More XP speculation fun! Predict the Civ leaders!

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Miznia
Siredgar, I think you're holding Mali to a more difficult standard than other civs in your list... Although I'm not really clear on how you're ranking them (Khmer? Babylonians AND Assyrians? Koreans above Persians?). You were talking about picking civs based on "merit," but later you asked whether people had "heard of" Mali...? That seems to be inconsistent...

Mali is the least "filler" civ that there is, south of the Sahara. They were among the first sub-Saharans to go orthodox Muslim...

This page is pretty short, and has a neat map: http://www.nmafa.si.edu/educ/mali/introdj.htm

from that page, in attempt to persuade you:

Miznia

I made that list in five minutes. It's not scientific as I've said before.

Anyhow, about Mali:

I've read about Mali before and even viewed a special program about it on PBS. Regardless, all of the evidence I've seen (including the texts you and others have shown to me) only compare Mali to other civilizations nearby it. Mali did have an impressive civilization and they had a lot of gold and even books, too. But it did not have anything unique about it. Did they invent anything? Did they defeat any enemies on a very large scale?

I acknowledge that my statement was indeed inconsistent in regards to Mali re: merit and awareness. But please tell me who you would put Mali ahead of.

[siredgar]

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

Can you demonstrate why?

[siredgar]

Originally posted by 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)?

Please give us your definition of the "First World standards" and what this has anything to do with Civ 3. First World generally refers to the West after World War II as opposed to the Second World (East Bloc) and the Third World (developing countries). If Civ 3 is only supposed to be comprised of First World civs then why are the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Zulu, Aztecs, and Iroquois doing in there?

Anyhow, I didn't say the Koreans should be ahead of the greatest civilizations of world history like the English, Chinese, or Romans. I just said that they're more worthy than many others already in the game and proposed to be in it.

Korean civilization is very interesting. Read about it and judge for yourself.

And yes, the Koreans would be fun to play in the context of the game because they have a unique unit (Turtleboat, world's first ironclad), a great leader (King Sejong who invented one of the world's most phonetically accurate alphabets), and they play an interesting role between the Chinese and the Japanese (esp. in terms of alliances, etc.) These are always considered the "top three" East Asian civilizations. Anyhow, if you are playing on a realistic map, the Koreans provide a challenge for the Chinese giving the Japanese an opportunity to go into the Asian mainland. I'd much rather like this instead of the Japanese just focusing on those islands in Southeast Asia and the West Coast of North America.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by 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)?

Also, can you tell me how the Zulu, Iroquois, and even Persians and Babylonians are more "marketable" than the Koreans when there is a huge gaming population in Korea and not in these countries? I assure you that there are more computer games sold in Korea than in all of Scandinavia combined and probably more than in other "First World" countries.

[Boris Godunov]

Siredgar:

Applaud your tenacity, but I expect we won't see Korea in the game as an XP civ for a couple of reasons:

1) Firaxis has obviously chosen civs mostly on one criteria: Do most people know about/think about them as a player in world politics. While it's not fair, I think most folks don't think of Korea when they think of great or unique civilizations. Most Westerners (who must be admitted to be the overwhelming majority of Firaxis' market) probably don't see Korea as anything more than a wannabe Japan. It sucks, but that's kinda the perception.

2) For those civs that aren't "great" or "classic" (Iroquois, Zulu), the thought process there was to include something different that included a racial group not represented by the other civs (Native Americans, Black Africans). While you and I know Koreans aren't Chinese or Japanese, Firaxis probably says "we have two east asian civs, that's enough for those cultures."

3) Another criteria seems to have been a really famous leader. Haiawatha is pretty well known to American history students (Though other natives like Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Pocahontas, etc. are moreso, admittedly). Shaka Zulu is probably the only subsaharan leader anyone not African can name except for De Klerk and Mandela. I doubt the vast population at large outside of Korea knows any Korean leaders except N. Korea's current despot.

Now, you will see a running trend here of what I believe are their criteria--and that is a Western bias that fosters continued ignorance of other cultures, stereotypes of other cultures and unintentional yet undeniable racism. But these people designing the game are products of Western Euro/Americentric history courses.

Now, I find the Zulu inclusion really racist and a p!ss poor effort at including a Black African civ, considering the Malians and Ghanans were far more influential and powerful. But Shaka had a miniseries, so he wins. Merde.

[monkspider]

Good points Boris, I largely don't find myself in disagreement. Just to be clear, I am in the Pro-Korea camp, so if it were up to me they WOULD be in the expansion pack. But I also believe it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Firaxis may take them into serious consideration as well, for the following reasons.
1. As Edgar mentioned, they have a "fun" Unique unit, the Turtleboat, this certainly helps them out a bit.
2. It is true that they don't have a Mao or a Bismarck, but the lack of a identifiable leader may not nescarrily seal their fate. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I don't think King Sejong is all that much more unknown in western culture than Tokugawa. Now I grant that Tokugawa is probably a little bit
more well known, but certainly not to a very considerable degree and this didn't prevent the Japanese from gaining entry.
3. The Sino-Japanese-Korean rivalries, while not as well known as Russo-German-French-English rivalries, they still make for interesting gameplay for those of us out there "in the know". And, like Edgar said, there are a lot of Korean or Japanese gamers that would probably appreciate their addition.
4. They have 8 civ openings in the expansion pack, and once the shoe-ins are accounted for, (Spain, Mongols, Carthage, Vikings, Inca, see the discussion going on the civilizations forum for details) there is still plenty of room for another Asian civ other than the Mongols, what with Asia being the largest culture group in the game. While you do make some good points Boris, I think that we both would agree that Korea is more likely to to be included than any of the conceivable Asian alternatives (Polynesia, Khmer).
As I said, you make some very good points Boris, as unfortunate as they may be. But inspite of this, I still think that is perfectly reasonable to think that Firaxis may include them in the upcoming XP.

[Miznia]

Siredgar said:
That is not true.

About Korea...

Siredgar, I appreciate your reply. I'd like to point out, though, that I was already pro-Korean-inclusion.

I've read about Mali before and even viewed a special program about it on PBS. Regardless, all of the evidence I've seen (including the texts you and others have shown to me) only compare Mali to other civilizations nearby it. Mali did have an impressive civilization and they had a lot of gold and even books, too. But it did not have anything unique about it. Did they invent anything? Did they defeat any enemies on a very large scale?

I acknowledge that my statement was indeed inconsistent in regards to Mali re: merit and awareness. But please tell me who you would put Mali ahead of.

I guess I'm inclined to say that Mali (including other Niger River civs) should be included as perhaps the most impressive sub-Saharan civ. I have to admit that I think some civs should come from every major race/culture (if not every region of the map; for instance, we shouldn't pick the Tupi for Brazil). Would you really want to play a game where half your opponents are European?

I would definitely place Mali over South Africa, Uganda, and New Zealand. I see them as including Songhay (same major cities), and would place them over Ethiopia or Aksum, Nubia, (CTP's!) Nigeria, Zulus, Kongo, Zimbabwe... Everything south of the Sahara.

Outside of that area... Tentatively, I would say Mali has more "merit" than the Khmer, all but two or three Central American civs (I say that out of ignorance), Canada, and leave it at that.

I would cancel Dutch and Portuguese from your list on your "uniqueness" grounds.

World Impact + My Opinion - My Education = Results

I wonder if you literally mean "World" Impact?

Miznia

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
4. They have 8 civ openings in the expansion pack, and once the shoe-ins are accounted for, (Spain, Mongols, Carthage, Vikings, Inca, see the discussion going on the civilizations forum for details) there is still plenty of room for another Asian civ other than the Mongols, what with Asia being the largest culture group in the game.

Some good points, but I really think Koreans won't be in. Gut feeling.

Oh, and your quote above...I don't think the Mongols are shoe-ins, or rather, I don't think they SHOULD be. Mongols are listed as a barbarian tribe already, and I frankly kinda have to draw a line in front of the Mongols and say they weren't a civilization and shouldn't be considered as such. I'm pretty open-minded about the civs, but the Mongols were a nomadic Barbarian tribe. While their impact on Asian, Middle-Eastern and Eastern European history was not negligible, we should consider that Chingis' empire broke up after his death in 1280, making it a short-lived empire, and the remnants were not a single Mongol empire but rather various Hordes and Khanates that sometimes warred with each other. In addition, there isn't anything in the way of Mongol culture that had any impact on other cultures and endures. In fact, it was Mongolian cultural weakness that brought about the empires collapse, as wherever they settled they were swallowed up by the existing and richer cultures (Chinese, Arabs, Slavs).

I say, No Mongols...they're covered in the Barbarians.

[History Guy]

*smacks head against nearest stone pillar*

[History Guy]

Erm...how's this...

1) The Spanish (European). Leader: Queen Isabela. Attributes: Expansionist, Religious. Special Unit: Conquistadore (replaces explorer?).

2) The Mongols (Asian). Leader: Genghis Khan. Attributes: Militaristic, Expansionist. Special Unit: Knight of the Golden Horde (replaces knight).

3) The Vikings (European). (Possible) Leader(s): (Errrm...) Canute, Beowulf (fiction, I know, but I like Screaming Viking's idea of a Beowulf), Harald Hardrada, Eric the Red, or Leif Ericsson. Attributes: Militaristic, Commercial. Special Unit: Longboat (replaces galley).

4) The Celts (European...mostly). Leader: Queen Boudicca. Attributes: Militaristic, Industrious, or Militaristic, Religious. Special Unit: Naked Guy Painted Blue...or something...(replacing warrior, or spearman?)

5) The Inca (American). Leader: Atahaulpa. Attributes: Religious, Industrious. Special Unit: Erm...Human Sacrifice...Nope...Temple Guards? (replaces warrior or spearman?)

6) The Ottomans (Middle Eastern). Leader: Suleiman the Magnificient. Attributes: Religious, Militaristic. Special Unit: Janissaries (replaces...uhhh...).

7) Carthaginian/Phoenician (Mediterranean). Leader: Hannibal Barca. Attributes: Commercial, Expansionist. Special Unit: Elephant Cavalry (replaces Horseman).

8) Israel (Middle Eastern). Leader: King Solomon. Attributes: Religious, Industrious. Special Unit: Slinger (replaces...).

[Spiffor]

Hey, I may have something more solid to tell the Vikings will be in. Remember the post-patch chat ? Someone asked Mike Breitkreuz "What Civs would you have included but couldn't ?". Mike answered the Vikings, but I don't know if it was personal or if he spoke for the design team. You can check this at my chat transcript.

BTW, I counted : if they add a new Civ ability, 21 civs can exist without being redundant. If they add 2 new abilities, there can be 28 non-redundant civs.

[siredgar]

Boris, I think you underestimate the Koreans as a civ. As I've pointed out in another thread, all of the other Civilization-like games (Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, etc) included the Koreans, Mayans, Mongols, Spanish, and Turks while Civ 3 did not. So, obviously there are a lot of players familiar with the Koreans and I'm sure have enjoyed playing them.

I agree that the inclusion of the Koreans is not guaranteed, but I think that their chances are better than 50/50. Certainly, their civilization is far more advanced and unique than some of the other civs already included in the game.

Miznia, yes I do want to play a game where half my opponents (or more) are European. I like playing colonization games and generally pick about half a dozen Europeans civs, a few Asian civs, and one or two Middle Eastern or African civs, if any. But that's just me. I also feel that the past 500 years have been primarily a Euro-centric world, whether you like it or not. So, it is realistic because most of the major powers are indeed European. The Asians provide a challenge, but it has been mostly regional because of their relative decline until recently.

As for the Malians specifically, I agree that their civilization was impressive. But I don't think it puts them ahead of the Turks, Koreans, Arabs, etc. I could imagine they would fill the next African spot instead of the Ethiopians. To me, the Ethiopians have a more interesting background with their religious connections. After all, the Ark of the Covenant is believed to be kept there. There are also a couple of interesting leaders and they have an incredibly long history and still exist today. They are the only two African nations that were not colonized. The only one really since Liberia was a nation established by former American slaves.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by History Guy
Erm...how's this...

1) The Spanish (European). Leader: Queen Isabela. Attributes: Expansionist, Religious. Special Unit: Conquistadore (replaces explorer?).

I'd have picked the Knight or Musketman for the Conquistador to replace. But I see how the Explorer fits in with the conquistador.

2) The Mongols (Asian). Leader: Genghis Khan. Attributes: Militaristic, Expansionist. Special Unit: Knight of the Golden Horde (replaces knight).

Interesting choice, though I'd say that Mangudai sounds a bit better. And would probably fit in the box in the city screen a bit better.

3) The Vikings (European). (Possible) Leader(s): (Errrm...) Canute, Beowulf (fiction, I know, but I like Screaming Viking's idea of a Beowulf), Harald Hardrada, Eric the Red, or Leif Ericsson. Attributes: Militaristic, Commercial. Special Unit: Longboat (replaces galley).

Canute! Canute! Good UU choice too.

4) The Celts (European...mostly). Leader: Queen Boudicca. Attributes: Militaristic, Industrious, or Militaristic, Religious. Special Unit: Naked Guy Painted Blue...or something...(replacing warrior, or spearman?)

Hmmm. I'd say Woad Raider. Replace swordsman maybe (with increased speed).

5) The Inca (American). Leader: Atahaulpa. Attributes: Religious, Industrious. Special Unit: Erm...Human Sacrifice...Nope...Temple Guards? (replaces warrior or spearman?)

No ideas here either.

6) The Ottomans (Middle Eastern). Leader: Suleiman the Magnificient. Attributes: Religious, Militaristic. Special Unit: Janissaries (replaces...uhhh...).

I'd say replace Longbow, or musketman (since it was bows and muskets the Janissaries wielded mostly).

7) Carthaginian/Phoenician (Mediterranean). Leader: Hannibal Barca. Attributes: Commercial, Expansionist. Special Unit: Elephant Cavalry (replaces Horseman).

Spot on there. I agree 100%

8) Israel (Middle Eastern). Leader: King Solomon. Attributes: Religious, Industrious. Special Unit: Slinger (replaces...).

replaces archer maybe. Anyway, I'd call them Hebrews. King David would be another candidate for this one. But Solomon is a good choice still.

[ScreamingViking]

The Vikings could have the longship, but how about this:

The Vikings UU could be a berserker/raider unit. This would be like a swordsman, but would be capable of amphibious assaults - like the marine unit. This would reflect the vikings' greatest military strength: the ability to raid coastal towns and cities from the sea.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And I still say we should drop Bismarck for the Germans and put Frederick II back in.

No way. Bismarck is the perfect choice.