Is there not political correctness in Civ 3?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Boris:



What the hell? then you are in agreement with the iniator of this thread? saying that zulus and aztecs were doomed to never get anywhere anyway so then Civilization mightaswell only have the greatest, most influential civilizations?

But before that you said you were in favour of having them in... i'm confused...

Noooo, as you clearly said the game started in 4000 BCE, I was going from that point. Had the people who had become the Zulus settled in a more geographically beneficial place way back in, I dunno, 15,000 BCE, then they might have had a better shot.

But whomever ended up in Sub-Saharan Africa was always going to be at an extreme disadvantage in history, just as would any people that ended up in ancient Mexico. It has nothing to do with any racial traits, but in geography and biology.

But you missed the part where I pointed out that most Civ games are played on a random map, making such considerations moot. Zulus and Iroquois can then end up with spectacular locations, aiding in their ascent to world supremacy.

Happy now?

[Al B. Sure!]

Boris:

I think i understand you now it was just weird because we were in agreement that zulus and what not should be in there but you were arguing with me over what i guess is a side issue.

though I'm not too sure central mexico is that bad of a place for a civilization... same with much of Africa. West Africa had (before european incroachment) fertile soil, abundance of animals, plenty of resources, good means of travelling between different groups to trade and share ideas, etc. hence the Songhai, Mali, Benin, Ashanti, Dahomey, etc. civilizations.

Similiarily, central mexico aint that bad either as can be attested by the sophistication of the Mayans and Aztecs... Tenochtitlan rivalled any european city in its size and architectural wonders.

a bad location for a civilization is central Africa, the western plains of america, brazil, etc... south africa might not be too good either but other parts of africa (such as the west [and the east only because of relatively easy trade routes with India and Arabia]) and central mexico are actually pretty damn good places for civilization.

[St Leo]

Actually, the Zulus were part of the Bantu migration. That doesn't change my point of Africa being a lousy continent for the whole urban technological civilization shtick.

[Al B. Sure!]

St. Leo:

That doesn't change my point of Africa being a lousy continent for the whole urban technological civilization shtick.

Timbuktu? Zimbabwe? Mombasa?

[Spiffor]

The Mali and Ethiopians had cities and organized government structure. Had they been more imperialistic and more bent on technological progrees (an idea they could have taken from the Arabs with whom they traded extensively), they'd have become full-fledged 'Civilizations' just like the Persians or the Aztecs. I still hope for their inclusion in the next expansion.

Actually, I think the Zulu are a lousy choice as an African Civ, the same way Sioux were as a native American Civ. Both Zulus and Sioux hadn't a urban culture, which was more present with the Iroquois and with the Mali.

[HolyWarrior]

Re: Re: Civ 3 PC?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


How was this PC? It was the opposite of PC, it was dubious taste. That's why Stalin was dropped from the next installments.

By having Stalin as leader for the Russians, Mao as leader of the Chinese, but not Hitler as leader of the Germans, one could sense a possible PC bias. Hitler is almost universally seen as evil, whereas some on the hard left have a blind spot regarding their tyrants such as Stalin and Castro. Remember, Stalin is responsible for many more deaths of his people than Hitler. True, he had more time. Mao is still around because there really isn't any well-known (to Americans anyway) alternative leader of China.
I could also go on about how communism has appeared in every game despite never having worked anywhere it had been tried.
But most of this has already been discussed ad nauseum before in various Civ threads. I really do not want to visit them again.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Boris:

I think i understand you now it was just weird because we were in agreement that zulus and what not should be in there but you were arguing with me over what i guess is a side issue.

though I'm not too sure central mexico is that bad of a place for a civilization... same with much of Africa. West Africa had (before european incroachment) fertile soil, abundance of animals, plenty of resources, good means of travelling between different groups to trade and share ideas, etc. hence the Songhai, Mali, Benin, Ashanti, Dahomey, etc. civilizations.

While on the surface the Sub-Saharan regions may not seem so bad, they actually were not ideal places for civilization to flourish. This has to do with several factors. First, while there were resources, the resource packages were somewhat limited. They had fewer domesticable crops and animals than in, say, the Middle East. They also were geographically isolated from other regions. Getting to Mali or Songhai required crossing extremely inhospitable terrain. One of the keys of flourishing civilization is the rapid spread of ideas via contach with other regions. Due to geography, it was far easier to spread methods and ideas between Europe, the MidEast and Asia than it was between those regions in Africa. The climate in the African regions did not allow for an easy acclimation of foreign crop packages, either.

The abundance of space and lack of population pressure also hindered civilization in these regions, as there was no impetus for building strong urban centers. While Mali and others did build civilizations, they did not develop until centuries after civilization had flourished elsewhere. By the time Mali came around, they were already centuries behind. One of the chief reasons the MidEast and Europe were so suitable to civilization was that there wasn't much room to expand, so competition for land/resources triggered the need for more organized means of living.

Similiarily, central mexico aint that bad either as can be attested by the sophistication of the Mayans and Aztecs... Tenochtitlan rivalled any european city in its size and architectural wonders.

Tenochtitlan was huge, but primitive by European standards. Size doesn't equate to technology, and the Aztecs were close to 1,000 years behind Europeans when Cortes arrived. Mexico actually is not a very good place for a flourishing civilization. In addition to very limited crop and livestock variety, the North/South axis of the continents made Mexico a choke point that stifled the exchange of ideas/methods between North and South America. The jungles of central America presented an almost insurmountable hindrance to transfering crops and animals. Also, Mexico is isolated, being bounded on the north by desert and on the south by jungle. North America presented the same problem to civilization as the expanses of southern Africa - plentiful land and food meant no need for highly organized urban culture.

Civ fails to mimic reality in this regard. People are resistant to change they deemed as uneccessary, and there's no reason that ancient hunter-gatherers living an easy life in a relatively idyllic setting were going to up and go live in crowded, dirty cities without a good reason to do so.

[GePap]

One huge thing is being ignored here people. Aztec civ begun in the 1200 AD! Zulu civ in the 1700's. The Babylonians were gone for centuries before the French, English, or Germans became recognizibly different groups. We are talking about a game in which all players start at the same time, something utterly incorrect, historically speaking.

Groups in the Americas had yet to discover useful metalurgy (bronze, copper, iron) by the time they came into contact with the much more developed civs of Eurasia, without even going into the whole bit about disease gradiants. On Africa though, there were successful urban civs beyond the zulu, as other have pointed out.

I could also go on about how communism has appeared in every game despite never having worked anywhere it had been tried.

And yet you think Facism worked!


What is it about facism, the 20 year lifespan, or the modenist outfits that give you that impression?

[Az]

Civ fails to mimic reality in this regard. People are resistant to change they deemed as uneccessary, and there's no reason that ancient hunter-gatherers living an easy life in a relatively idyllic setting were going to up and go live in crowded, dirty cities without a good reason to do so.

There is a good reason, that there were getting too many of them, but this, as been said before, disregards the desease factor, etc.

[GePap]

Actually Boris, pre-contact NA had more urbane cultures than post-contact NA. After all, grouyps like the Souix began as farmers, then switched to nomadic hunters since the horse made that economically viable.

As for Africa, those limitations you state were the reason advanced civ did not BEGIN there, but domesticated Animal species could be imported from the ME, and where.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, not really. Much of what made civs great had as much to do with geographic luck as it did anything else. You could replay history thousands of times over, and the Aztecs ain't ever going to conquer the world, nor are the Zulus.

Ironic, then that the best starting positions when playing a world map are America and Africa (in that order)

[Al B. Sure!]

that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

although with the issue of contatc between west africa and the rest of the world. though the Sahara was a major problem preventing much contact (though there still was plenty of caravans going through there even in ancient times), Phoenician and Carthaginian merchant ships were known for trading in west africa so the atlantic did allow trading and sharing of ideas but at that time, west africa was neolithic at best.

as for the Aztecs being 1000 years behind Europe, i dont think thats true... actually the Aztecs didn't invent much new but only adopted the Olmec and Mayan civilizations that were from 700 or so to 1100. anyway, you're thinking in terms of tech trees if you will being the same. the ancient Mexicans could have emphasized different things than European civilization did... for example, the Mexicans only put wheels on toys... as they had no horses or oxen or anything, they had little need for the wheel and cart so that whole area of chariots, wagons, etc. was never developed. Do you know what i mean? I cant think of a good example in the case of Mexicans but i know that the differences between a regular flooding of the nile and the irregular flooding of the Euphrates and Tigris (as well as the need for irrigation) caused differences in the early sciences of the two regions... egyptians became more astrologically oriented to be able to time the floods while the Sumerians/Babylonians required more mathematical sciences to be able to organize irrigation systems and also to become merchants and count money and all that.

so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.


thanks

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by VetLegion
In all fairness, I think there should also have been a Women civ. It would fit right in

Whose units get a special attack bonus four days a month?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Yep, I ve heard that theory, that life in early Europe was j hard enough to challenge people to develop but not so hard that they failed.

[Al B. Sure!]

GePap:

Fascism has worked... every communist would tell you that true communism never existed what with the Soviet Union and Red China not actually being 'communist'. Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, etc. are all agreed to be fascistic from a politically standpoint... so fascism did exist and lasted for many decades in the cases of Franco and Salvatore.

Also there is recent evidence that seems to show that european diseases completely destroyed American Indian civilizations. The inhabitants of the Mississippi for example during the time of european colonization were hunter-gatherers and rural farmers but there are remains of huge mounds and large towns dating back to pre-Columbus times. There was a recent Atlantic Monthly issue (what you learn sitting in the doctor's office ) that went in depth talking about that the population of the Americas in 1550 was only about a quarter (i think thats the percentage) of the population in 1492 and the sudden huge loss of population turned growing civilizations in the americas into primitive farmers at best.