|
Author
|
|
Topic: Civilizations |  |
|
Lizard_King
Settler
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted April 19, 2001 23:47
   | 
 |
 |  |
All this talk of major/minor civilizations... I don't think it's quite proper. Instead, let there be a great number of civilizations (I will make a list later). All would start out in a tribal organization, and would always have a chance to settle down. As a tribal organization, the tribe's population could not grow quite so rapidly, and could make raids on cities. These tribes would be like units with population, a settler/raider unit. This unit could make a boat if near forest and ocean. (This I say because many peoples in history made folk movements by boat, ie the sea peoples of the mediterranean.) Of course, in order to stay succesful, all tribes would have to settle down (no technological progress could be had.) I like this idea of a tribal system because there are many nomadic tribes across the world today, and it does not respect their culture by having them be in cities.I have read of an idea of flags. I really like this idea, particularly if it let you design your own flag, and/or choose from historical flags related to that particular tribe/people. Enough of my incoherent ranting, here's that list!
(Non-alphabetical, because I'm a lazy bastard.) Australian aborigines
Polynesians
Melanesians
Koreans
Japanese
Chinese
Mongolians
Huns
Uighur
Tibetans
Turks (not of Turkey, but of Central Asia)
Thracians
Scythians
Illyrians
Babylonians
Sumerians
Indus Valley/Indian
Khmer
Ainu
Inuit
Arabs
Hebrews
Phoenicians/Carthaginians
Egyptians
Cu****es/Nubians
Numidian/Berber
Basque/Iberians
Celts
Romans
Greeks
Slavs
Finno-Uguric peoples
Norse
German
Taureg
Shona
Zulu
San/K'ung (aka Bushmen)
Mali
Ethiopians
Massai
Nok
Kongo
Tupia-Guarani/Amazonians
Quechua-Aymara/Incas
Mayans
Aztec
Anasazi
Pomo
Lakota (aka Sioux)
Iroquios
Seminole
Taino
Beothuk
Cree
Ottowa
[Can't think of any Pacific-Northwest tribes] Explanation for lack of Americans:
Having the Americans, descendents of English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Welsh, French and other Europeans who owned African and Native American slaves start with early technologies alongside such cultures as the Sumerians and Nok and China is, in my mind, not the best idea... Have fun yelling at me.  |
SerapisIV
Warlord
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted April 20, 2001 01:07
|
|
| |
The idea of Civilization is to have nations that have achieved a high level of achievement and putting them in a game. You put the CHinese, but under Mao? The US has been around longer then Chinese communism, or even communism itself. How about Napolean? He was only around in power after the American Revolution, even the Frankish tribes only existed after 1AD as a unique tribe from their celtic tribes that existed in what is currently northern France. Looking at your own list, the Norse/Babylonians/Sumerians/Greeks are seperated by a few thousand years between their own respective times of prominence, aside from the fact that the Native American tribes you mentioned all achieved their existence well after 1AD. Using time as a reason to exclude some society's that have achieved superpower status isn't a reason. I think the reason why Firaxis is dividing up between Major/Minor Civs is it allows them to include a lot of possibilities, but allows them to focus on a few well known and more common civs and give them high quality, ie the diplomacy screen, and a distinct leader personality.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 20, 2001).]
|
ZoboZeWarrior
Chieftain
from France
Mar 2001
|
 |
posted April 20, 2001 07:27
|
|
| |
Civilisations name in Civ were just for fun.French civilisation isn't really a civilisation (of course we still civilised people). As americann, english people. But there's an occidental
civilisation. There's a major difference beetwen a nation and a civilisation. People from a same civilisation do war with them self (Ancient greek were attacking other city, like we go to super market today...). Personnaly, it could be a good idea that a civ could attack is own unit ort city no ?
|
King Richard
Warlord
Oslo, Norway
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted April 20, 2001 08:39
|
|
| |
I don't like the list! A lot of these "Civilizations" are too small and insignificant to even be considered for the game. But if you want to play with them you can always make them yourself! On the other hand a lot of the greatest civilizations in history is lacking from your list! |
MrFun
Prince
United States, Iowa
Nov 2000
|
|
posted April 20, 2001 09:20
 |
|
| |
There were some Medieval African civilizations that were more advanced than European civilizations during this era.In fact, European civilizations would not have had the Renaissance as we know it if it were not for North Africans and Arabs who preserved much of the knowledge and heritage of ancient Greek culture and ancient Roman culture. |
Ilkuul
Warlord
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000
|
 |
posted April 20, 2001 19:22
|
|
| |
I can begin to see something interesting in your 'prehistoric tribe' list, if what you have in mind is that these early nomads would band together or conquer others over time to form larger 'people-groups', that would then become the nations of today. But this would only be meaningful for me in a game, if it were possible to change the name of my civ from time to time: So I might start out as Germans, merge with the Celts, then conquer the Norsemen, and at that point rename myself 'English'!But obviously the chance of 'creating' modern nations out of some or all of their historical component peoples would be very slim on a random Civ map. So in the long run I'd have to go along with those who object that modern nations do need to be included in civ from the beginning. In any case, for me one of the most charming things about the civ games, from Civ1 onwards, has been all the delightfully impossible events it throws up, like: "Good grief! The Zulus have conquered New York!!!" | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
