When will Nationalism be available?

[Gammaray fan]

Will Nationalism be able to be researched from the ancient age? (as it should be - romans had armies of legions)
THIS MY FRIENDS IS THE CRITICAL QUESTION...

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 05-15-2001 09:27 PM Will Nationalism be able to be researched from the ancient age? (as it should be - romans had armies of legions) THIS MY FRIENDS IS THE CRITICAL QUESTION...

If it's implemented with historical accuracy, I'd say it will be possible to research it anytime around 17th century. Of course this means nothing in civ

[Gammaray fan]

That is what I fear. Nationalism is certainly a modern phenomenon and thus your 17th century is probably right. But armies were around since war was invented! If army's can only be created unitl the 17th Century, if one civ fortuitously gets a general, he will be able to build a massive army and win the game before anyone else can even BUILD an army!

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm sure they'd balance this sort of thing...

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

good question.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited May 15, 2001).]

[Gammaray fan]

Perhaps they could make armies available from the start, for anyone who builds barracks, and has a high enough cultural value (thereby getting rid of the need for nationalism), but simply place arbitrary limits on the no. of units you can place in an army for each age to simulate technology's increasingly ability to allow for better communications...

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Everything depends on the definition of "Nationalism"! I mean the Perians and the Babylonians had a sense of "National Identity" with Laws and a public sector and a King-if this is what Firaxis means as Nationalism, then it should be available for research almost immediately!
If however, they refer to the upsurge in "Ultra-Nationalism" that came about during the 18th-19th centuries, then this will make armies all but USELESS!!
For my money, I feel we should all pressure Firaxis to link Armies to a more realistic technology-like Mass Combat Tactics or Warrior Code.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth.

The_Aussie_Lurker

[JamesJKirk]

The modern concept of a nation-state, and thus nationalism, began during the 30 Yrs War in Europe. In all times before, everyday people could really care less who ruled over their country, and didn't see much in common with one another. But the war brought about a feeling of sameness between people of the same nation. so I guess I'm saying that 17th century is right for the beginning of nationalism, maybe 18th if you were talking about when it became a real movement. It's interesting to note that real popular revolutions couldn't ever happen before nationalism. Although I'd fail to see what naitonalism and armies have to do with one another.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 05-16-2001 12:20 AM The modern concept of a nation-state, and thus nationalism, began during the 30 Yrs War in Europe. In all times before, everyday people could really care less who ruled over their country, and didn't see much in common with one another. But the war brought about a feeling of sameness between people of the same nation. so I guess I'm saying that 17th century is right for the beginning of nationalism, maybe 18th if you were talking about when it became a real movement. It's interesting to note that real popular revolutions couldn't ever happen before nationalism. Although I'd fail to see what naitonalism and armies have to do with one another.

Thats horse manure. Ever heard of the Scottish Wars of Independence? THe Scots DID care who ruled over them, which is precicely why they revolted against King Edward Longshanks (actually, he really wasnt their king at all, but claimed to be).

Ever heard of the Romans ruling over Israel? THe Jews hated their Roman leaders. And would have revolted, had their Messiah shown up (which he did, they just didnt believe it at the time)

[Bereta_Eder]

Well, I think we are referering to Nationalism as the notion which started in 17th century and materialized in the 18th Century. (Nationalism didn't even exist as a word before these dates I think).
Nationalism takes the meaning of the ideological concept that led to the creation of modern nation-states as we know them.

Scots and Israelis had (have) an ethnic identity.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-16-2001 09:38 AM Well, I think we are referering to Nationalism as the notion which started in 17th century and materialized in the 18th Century. (Nationalism didn't even exist as a word before these dates I think). Nationalism takes the meaning of the ideological concept that led to the creation of modern nation-states as we know them. Scots and Israelis had (have) an ethnic identity.

Good point, and I agree. but the 'idea' of nationalism has been here for quite some time, perhaps, a couple thousand years.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Welp,

I'ts pretty obvious (if you read the GameSpot preview) that citizens can be imbued with a strong sense of cultural identity. Obviously much of this cultural identity depends on how good a job you do cultivating your cities.

But I would say that even if nationalism in the truest sense of the word isn't in the game, at the very least a form of distinct cultural patriotism exists. When your citizens are conquered by another civilization (i.e., the Scots example given), if they have a strong sense of distinct cultural identity they will be very difficult to assimilate.

Basically, I think that the game designers plan to address "nationalism" (or something at least similar) in an easy-to-understand, fun fashion. I don't think any more needs to be done by the creators of Civ3.

[Grumbold]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 05-16-2001 12:31 AM Thats horse manure. Ever heard of the Scottish Wars of Independence? THe Scots DID care who ruled over them, which is precicely why they revolted against King Edward Longshanks (actually, he really wasnt their king at all, but claimed to be).

The Scottish wars are not a good example because they were as much Scot vs Scot as Scot vs English. They did not have the strong sense of nationalism to allow themselves to completely put aside clan feuds and rival claims to the Scottish throne except on very rare occasions. Many noble families intermarried and owned land in England, France and Scotland which did not help either. A better example would be the Romans, Carthaginians or the Persians who could assemble vast armies despite not being a single cultural unit, just a carefully organised collective.