hell, you could even have it so the game would pick civs from certain eras if you wanted to go the whole hog. only ancient, or only modern, or only whatever's-in-between. or mix and match. tick the box and nominate who'd you'd like it to choose from. you could have the default being all of them (to be inclusive), but those who are more discerning can pick and choose what eras they like without losing the randomness that comes from letting the computer choose which civs you'll face in your game.

either that, or you could have it so that you can nominate all the civs that you'd be happy to play against (so you can disclude your pet hates or you can stick to an era), and then enter the number of those you'd like to face. that way you don't lose the randomness either. and if you want to face all of them, just enter the number of civs you've nominated...

Biddle: Haha. Of course, I know that it is "G'day". I used "Gee'Day" for other nationalities to show how it is pronounced.

To all Americans: Sure, USA is the greatest civilisation ever in human history(no doubt about that)and her impact on other nations are enormous so she deserves the attention. I used America as an example simply because she can represent all modern nations which are recently created(Anyone has better example?). If my statement sounded disrespect to you guys,I apolosise. Haha, no hard feelings Okay?

The point I tried to make was that the starting point of the game is BC4000 and we have some modern nationalities available to play(Isn't it weird?). Anyway,I totally agree with Midnight Lament's idea to have an option to choose historic or customised(full set of nationalities)game at the beginning. That shouldn't be too dificult to do and satisfies everyone.

quote: To all Americans: Sure, USA is the greatest civilisation ever in human history(no doubt about that)and her impact on other nations are enormous so she deserves the attention.

Actually, I don't think it is the greatest civilization 'ever'. The Greeks and Romans were pretty impressive, and so were the Brits.. China's larger. I'm pretty sure another country's wealthier. Many other civs have lasted for longer. etc. Sure, none of them had Stealth Bombers, but I'm not sure that's the criterion on which greatness is judged.

Thanks Hanuman - that was my point: we need a Civ on the Australian land mass. However, I think you're being a bit harsh on the Australian aborigines: their civilization did last for over 40,000 years, which is pretty impressive by any standard. Anyway, the Zulus were included in Civ2: it's not like they've done a lot recently!

cheers...

It's a game, and everybody who pays their hard-earned money for it should have the right to enjoy it the way they choose. You want to play Australia? Knock yourself out. You want to play Pygmies? Go to it. You want to play Andorra, Bhutan, Flanders or the western two-thirds of Mombasa? Fine by me. Personally I enjoy customizing my Civ so that all city names come from the USA state of Minnesota, so bully for me. One thing the Civ code has always had going for it is cutomizability, and that should be carried on and expanded in the next iteration. I think the finest idea is to allow for truly customizable civs, with user-provided lists of cities, leader names and civ traits (if that's an option, a la SMAC, and I hope it will be) and let the player pick the civs he wants to play against without regard to a particular color. After all, why to the French always have to be blue, or the Egyptians yellow? I would think they could come up with a way to randomly assign colors each game, so that you wouldn't be locked into always having to have either the Indians, the Sioux or the Mongols, for example, or could have all three on the board at once if that's what suited your fancy.

All of the above is not to say that the player should HAVE to go to all that work before jumping into a game -- the old option of letting the computer pick your opponents, grabbing the Romans or the Chinese or the Easter Islanders and then kicking the world's a$$ should still be an option -- I just want all the other options, too.

I think instead of whining which civilizations should be in and which shouldn't, I think a useful thing to do is to come up with ideas suitable for both views.

This is my solution

1. Two Modes: Realistic Mode and Unrealistic (I can't think of a word, lol) Mode.

In Realistic Mode, you start off with all the tribes that started in the very beginning.
And under realistic mode, you could choose to have civilization name changes, where the saxons MAY one day have a conflict and become the British. Or you could have this turned off.

In Unrealistic mode, you can choose to be any civilization that exists today that is a 1st or 2nd world civilization. And you can also have the civ-name-change thingo on or off in that mode too. (or maybe not).

quote: Originally posted by Patriqvium on 01-26-2000 08:11 AM I personally think the Firaxis could make a "name evolution" system- the Teutons "evolve" into Germans, the Anglo-Saxons into the British etc. Some civilizations, like the Chinese, would not evolve at all.

Just to follow this up, alongside the Korean argument... it would be nice to have actual provinces or cities that are lost or otherwise in revolt for too long, to rebel entirely and form a separate identity of their own. This illustrates nicely how Korea (a longtime northeastern province of a Chinese state) could break free and achieve quite independent status later on.

Biggest problem I can see is that of distinguishment in terms of gameplay. Guess Civ3 needs some method other than "different color, different civ" method.

Also, I agree that CtPower's motley crew of civs was a bit "throw a bone to the contemporary nations". I was immensely irritated to find that American tribe's capital city was placed not where it should be (ie on a coastal relatively modest area) but in the middle of the lush grasslands and rivers of mid-USA, giving a huge early science boost.

Hopefully, the leaders' personalities will not remain static either. eg Mao ZeDong in Civ2: whilst historically accurate, means that the Chinese tribe tends to be quite small and refined, because Mao is a "Perfectionist" leader. In actuality, he was only seen to be like that because by the time he ascended to power, his country was a big sprawling empire-state already, so any expansion was unnecessary.

I really have to disagree with you about Korea.

Before the Lolang commandery which was controlled by Han dynasty,Korea had their own nation named Choson(Bc2333~108)

Choson was overwelmed by Han army BC108 then Han Chinese settled two provinces for her former territory(One is Lolang and the other I don't remember now).

Chinese source says even the founding of Choson was done by the exiled officer named Chitza and his retainers who were loyal to Shang dynasty and disloyal to Zhou.

Korean source says it was the merging of two dominant tribes in southern Manchuria which also go along with their national myth.

Whichever source you believe is up to you but there is critical difference between these two people(Han Chinese & Korean). Han Chinese's language is monosyllabic which can be effectively written by Chinese character whereas the Korean language is polysyllabic which can be traced to Ural-Altaic and further to even Turkic.

There are only three major race who speak polysyllabic language in East Asia.(Mongol,Korean and Japanese)So when you know how to speak in Japanses it is easier to learn Korean than learning Chinese then vice versa.(Not the writng! I'm talking about the language)

These polysyllabic languages can not be effectively written in Chinese character so Korean and Japanese developed their own supplementary writing system.(I-du for Korean and Kana for Japanses)Later, I-du was replaced by superior Han-guel(Korean character). Kana is still used by Japan Today.

I know some say both Koreans and Japanese are from China. But this critical lingual difference suggest they(Mongol,Korean and Japanese)came thourough the steppe not the China mainland. Of course there was some immigrant group from China but they were so small in size thus effectively localised rather than converting the locals in their way.

These lingual difference shouldn't be confused with Chinese influence over these three nations(Mongolia,Korea and Japan)especially by adopting Chinese character for their writing system.

If we accept Chitza theory(still debated among historians),then why Koreans do not speak monosyllbic Chinese language like Tartar or Manchu? and have polysyllabic langauge which can traced to even Turkey?

Ancient Civs -

Mayas, Aboriginies, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Incas, Sioux, Vikings, Navajo, Persians, Indos, Zulu, Carthaginians, Aztecs, and some form of Central African tribe.

Modern Civs -

British (English), Americans, Russians, Italians, French, Spanish, German, Australian, Brazilians, Canadians, Chinese, Japanese, North Africans (give them a name), South Africans (give them a name), Scandanavian, and Indians

Religious Civs (just an idea)-

Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist (sp), Jewish, Eastern Polytheism (Africa), Western Polytheism (North and South American Indians), and any others (I hope I didn't offend anyone by leaving out their religion)

Territorial Civs? -

N.America, S. America Europe, Great Britain, Middle East, East Asian, Indonesian, Australian, North Asian, (Russia), Central Asian, South Asian, Central and South Africa (North Africa is more Middle Eastern so I didn't include it)

Leaders change with time/government
New civs easily created
Civs available for download from firaxis

And Patriqvium, congratulations.. Your idea for evolving civ names is excellent..
Civ names could change just as leaders/governments do...

For example, the chinese could become Song, Ming, Qing etc..
The germans could start out as goths and pregress thru Teutons, Prussians into germans..
Etruscs into Romans into Byzantines into Venetians or Pisans or whatever (randomised) and finally into Italians...

Sometimes, a civ name could revert to an older one. For example, Russia could become the Soviet Union if communists come to power, and become Russia again if democrats seize power..

And for civs coming with the game, these guys should be in it for sure:-

Phoenicians (evolve into Carthaginians)
Polynesians
Hittites
Hebrews (evolve into Israelis?)
Siamese/Burmans/Vietnamese/Indonesians?
Goths (evolve into germans)

Can't think of anymore right now..

Another idea:- Certain 'colonies' could become independent civs..
For example, a British colony could become the Americans or Australians or Canadians (to keep you Aussies and Canadians happy), a Viking colony into Iceland, an Indian colony into Cambodia/Siam/Burma, a Phoenecian colony into Carthaginians etc. etc. etc.

The possibilities are endless.. Firaxis is gonna have a tough time..

To AustralianJeremey:
We DO NOT have big heads.
And were not racist - we hate everybody.