Final Civ: Korea

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Veracitas :

http://apolyton.net/view.php?/civ3/images/ptwscreenshots/Hwacha-Portrait.jpg

It comes from the screenshot pack that was shipped by Infogrames in the E3. I can't find it anymore on the Infogrames site, though. It's called Hwacha directly in this pack.

hi ,

it was posted a while ago , we put all the shots on it at max resolution , ...

the thread id is : 50650 page 6 , ..
good luck

have a nice day

[TVA22]

To those who have been defending Korean legitimacy, and the fact that they are a distinct civilization, cheers! and thank-you!

This is the first time I've been back to Apolyton in 8 months, I left because this place is so filled up with people who just bash oriental civilizations over and over and over again- people whose narrow view of the world is completely centered around europe, and their own backyards.

Thank-you, for showing me that I'm not the only one out there who isn't totally ignorant of non-western humanity.

[TrueLight]

How did the Vikings and Carthrage get in PtW?

I dont think that will change but what will there UU be?
Cathrage cant have elephants since India has them already? And what about Vikings, will they copy off AoE, Bersekers?

I havent seen any of the preview. That is why I dont know.

[kring]

I don't know about Carthage UU, but Berserk is in screen shots and more likely the Viking UU.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Veracitas
But, if you look a few spaces down, tiny South Korea actually holds the number 12 spot (it was number 11 before the IMF crisis). Pretty good for a country that you claim doesn't have merits as a civilization, eh?

This is completely meaningless. If California were an independent country it would be #9 on the list. Does that mean we need a Californian civ?

It's interesting to note that just 40 years ago Korea was considered poor even by Asian standards

[Veracitas]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This is completely meaningless. If California were an independent country it would be #9 on the list. Does that mean we need a Californian civ?

It's interesting to note that just 40 years ago Korea was considered poor even by Asian standards

That kind of argument is completely meaningless. The fact is, California is NOT it's own independent country (even though it vaguely feels like it at times!). If, say, it and Texas were to found their own respective republics (Bear and Lone Star, for instance), then yes, they would have powerful economies, but the US would consequently be weakened a great deal, as well. You can't go around combining and taking apart nations saying "well, look at this combo.." For instance, what if you took all the EU nations together and made it a United States of Europe? That would change up rankings quite a bit, too, right? Most likely in the Koreans favor, since a lot of those top countries are in the EU, pushing up everyone's rankings. You also must know, of course, that Korea isn't even whole as a country. North Korea is actually MUCH richer in natural resources and economic potential than South Korea, and also has the 6th largest army in the world. Many Koreans are bitter towards the US, Russia (well, the USSR), and especially Japan (a large part of their early recovery after WWII was due to the fact that they sold large amounts of weapons to BOTH sides during the Korean War).

Your last sentence is very interesting. True, about 40 or 50 years ago, Korea was on an economic level with some of the poorest African nations. Which merely makes it more amazing how quickly they've turned things around.

But, by bringing up that example, you're trying to argue that Korea was insignifcant in the past, aren't you? Ok, well, let's see...even only a 100 years ago, the US wasn't a major geo-political power. A few hundred years ago and the US didn't even exist. Also, a few hundred years ago, Korea (well, one of the three Korean kingdoms, Koguryo) was the mightiest power in Asia, rivalling the current Tang Dynasty in China and controlling all of current day North Korea and a huge chunk of Manchuria. In fact, constant warfare with the Chinese actually caused the COLLAPSE of the Chinese Tang dynasty. ON TOP OF THAT, there were TWO MORE Korean kingdoms that all fought amongst themselves. The reason that Koguryo fell from power was that an embittered Sui dynasty (the dynasty that emerged in China after Tang fell) allied itself with another Korean kingdom (Silla) to overthrow Koguryo and Paekche (the third kingdom). BIG MISTAKE, because after the Chinese pulverized the once mighty Koguryo (the Chinese hated them so much that they burned EVERYTHING to the extent that modern scholars can only speculate on the everyday aspects of the kingdom) and Paekche, they came after Silla. If Silla hadn't fought back so valiantly, Korea might today just be another Chinese province. Instead, they accepted nominal Chinese suzerainty.

But, if Koguryo had not lost the war and absorbed the Sui instead, who knows what sort of world power the Koreans might be today instead of economic lackeys of the US?

[kring]

Probably a bigger reason for Korea's dislike of Japan would be the treatment of the Koreans under Japanese control before and during WW2.

It is still not definite that Korea is in. Sure, the Hwacha is a Korean arty piece, but that doesn't guarantee it is in. There are a number of equally reasonable explanations, as have been previously stated. Also, it would be the first civ (IF it is in) to have an arty UU (IF the Hwacha is indeed Korea's UU).

[Dinner]

That kind of argument is completely meaningless.

Actually it is was quite relavent because it shows how a seemingly impressive number like #12 economy really isn't all it is cracked up to be.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I like Korea, I've been there many times, and I've spent about six months of my life there (I even had a chance to study much of the history you spoke about while I was there). Admitably that's not a huge amount of time but it is long enough to get a feel for a small country like Korea. I thoruoghly enjoy the country and admire its people. That said I still feel there are other countries which are more deserving of inclusion.

Personally I think countries which have had a greater world impact (such as Holland or Portugal) or who come from areas which are poorly represented in Civ3 (such as the Inca or the Ethiopians) should get the green light before Korea. Yes, Korea is a unique country. Yes, it has an interesting history. No, it doesn't merit inclusion.

But, if Koguryo had not lost the war and absorbed the Sui instead, who knows what sort of world power the Koreans might be today instead of economic lackeys of the US?

Ifs, maybes, and might have beens are not a solid way to make decisions. Also did you stop and consider that Koreas economic co-opporation with the U.S. is one of the primary reasons for its recent economic vitality? Summurizing the relationship as a "lackey" is very simplistic and displays a lack of understanding in international relations.

[thinkingamer]

But, by bringing up that example, you're trying to argue that Korea was insignifcant in the past, aren't you? Ok, well, let's see...even only a 100 years ago, the US wasn't a major geo-political power. A few hundred years ago and the US didn't even exist. Also, a few hundred years ago, Korea (well, one of the three Korean kingdoms, Koguryo) was the mightiest power in Asia, rivalling the current Tang Dynasty in China and controlling all of current day North Korea and a huge chunk of Manchuria. In fact, constant warfare with the Chinese actually caused the COLLAPSE of the Chinese Tang dynasty. ON TOP OF THAT, there were TWO MORE Korean kingdoms that all fought amongst themselves. The reason that Koguryo fell from power was that an embittered Sui dynasty (the dynasty that emerged in China after Tang fell) allied itself with another Korean kingdom (Silla) to overthrow Koguryo and Paekche (the third kingdom). BIG MISTAKE, because after the Chinese pulverized the once mighty Koguryo (the Chinese hated them so much that they burned EVERYTHING to the extent that modern scholars can only speculate on the everyday aspects of the kingdom) and Paekche, they came after Silla. If Silla hadn't fought back so valiantly, Korea might today just be another Chinese province. Instead, they accepted nominal Chinese suzerainty.

Verancitas....... Where did u learn this? Sui destroyed itself mainly because they attacked Koguryo with more than 1,100,000 men and lost.

The combined forces of Tang and Silla destroyed Koguryo, but really Koguryo destroyed themselves (the main reason that they lost was because two princes divided the nation by 2 to obtain the throne in the middle of the war against Tang and Silla).

Personally I think countries which have had a greater world impact (such as Holland or Portugal) or who come from areas which are poorly represented in Civ3 (such as the Inca or the Ethiopians) should get the green light before Korea. Yes, Korea is a unique country. Yes, it has an interesting history. No, it doesn't merit inclusion.

That is ur opinion and i respect it. But it is arguable that Korea has equal impact in the world as Japan (specially because Koreans taught Japanese people most of aspects of civilization such as writting, bronce and iron working, etc.). And before 16th century, Korea had much more impact in East Asian history than Japan. I guess ur "world impact" is more of a "western world impact"

[Bisonbison]

I think Korea is tops. It's a great peninsula, even better than florida!

But there are already 4 central or east asian civs, and only three in all of the Americas. I'm all for clutching at the faded remnants of a once proud nation, but in many ways Korea = Poland. And Poland doesn't deserve a spot.

And don't try to argue with me on that last point. I anticipate all your responses ahead of time:

You will claim:

1. Poland is in Europe and Korea is in Asia.

You're wrong. Europe and Asia are clearly one continent arbitrarily divided in two to perpetuate a false distinction between its peoples. Therefore? Poland is in Asia too.

2. Korea did really cool things and fought wars and was real important way back when.

You're wrong. The things Korea did were lame or at best just average, and the wars they fought and the importance they enjoyed were dumb. Just like Poland. I mean Poland was huge in the thirteenth century, but a good mongol invasion was all Poland or Korea needed to revert to their third-teir ways for the rest of history.

3. Even now, Korea does important stuff.

You're wrong. South Koreans do mediocre stuff, like play counter-strike and win soccer matches. North Koreans are busy trying not to starve to death in the grip of an absolutist regime. Korea itself does very little. It is an arbitrarily defined geographical region. It just kind of sits there while Koreans do things on top of it. Poland, as I need not remind you, is not divided, and so achieves its mediocrity all at once

4. Asia w/Korea is still way less crowded than Europe w/o Poland.

You're wrong. Europe and Asia are the same landmass, so any additional civ increases the crowding for all of it. If you're so concerned about crowding why don't you look at South America?

5. People who don't want a Korean civ hate Koreans.

You're wrong. People who do want a Korean civ hate Koreans, because including a Korean civ will likely increase sales of Civ3 in South Korea, thereby keeping more South Koreans inactive in front of their computers instead of outside beating Italy in the world cup. Now who hates Koreans? You do!

[sm24]

I've been a lurker on these boards for a long time, so please accept my apologies in advance if I trip over myself in my first post.

With respect to Korea - maybe it's an oversimplification to say simply "games are games" and civ3 is not intended to resemble life nor is it a simulation of life; ("life" meaning the grand sweep of history and cultures).

Putting aside this simple dimestore philosophy, if you want to evaluate whether Korea (or any other civ should be in a "game"), consider the span of time in the game. Ask yourself, what civilizations (cultures) have been around in a coherent fashion and for how long? The Babylonians? A brief stint of only a couple of hundreds years (preceded and followed by Sumer, Assyria, Hittites and Medes). (Apologies to any die-hard Babylonians out there.) The point is the same could be done with many of the civs in the game. Most of them have brief moments of identity in a sweep of time.

In terms of Korea, if you wanted to measure continuity in terms of an identified people, a language, a place, a culture, Korea has many of these factors for a far longer time than most of the civs in the game. Many folks here seem to have some idea of this. For those that don't, take time to find out. It's pretty damn interesting (and maybe it will lead you to find out why Andy Grove gave a speech a few years ago entitled "I fear Korea.")

Now the same argument can be made to include "Eskimos" as a civ in the game. And quite possibly, if Eskimos has the resources to develop further in organization they would have had acendencies and declines in the scope of history.

O.K., so someone should say "what's the point?" Simply this, reach beyond what you know and, in a game playing mode, simply ask "would it be fun to play as X in achieving a continuity in the scope of time."

(As background, I've lived in Japan for about five years and have lived in Korea for the past 4 years. If anyone wanted to know whether the Korean psyche is unique, they should have been with me in the Daejon Stadium last Tuesday. I have never experience such a large collective set of emotions galvanized into a collective pride of culture and being.)

Anyway, my two cents...or more like half a buck at this point.

[thinkingamer]

Bison, ur unsupported statements only reveals ur loving affection towards the Koreans people.

[kring]

sm24, good first post. Looking forward to hearing more from you on all subjects.

Time will tell whether or not the Koreans are in. I have no personal preference. They are either in or they aren't. We can't change it either way. I will play all 8 civs, whatever they may be.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by thinkingamer I guess ur "world impact" is more of a "western world impact"

No, when I say world impact I mean being an active military/economic/political force in many different parts of the world. To continue the previous example countries that have had large overseas positions (such as Holland, Portugal, or even Turkey) would qualify while regional powers such as Korea, Afganistan, and others would not.

[Mikhail]

*sigh*

Two things:

1. Korea deserves be in Civ 3

2. As do 30 other civilizations