civ3 to include a full set of nationalities

[bogi]

Add the Polish to Civ3. In Civ 2 they had the Solidarnosc Pic for a Riot but they didnt Include Poland. It is about time they included them

[Alinestra Covelia]

quote: Originally posted by Patriqvium on 01-26-2000 08:11 AM 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.

Just to follow this up, alongside the Korean argument... it would be nice to have actual provinces or cities that are lost or otherwise in revolt for too long, to rebel entirely and form a separate identity of their own. This illustrates nicely how Korea (a longtime northeastern province of a Chinese state) could break free and achieve quite independent status later on.

Biggest problem I can see is that of distinguishment in terms of gameplay. Guess Civ3 needs some method other than "different color, different civ" method.

Also, I agree that CtPower's motley crew of civs was a bit "throw a bone to the contemporary nations". I was immensely irritated to find that American tribe's capital city was placed not where it should be (ie on a coastal relatively modest area) but in the middle of the lush grasslands and rivers of mid-USA, giving a huge early science boost.

Hopefully, the leaders' personalities will not remain static either. eg Mao ZeDong in Civ2: whilst historically accurate, means that the Chinese tribe tends to be quite small and refined, because Mao is a "Perfectionist" leader. In actuality, he was only seen to be like that because by the time he ascended to power, his country was a big sprawling empire-state already, so any expansion was unnecessary.



------------------
"In all creation, there can be no task more onerous or tedious than that of playing God." - Stephen Fry, 'The Liar'.

[Youngsun]

Hello! Alinestra.

I really have to disagree with you about Korea.

Before the Lolang commandery which was controlled by Han dynasty,Korea had their own nation named Choson(Bc2333~108)

Choson was overwelmed by Han army BC108 then Han Chinese settled two provinces for her former territory(One is Lolang and the other I don't remember now).

Chinese source says even the founding of Choson was done by the exiled officer named Chitza and his retainers who were loyal to Shang dynasty and disloyal to Zhou.

Korean source says it was the merging of two dominant tribes in southern Manchuria which also go along with their national myth.

Whichever source you believe is up to you but there is critical difference between these two people(Han Chinese & Korean). Han Chinese's language is monosyllabic which can be effectively written by Chinese character whereas the Korean language is polysyllabic which can be traced to Ural-Altaic and further to even Turkic.

There are only three major race who speak polysyllabic language in East Asia.(Mongol,Korean and Japanese)So when you know how to speak in Japanses it is easier to learn Korean than learning Chinese then vice versa.(Not the writng! I'm talking about the language)

These polysyllabic languages can not be effectively written in Chinese character so Korean and Japanese developed their own supplementary writing system.(I-du for Korean and Kana for Japanses)Later, I-du was replaced by superior Han-guel(Korean character). Kana is still used by Japan Today.

I know some say both Koreans and Japanese are from China. But this critical lingual difference suggest they(Mongol,Korean and Japanese)came thourough the steppe not the China mainland. Of course there was some immigrant group from China but they were so small in size thus effectively localised rather than converting the locals in their way.

These lingual difference shouldn't be confused with Chinese influence over these three nations(Mongolia,Korea and Japan)especially by adopting Chinese character for their writing system.

If we accept Chitza theory(still debated among historians),then why Koreans do not speak monosyllbic Chinese language like Tartar or Manchu? and have polysyllabic langauge which can traced to even Turkey?


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 21, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

It is true that Modern nations and ancient civs can't exist in the game without conflicting with history. So maybe there should be different styles of game play?

Ancient Civs -

Mayas, Aboriginies, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Incas, Sioux, Vikings, Navajo, Persians, Indos, Zulu, Carthaginians, Aztecs, and some form of Central African tribe.

Modern Civs -

British (English), Americans, Russians, Italians, French, Spanish, German, Australian, Brazilians, Canadians, Chinese, Japanese, North Africans (give them a name), South Africans (give them a name), Scandanavian, and Indians

Religious Civs (just an idea)-

Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist (sp), Jewish, Eastern Polytheism (Africa), Western Polytheism (North and South American Indians), and any others (I hope I didn't offend anyone by leaving out their religion)

Territorial Civs? -

N.America, S. America Europe, Great Britain, Middle East, East Asian, Indonesian, Australian, North Asian, (Russia), Central Asian, South Asian, Central and South Africa (North Africa is more Middle Eastern so I didn't include it)

Open for suggestions! (By the way, this should be used in conjunction with a new LARGER map)

[S. Kroeze]

I think this remark of OrangeSfwr is an intelligent one, so perhaps one should read it and consider its consequences! Thats my reason for bringing this buried thread to everyone's attention again.

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 01-26-2000 05:53 PM The essential point in this eternal discussion is that half of the posters don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state/empire. Is this really so difficult to grasp?!? Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!! As a rule its religion and cultural identity that ultimately defines a civilization. The game CivII acknowledges this difference; its makes clear that a Republic should be understood as a federation of city states all belonging to the same culture. One cause of the existing confusion is that the makers of CivII haven't been consistent (for example including both French and Spanish, both being Roman Catholic and Latin nations), while at the same time totally neglecting the isssue of domestic policies, which in my opinion is a true shame! I hope CivIII will at least correct that. Its true that not all "original" civilizations existed in 4000BC, but some of them did: the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus and Chinese. Then some more creative posters came with the idea of introducing the rise AND fall of civilizations: today the only civilization clearly still there, is the Chinese, which is an achievement in itself. Hurrah for the Chinese!! And why should all civilizations start at the same date? I think the game could be made much more interesting for the advanced player if he could choose a late-starting civilization. A player could earn points for every year his civilization existed. Nor should military defeat necessarily spell the end of a civilization! Normally a civilization will absorb the conqueror through assimilition. To those intelligent readers really interested in the concept of a civilization I would like to recommend W.H.McNeill: "The rise of the West(1963)" If a small nation without any historical importance like the Nicaraguans or the Texans would be included, the Indian civilization alone could be divided in about hundred different nations who were politically important during the last 3000 years; Aryans, Dravidians, Magadhans, Guptas, Shakas, Kushanas, Tamils, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas, Rajputs, just to name some. Nice idea!

And perhaps it might be recommendable to read some of the old threads before posting a new one! There are quite some threads with suggestions about which civilizations should be included in CivIII. The wheel doesn't need to become reinvented again.

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited April 18, 2000).]

[Sir Shiva]

I suggest you guys read danielc's (originally, at least) post on civilisations.. It has points such as:-

• Leaders change with time/government
  New civs easily created
  Civs available for download from firaxis

And Patriqvium, congratulations.. Your idea for evolving civ names is excellent..
Civ names could change just as leaders/governments do...

For example, the chinese could become Song, Ming, Qing etc..
The germans could start out as goths and pregress thru Teutons, Prussians into germans..
Etruscs into Romans into Byzantines into Venetians or Pisans or whatever (randomised) and finally into Italians...

Sometimes, a civ name could revert to an older one. For example, Russia could become the Soviet Union if communists come to power, and become Russia again if democrats seize power..

And for civs coming with the game, these guys should be in it for sure:-

Phoenicians (evolve into Carthaginians)
Polynesians
Hittites
Hebrews (evolve into Israelis?)
Siamese/Burmans/Vietnamese/Indonesians?
Goths (evolve into germans)

Can't think of anymore right now..

Another idea:- Certain 'colonies' could become independent civs..
For example, a British colony could become the Americans or Australians or Canadians (to keep you Aussies and Canadians happy), a Viking colony into Iceland, an Indian colony into Cambodia/Siam/Burma, a Phoenecian colony into Carthaginians etc. etc. etc.

The possibilities are endless.. Firaxis is gonna have a tough time..


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Patriqvium]

Thank you, Sir. I'd like to see a civilization editor (something like the faction editor of Alien Crossfire) included, as I loved playing the Atlantians (the capitol was named, of course, Atlantis) in CivII.

[WarVoid]

djdhy:
What name do you want for Korea???
In 100 B.C. it was Ch'ao Hsien
In 750 A.D. it was Silla
In 1294 A.D. it was Koryo
Only around 1775 A.D. did it become Korea...
Damn i'm good.

To AustralianJeremey:
We DO NOT have big heads.
And were not racist - we hate everybody.

I think a civ editor is an excellent idea.
Were also gonna need a library of good graphics to go along with it. It gets kinda boring using the same leader pics for all the custom civs.