More XP speculation fun! Predict the Civ leaders!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by History Guy


Heck yeah...and their leader can be...well...then their attributes can be...errmmm...and their city names-- whoops...uh...

Hey! Wake up and sniff the roses, pal! There is no historical evidence of the existance of Atlantis. Plato writes a bit on it for his book the Republic, but most are inclined to see it as a creative illustration. If it did exist, perhaps he meant Crete or the island of Thera. How the heck is it that they suddenly seem to have "built the great pyramids", gone to the Yucatan to build pyramids, becoming bloody advanced in just about anything, having subs, and...flying machines? It's a little ridiculous. As I am sure that you can not back up this statement with anything solid, we'll let you off lightly for this gross error in historical judgement. You might have been taken in by numerous dunderheaded pyschics or something to that effect. Don't buy it. There ain't no evidence of Atlantis, and I'd be a might surprised to see that there ever will be.

Um...History Guy...you just may very well be the only person who missed the sarcasm of the post you were attacking. I don't think he was seriously advocating Atlantis...

[Imp. Montezuma]

Hebrews: King Solomon - most great leader with big international relations (queen Saba, Ophir, Golconda etc)
Arabs: Khalif Harun al Rashid - most famous ruler ('Thousends and one Nights, huh?)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma
Hebrews: King Solomon - most great leader with big international relations (queen Saba, Ophir, Golconda etc)
Arabs: Khalif Harun al Rashid - most famous ruler ('Thousends and one Nights, huh?)

Nah, David and Saladin are more famous. Nobody's heard of Harun al Rashid...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by History Guy


Heck yeah...and their leader can be...well...then their attributes can be...errmmm...and their city names-- whoops...uh...

Hey! Wake up and sniff the roses, pal! There is no historical evidence of the existance of Atlantis. Plato writes a bit on it for his book the Republic, but most are inclined to see it as a creative illustration. If it did exist, perhaps he meant Crete or the island of Thera. How the heck is it that they suddenly seem to have "built the great pyramids", gone to the Yucatan to build pyramids, becoming bloody advanced in just about anything, having subs, and...flying machines? It's a little ridiculous. As I am sure that you can not back up this statement with anything solid, we'll let you off lightly for this gross error in historical judgement. You might have been taken in by numerous dunderheaded pyschics or something to that effect. Don't buy it. There ain't no evidence of Atlantis, and I'd be a might surprised to see that there ever will be.

Thanks for letting me off lightly history guy. Maybe we can let you off lightly for not having a sense of humor.

[The Eliminator]

Oh brother, gimme a break with all of this "Korea" talk. South Africa, Uganda, and New Zealand rank higher than Korea.

[ScreamingViking]

24 civs in total? My extra picks would be:

1. Mongols (Asian, expansionist, militaristic). Special unit: Raider (maybe a 5-1-3 unit similar to knight). Leader: Ghengis.

2. Vikings (European, militaristic, commercial). Special unit: Berserker. Leader: Canute or Beowulf (in my opinion, as appropriate as Gandhi and Joan of Arc). Would include Danes and Swedes, as well as Norwegians.

3. Inca (American, industrious, militaristic). Don't know much about them besides Maccu Picchu and rope/knot communications.

4. Spaniards (European, expansionistic, industrious). Special unit: Conquistador. Leader: Phillip (Europe does have too much estrogen). Probably would include Portuguese.

5. Celts (European, militaristic, industrious). Special Unit: Footman. Leader: Boadicea.

6. Ottoman Turks (Middle Eastern, religious, militaristic). Special unit: Dragoon-type horseman. Leader: Sulayman.

7. Israel (Middle East, religious, expansionistic). Special Unit: Mossad(?). Leader: Golda Meir, Rubin, or David.

8. Carthaginian/Phoenician (Mediterranean, expansionistic, militaristic). Special Unit: Elephant Raider. Leader: Hannibal.

Wild-Card Entry: Canadians (American, scientific, industrious). Special Unit: Peacekeeper (a more defensive infantry with little attack powers). Leader: Peirre Trudeau. Not a grand civilization, but great for the diplomatic course of victory. Who hates Canada?

I would change a few of the specialty units and civs (eg. The Americans would drop the F-15 for the rifleman-offshoot Minuteman, the English drop Man-O-War for Crusader, etc.)

[Hoot]

One of things I was most looking forward to from an expansion pack (outside of MP) was the ability to choose your leader. Maybe a choice of 2 at least, with the single player advantage of the AI civs taking on the personality of that leader. It would certainly make a difference in the way you dealt with France if they were led by Napoleon rather than Joan. I guess I should've known that because of the civ specific traits that I would never get my wish. Lincoln as leader of the Americans just bothers me, wish I had Jefferson or someone else as an option.

As for the leaders, I don't have much to offer that hasn't been said, but I hope for Charles V for Spain, Sitting Bull for the Soiux (but they won't be in the XP), Leif Ericsson for the Vikings (though I like ScreamingViking's choice of Beowulf), and Saladin for the Arabs.

As for your wild card entry, ScreamingViking, who knows how grand a civilization Canada could have been if they got to start with their Settler on a river grassland with a cow?

[ScreamingViking]

Last time I checked, we had plenty of grazing land up here. The one thing thats made Canada smaller than the US is winter. That inability to thrive with tundra squares all over the place is no mistake. For a point of fact, however, Canada's current 30M citizens is seven times the population of the US in 1776. Of course, that only makes them 1/9th the size of the US population today. Canada's biggest drawback as a "great civilization" is the fact that they have never fought a war of their own, unless you count the bragging rights we got over the US for the war of 1812.

[civman2000]

phoenicians should be commercial and either expansionist or scientific

[Hoot]

Canada's 30M citizens is 7 times the US in 1776, but how much greater is the total land area of Canada vs. US in 1776? I was kidding, of course. With the size of Canada, naturally some of the land is fertile, but as cold as it can be in the winter, I'm sure thoughts have been more on survival than conquest.

[ScreamingViking]

Very true. Back in 1776, Canada was still a series of British colonies (having just taken most of eastern Canada from the French in 1760.) It's total lands stretched from the marintimes to beyond Lake Superior- about as much land as the 13 American colonies, but less population. But who cares? It's May 4, and there's still friggin' snow on my front yard! That's why people flock to the US.

[JamesJKirk]

Entering the whole Mali discussion-
Many West African civs would be very good to have in civ, many like the Yoruba and Asante, as well as Mali had much culture, and often efficient administrative systems, as well as military success (not to mention UU candidates) I think it's still part of a colonial mindset that really makes us shrug off achievements Africa made prior to European domination, and think that it was an untouched continent prior to European contact.

I personal don't know a damn thing about Korea, but it seems like people here do, and this it's worthy, and that's why I'm willing to give it a listen, although I might be personally disposed to not think of any significant reason to have them on my own.

[ScreamingViking]

Yeah, Mali and Korea are both interesting. But their accomplishments as a civ are smaller by First World standards. Yes, we all want to be cosmoplitan and open-minded, but are these cultures interesting in the context of the game (and therefore more marketable for firaxis)?

CTP and CTP2 (with their ample civ lists) both showed how a rival can still be appealing, as long as the player doesn't get bored with the same opponents all the time. Having said that, playing the Koreans or Malians would be 5 times more interesting than playing out the same old rivalry with the Japanese or Zulus. Sometimes a name is everything.

[Carver]

Originally posted by ScreamingViking
Wild-Card Entry: Canadians (American, scientific, industrious). Special Unit: Peacekeeper (a more defensive infantry with little attack powers). Leader: Peirre Trudeau. Not a grand civilization, but great for the diplomatic course of victory. Who hates Canada?

You make a better point than you may realize. 'Who hates Canada?' Maybe there's a lesson for my boys in Washington; don't send you forces overseas unless they're invited.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Miznia
...I think Japan owes much more to China than to Korea. The main thing Japan got from Korea is the language (like grammar and some phonology). This is the same thing as saying "the English got their language from the Germans," except that the Japanese-Korean division is probably even older. That's hard to say, but at any rate there's a lot more difference between Japanese and Korean.

Miznia

That is not true.

About Korea...

There are two principle reasons why Korean civilization is not well-known. First, the Koreans have mostly kept to themselves and second, the Japanese stole or destroyed most important artifacts, documents, and buildings.

Indeed while the Koreans made some amazing achievements in the arts, science, philosophy, and religion, they did not spread these ideas outside of their own civilization. For a long time, the Koreans were even more arrogant than the Chinese in their sense of self-importance and self-sufficiency. As a result, for most of their history, they only dealt with the Chinese and ignored others, including incoming Westerners. Not surprisingly, that is primarily why Korea suffered a similar fate to that of China.

Regardless, the Koreans had a remarkable civilization that was far ahead of its time. The achievements in of themselves should be noteworthy and often surprise many people who are unfamiliar with Korea’s “hidden” history. I don’t know if the Koreans should be in the top 16, but they definitely have more of a right to than the Aztecs, Mongols, and Zulu. In fact, I don’t think they should be that far out of the top 16—probably right behind the Spanish, close to the Portuguese and Dutch, but ahead of the Vikings.

Anyhow, the Koreans and the Japanese are highly related, both genetically and culturally. That is why there are constant comparisons. In my opinion, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that they essentially belong to a single civilization. Contrary to popular perception (i.e., that of the “masses”, particularly regarding the Koreans), they are quite apart from the Chinese even though they both received a great deal of influence from them.

For a long time, Korea was a very powerful, independent “nation”. At one point in early history, Chinese and Korean kingdoms heavily competed for territory in what is now Manchuria and Siberia (land that is roughly the size of Western Europe). At that time, the inhabitants of Japan were still relatively “primitive” in many ways and had not even made the first steps toward what we would call a civilization.

In fact, Korea had an undeniably influential impact on Japan. There is significant evidence that much of early Japan comes from distinctly Korean, not Chinese, origins. Korean migrants provided much of Japanese stock. Some of this blended with Polynesian bloodlines that had arrived in the southern part of the islands, others with existing inhabitants on the main islands and to some extent with the Ainu in the north. They also brought rice farming and other rudiments of civilized life to Japan.

Example:

“By about 400 b.c. Korean farmers migrated across the Sea of Japan (called the Eastern Sea by Koreans) to southern Japan. This was the beginning of farming villages in Japan and much of the modern Japanese population is descended from these immigrants. The Japanese and Korean people are really close cousins.”

http://www.pbs.org/hiddenkorea/history.htm

Later, the Koreans sent artisans and priests to the Japanese to introduce advances in the arts, science, philosophy, and religion that they not only learned from the Chinese, but had also developed indigenously, too. Indeed, even much of what was derived from the Chinese had a distinctly Korean nature to it. Thus, Korea helped Japan makes its first steps toward “civilization”. The Japanese greatly preserved much of what they learned at this time to this day. In fact, some historians have argued that a great deal of what we consider traditional Japanese culture today is really derived directly from ancient Korea.

In the end, the Koreans introduced their own techniques in ceremonial burial, bronze working, warrior code, monarchy, astronomy, geography, calendar-making, divination, ink-writing, painting, and farming to Japan all in distinctly Korean ways.

On the other hand, sadly to say, much of Korean civilization has been destroyed... at the hands of the Japanese. Situated on the mainland, the Koreans were forced to fight many wars to preserve their independence against the increasingly powerful Chinese (and later the emergent Mongols). The Japanese, separated by the seas, were not. They began developing a strong civilization they could now call distinctly their own, away from the troubles of the mainland. This relative isolation (and the lack of significant resources) later allowed them to quickly adopt recent Western advances in technology and quietly grow in power while avoiding foreign encroachment.

The rest is history.

We tend to focus too much on recent history. The 300 years have not treated Korea very well and that's another reason why many people don't know about their civilization very well.