CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.1): hosted by LordStone1

[LordStone1]

Continue your discussion here.

[Eggman]

Well, yes, the Vikings really aren't a "civ" in the purest sense of the word. But they have better name recognition than the Swedes. Most people have heard of the Vikings and have some concept of what they did. I would bet big money that most people do not know that Sweden was ever a major power. Of course, in the US I would bet money that most people don't know where Europe is on the map, but that's another story.

Also, the Vikings are sort of a catch-all for all of Scandanavia. As I mentioned before, Denmark and especially Norway are long-shots at best.

Hopefully, there will be plenty of empty slots to fill with any civ you desire. ARE YOU LISTENING FIRAXIS? MORE CIV OPTIONS IS BETTER!

BTW, in Civ2 the Viking herald wore a horned helmet, did he not? They didn't wear those in real life - that's a movie invention. Or do I have that wrong?

[NotLikeTea]

The helmet brings up an interesting point...

I participate in an internet raytracing competition. In one round, a fellow did a scene featuring a sunset. He carefully researched astronomy to get the exact size of the sun in the sky, even accounting for factors like atmosphere. As accurate a sunset as is possible.

Now, when the results came in, he recieved the same comment over and over again: the sun is way too small. And it was true, it did look too small.

What does this have to do with Civ? Well, it shows that the APPEARANCE of accuracy is far more important than accuracy itself. Perhaps the Swedes were more important than the Vikings, but people THINK that the vikings were more important. Perhaps horned helmets were inaccurate, but people THINK that they were accurate. No matter how many references you cite, and how much research you do, we still think that vikings should have horned helmets, and unhorned vikings just look wrong.

In another thread (or an earlier version of this one, I can't remember) I suggested that proper spellings be used. Mao Zedong instead of Mao Tsetung, Chinngis instead of Ghengis. Again, these are more accurate, but since they don't match popular opinion, people will never accept them.

Everyone has read about Ghengis Kahn and Mao Tsetung, therefore they are correct. Similarly, everyone has seen horned vikings in movies, therefore vikings wore horns.

A result of pop culture? Yeah, but it can't be discounted either... Appearance of realism is more important than realism itself.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

[Andy B]

Yes Eggman you are very right.

[EnochF]

Well, actually it's Genghis, not Ghengis, and it's Tse-tung, not Tsetung, but aside from that, you're bloody well right! To appearances! [drink]

Hell, in Italian versions of the Encarta encyclopedia, they think some Italian shoemaker invented the telephone. Go figure.

[Theben]

And in romanji (roman-zin) shinto should be spelled sinto, Tokyo spelled Toukyou, arigato= arigatou, etc.

[Monk]

Vikings forever. Make that a demand from all us Scandinavians Lordstone... especially the Danes and Norwegians

Yeah, and be sure to get city placement right, just to please all us stubborn, nitpicking perfectionists Cities like Birka and Jelling should be some of the first on the Viking list. Unlike what Activision told us, Copenhagen isn't a Viking city, neither is Bornholm. Actually, Bornholm isn't even a city, it's an island

I like smileys.


<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Monk (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vikings should be included, but what about adding the Swedes as well? I mean the Swedes were a powerful nation for many years. Add both!

[monolith94]

As long as they include the Tibetans, I'm a happy camper.

[Cartagia the Great]

Perhapse, instead of the Vikings, it would be acceptable to change their name to the Norse? I'd accept this, and I think most others would to. Also i'm the one who segested the c'correct names' thing, and I still like accurancy and realism in such cases, just me, but it addles me to see horned Vikings and othr historical misconceptions like that...just the arm chair historian in me

[NotLikeTea]

Speaking of names...

Who "discovered" North America in 1492?

Our textbooks say Christopher Columbus. French texts say Christophe Colombe. Of course, his parents probably called him Christopho Colombo..

See? It's probably besat to stick with one naming system

[Ekmek]

How did this turn in to the Viking thread? I guess the civilizations argument lost some steam.

One thing that is debatable is what really defines the civilization and that is what it looks like its heading to here. To some its appearance, some its language, borders, culture. Theses are the more traditional definitions, but America (among other nations)really defies all ofthese (borders too, look how many people live abroad and corporations do too). Perhaps in the 21st century civilization is a different meaning altogether. I'm just saying what a civilization is should be agreed upon (and seems already dictated by microprose) and then we can get over the whole viking argument.

------------------
"Destiny has left two courses open to me on my journey to the grave. Either die young and gloriously or live long and anonymously. I choose the first." - Achilles, The Iliad

[LordStone1]

Honestly, I am not going to include any of this silly Swedish-Viking arguments in this thread. I'm just going to put this:

"BR, there's some controversy over whether the Scandinavian countries are Vikings or not. My suggestion is to go with whatever you want and let them deal with it themselves."

Now, any other ideas for civilizations?

[Eggman]

There should be a Ghana/Mali/Songhai civilization. There size and wealth is probably the most impressive in sub-Sahara Africa. However, they do cover pretty much all the same territory so you would have to include only one of them (like the Babylonians and Assyrians combined into the Babylonians). Personally, I would suggest the Mali.

One thing I would like to see is for civilizations to become really differentiated. Have the civs have personality and uniqueness. In Civ2, the only difference between the various civs is if they attack you now or later (except for the perfectionist civs, which failed to grow and thus were doomed). It would be nice to have science dominated civs and really warlike civs and very diplomatic but cunning civs that ACT differently. I don't just want Alexander picture and name up there, I want to fight Alexander (or a decent fascimile). Also, I should have the option to randomize these personalities. Maybe even have multiple leaders with all different personalities to get a real feel (Who wants a peaceloving Alexander? Give me a Plato!)

Also, if there could be a way that civilizations could become unique in their technology, at least for a while, that would be nice. Somone suggested minor techs which would provide you with some special units or abilities if you were so lucky to get one. Thus, different civs could have somewhat different strategies working with these strengths. Now, I don't care about linking these advances permanently with the civ (only the Japanese can build Samauri, the English Longbowmen, etc.) - just that civs can become unique, at least for a little while.

[Theben]

I second Mali. Ghana was never that strong. Songhai was stronger, but wasn't as interesting.
Leaders would be:
Sundjata (male, warlike, expansionist)
Musa (male, peaceful, perfectionist-technologist, religious)
Soumaoro Kante' (male, very warlike)
Sogolon (female, peaceful)
Sassouma Berete' (female, warlike)
Others if need be.