from Constantinople.

Their very success brought about a reversal, because it created many enemies, who all allied against them: the papacy, the German aristocracy, in Italy the city states. The decline set in with the Investiture Controversy, the central issue being the appointment of bishops. Because the kings/emperors ruled through those bishops, control of the investiture was the very cornerstone of their power. The Papacy, beginning with Gregory VII (the other power claiming universal authority), and empire were at one another's throats for centuries and went down together. The French Capetians were the one who's sitting pretty: in the end the pope ended as their hostage in Avignon.

Because papacy and empire with their universal claims balanced one another, the future belonged in Europe to the national monarchies; an essential point in the development of Western christianity, a "true" civilization, becoming in this way a dominant feature as is aptly proved by this page. Greater personal freedom is an other result of this unresolved battle between church and state.

But until 1250, when Frederick II of Hohenstaufen died the outcome of the battle wasn't clear. For the emperors it was unfortunate that the emergence of the German cities, their natural allies against the aristocracy, was relatively late and less spectacular than in Italy.

A remark about the use of flags. Though the flag of my country is less ugly than most, I cant become wild because of it. And it is very anachonistic! Only with the French revolution and Romanticism became people emotional about flags.
In my country only hooligans and fascists will run after it.

If something like it has to be used I would prefer a coat of arms or a symbol, like the 'fleur de lis' for France, a dragon for China and so on.
And what will happen when a country turns communist? Will they adopt the flag of the former Sowjet Union? What would happen if a nation/civilization, like the Americans or Austrians -it could happen after all in a Civgame- became fascist? Would they unfurl the swastika?

[AustralianJeremy]

I think the point about playing as Australia is being able to start on the Australian mainland. At present, in Civ2, I can pick a custom tribe and call them the Australians, but I can't start anywhere near Australia on the world map. (I note the Austrians arguing that if *we're* included, then they should be: well, at least the Germans are a nearby civ: you can just rename them if you really want to). It seems silly that there's such a huge expanse of map (a whole continent) wasted.

If being a stone-age civilization were important (which seems odd since America's included), then how about including the Australian Aborigines instead? They lasted just as long as the Zulus... until European colonization.

It may not be practical to include every historical civilization and every current country recognised in the UN, but at least have a reasonable spread across the globe. For land mass reasons alone I think Australia should be included.

[Patriqvium]

But that was just what we've been demanding. More "ancient" Civs. Thank you for joining our call, A.J.

[Youngsun]

I believe that the game should only include ancient civilisations(or tribes)strictly to begin with. Americans should leave America to the Indian tribes and their civilisations for the beginnig of the game just like Australia is for the Aborigines.

Then, how to satisfy for the mopdern nations players?

Well, How about adding the option to choose which civ you will belong or play when the civ get splited to two or more?

So when we play the British Empire and have overseas colonies like America or Australia, and the colonies want independence due to whatever the reasons, then we can choose which side we are in. Assuming that we chose America to control,not only we lose our control over the Mother country but also have to raise a war against her for independece. After some decisive victory,we might negotiate with our mother country for the recognition as an independent state.
If we chose the mother country to keep playing, our job will be putting down the rebellion.

[Atahualpa]

YoungSun: You really have to lengthen the game then, cause I dont think 400 or 500 turns will be enough to deal with your opponents and/or rebellions.
But, that should be no problem, I too think the game should be lengthen, 800-1000 turns would be much nicer. Even more, because when they will expand the tech-tree you will need a hell lot more time to actually play all the techs out! Unlike CtP were you get pushed from one tech to another and when you have those "pikemen" 5 turns later you already have musketeers. But in 5 turns you could just build one or maybe 2 pikemen, but you had no time to saw them in action.

What I am asking myself is: How can engineers develop newer and better weapons, when they havent seen the older ones in action?

Ata

[NoviceCEO]

Youngsun, the best example for that is the Roman Empire. I miss the name of the Emperor who did it, but when Roma was falling apart 'cause of the barbarians, the Roman Empire was divided into two: the easter one, and the western one. And the Emperor actually decided to live in the new side (the Eastern), that's how the Byzantium Empire was initiated.

Ata, you actually can develop new units, but you miss the feedback from the units in action. Think it as patching a game that hasn't been released yet.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-01-2000 01:17 AM Well, How about adding the option to choose which civ you will belong or play when the civ get splited to two or more? So when we play the British Empire and have overseas colonies like America or Australia, and the colonies want independence due to whatever the reasons, then we can choose which side we are in.

i may be misinterpreting you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting events that are almost pre-ordained to occur. (and if not, what's the likelihood of a split occuring if an aussie like myself wants to play their own civ? are we supposed to sit and hope?)

some people seem to have raised similar ideas based on historical accuracy, but i'd be much happier to leave the player free to shape their world, rather than being tied down to a storyline of how _our_ world turned out.

if you want to give birth to nations in such a way, then the player should be free to name the civ themselves, rather than things being pre-set. Well, that's what i think anyway