List of Civilizations

[wernazuma]

Just a word on the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation". The "German Nation" was not added to it before the 15th cent. (I don't remember when exactly).
Anyway, that doesn't make a change, it WAS a german nation, however it was called.

[Adm.Naismith]

I agree with the Joker, S.Kroeze and DarkCloud (my apologize if I forgot someone else):
main civ in game MUST be real Civilization.

If they can properly rise and fall they'll generate many different countries, some very succesfull (in power terms) as U.S.A.

Minor civ (if for gameplay reason some Civ will be limited from start to that role) can include a lot of "short lasted" country.

Anyone that wants its personal country in, should ask for some specific scenarios: this will better reproduce the role of that country without shadowing it with major powers presence.

Every country fights for its place in the world, and has been in a key point sometimes.

I don't want to miscredit it, still many probably didn't played such important role in history for a long time.

Sure, we must have some freedom into rewriting history in a Civ III game, still we should start from a realistic situation IMHO.

"Switzerland should rule the world, if only that alien spacecraft didn't vaporize itself over Tunguska, but landed safely in font of a Swiss Bank..." can be funny, but I hope not the core of the game.

BTW, what about discarding Sid Meiers part of the game name and call it
"Raise and fall of Civilizations"?

Oh, I see the bad marketing effect if the game turned in a flop Never mind!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Pondo]

I agree with The Joker, etc. But I think taht what we discuss here is really the Civil War Thread Thingy. Start with a few Civs and if the get too large and far spread they will break up and form new Civs.
Historical I feel that there should not be more than 8 Civs, but will that be fun? I definetly will get mad, should my world-wide empire break up in smaller Civs, all asking to be reconquered. In addition I like the idea of playing a small country like denmark and make them ruler of the world.But that again is a matter of taste.So what I´m trying to say is that even though by rights there should only be a few Civs, I wouldn´t mind a lot of ´em plus the option too choose which one you want to compete with. So everybody can just play the way he/she likes and there will be much rejoicing

Pondo

[Dida]

quote: . For Asia, add the Tibetans. Vitmore

Tibetans was only a kind of Chinese,
they have always been under the rule
of the chinese kings, so tibetans are
not eligeble to be added as a major civ,
maybe it could be a minor civ, waiting
to be conquered by the great chinese empire.

[Luk]

As I see the history is not a good subject for every American.

The Nation is not equal the state...

We can not easly set the date when the nation was founded. We can set the date when the Nation started to forming, and when the united culture, tradition, and language of some people started to unite them. The German Nation started to expand their culture and set the new united tradition before 1000 year. It doesnt matter that they didnt have the centralized Country for a long time, the light structure of Germany lasted till 1800s... The German culture, language, tradition have over 1000 years, like almost all European Nation, and European Nations are the real Nations, rest we can name people, not nations...
Canada.. Buhahahaha, I dont think that they are Nation, they form united citizenship, but not Nation.

[wernazuma]

Another word to the Germany thing: Maybe it wasn't a unified nation for a long time but still it had its specific culture, Canada seems not to have such a distinct culture (That shall not be a valuation of better and worse of course!)

The Tibetans: I think it should be a minor civbut it's not true that they are "almost chinese" or were ruled by them all the time.
In earkier centuries they made themselves raids on China.
They were conquered first by the mongols in 1239, then by the chinese in 1731.

[wernazuma]

How did that happen?
[This message has been edited by wernazuma (edited August 23, 2000).]

[wernazuma]

oops, really sorry 'bout triple-post
[This message has been edited by wernazuma (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Vitmore The Great]

Luk,if your defination of nation is the culture that unites people, then obviously you're right. I reword my statement: the nation-STATE of Canada is older than the nation-state of Germany. By the way:

a) Canada is a nation by your definition,

b) I'm not American, and

c) my knowledge of history is just fine.

Vitmore 8-)

[IamRookie]

canada.. 2nd largest country in the world in land mass.. but with population the size of california

[Vitmore The Great]

Just to clarify something, the nation of Canada is OLDER than the present nation of Germany. Canada became a naton in 1867, after the BNA (British North America Act). Germany, was founded as a centralized nation in the Palace of Versailles after the the Prussian victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. Before this, Germanywas nothing more than a loose conglomerate of mini states that were the playings of the great powers of France, Britain, Prussia and Austria (the two German superpowers), Sweden, and Poland. Take note of the Thirty Years War, which exclamates my point, as well as every other pre-1871 continental war. True, the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne, which was refounded as the Holy Roman Empire of Otto in 962, did function as a single state, but the Frankish tradition of dividing ones lands between the sons fractured political cohesiveness. Prussia was the first power since Charlemagne and Otto to form a true centalized German state (The Second Reich).

So, the nation of Canada is therfore older than the present nation of Germany, which was formed in 1871, made a republic in 1919, a dictatorship in 1933, two republics in 1949, and reunited as a federal state in 1989.

So there. Let the disagreements begin!


8-)

Vitmore

[Vitmore The Great]

One cannot say civ when refering to the races in Civilization, because, as one said before, a civ must be distinct. In that case, Canada is not distinct enough from the US, which is not distinct enough from Britain, which is not distinct from France, which is not distinct enough from any Western European nation, and those nation of the world that were colonized greatly by Europe. These nation for Western Civilization. So, one must speak of cultures when evaluating which contry should be represented, not civs, sinceif that were the case, there would be few playable races in the game. There has been really only 25 major civs in history ranging from Sumerian in c6000BC to Western c2000.


Vitmore
[This message has been edited by Vitmore The Great (edited August 22, 2000).]

[CornMaster]

It's not like no one lived in Canada before 1867. The first settlement in mainland Canada was in 1604 by the French and even earlier by the english in Newfoundland in the 1500's. Of course we could go back to the 900's by the Vikings in Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland.

Plus all the native indian tribes that lived in Canada and Newfoundland at the time. In Newfoundland alone you had the Beothuks and the MicMaks. If the Souix are a major tribe in Civ 2 how can't Canada be a major tribe in Civ 3!!!

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
Administrator of the CornEmpire Forum
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Patriqvium]

You don't need to separate Vikings and Swedes; they basically were the same. Ethiopians would be a fine addition to African civs.

[Luk]

There is no other definition of Nation like that the Nation is created by people with same culture, traditions, history, and language....

You can not create Nation in one year just by building the state...

Canada is a Nation, but it is weak Nation, whoch can be easly destroyed. It is very easly united, and for sure it is not a civilisation