quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-09-2001 06:03 PM Then ever there is a problem with agreeing on a issue like which Civs should be included or not, one can always go back and check out what we already had in Civilization II. We had no less then 21 Civs to choose from. OK then, which 5 civs should be taken out from below list?? Perhaps this approach is somewhat easier then agreeing what Civs should be included. Or perhaps not?

Still a very difficult decision.

I'd take out the Celts, Siox, Japanese, Vikings, and Carthagians

I'd switch Aztecs to Incas.

And while I'm not sure what other culture I'd swtich, I really believe that the Turks/Arabs/Ottomans/etc. should be included in the game. During the Dark Ages they were all the rage in the world.

Perhaps cultural values of these civs will be reflected more now.. with the Greeks/Egyptians etc able to win by having a great culture

I think there should be a good range of city names too..
oh and also Essex, well we seem to be a separate country in this county

The KISS Army!!!!!

quote: Originally posted by King Richard on 04-30-2001 10:53 PM The following criteria should deside which civilizations that'll be picked:

Very well argumented (sorry for snipping it in reply). It's a good way to go, the only limits is fixed by Firaxis about a grand total of 16 Civ available.

Following the old news from Firaxis about wide available customization, I hope others can be added to the list of available civs (and I still hope for some later "Firaxis official" downloadable for free from web sites).

quote: Originally posted by Dhalsim on 05-09-2001 04:03 PM Epicurians, Hedonists, Agnostics and Oblomov's.

Why do you want to have philosophical streams representing barbarians?

BTW: I am an agnostic atheist and I am not a barbarian!

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-28-2001 10:57 PM What exactly is the problem here? Asssuming that Firaxis lets you choose your own Civ name and Leader as all previous Civ games, how does it matter at all that they decide to put in some civs and take away others? What is keeping you guys from just making your own custom civ?

The unique units (and any other unique civ advantages) the civ that gets panzers (or whatever else you choose to call the bonus armour unit) is the Germans, whatever you do with the leader name or city list. The more elaborate the unique civ attributes the more strongly this is true.

Which leads to dismal debates about which civs deserve to be in the game, like this one. This could easily have been predicted - didnt anyone here look at the AOK boards before AOK:TC came out?

Best solution - go back to generic civs!!!!!!

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-10-2001 06:55 AM If 16 is a soft limit and modders can make every nation they ever thought of available to plug in then we don't have a problem. Having one new race available per week/month to download from the official website would be a nice touch. The just need to make sure they set the pick window to be scrollable, capable of holding a huge list and no-brainer stuff like that. Making new races available but having the computer unable to select any but the first 16 to use as opponents to you would be another classic mistake

a new civ each week to dl. With unique attributes. and they are going to playtest a civ per week for balance? Nah, if you get new civs it will be after a year, in an xpack, and you will pay between $20 and $40 US for it. See the history of AOK

quote: JAPANESE(seem quite similar to the Chinese apart from modern politics)

Sir, I must protest! The Japanese are extremely different from the Chinese. It is a western misconception that they are somehow similar. They have fufilled different roles in history, have taken different paths in civilization and have always had a different culture. It is vitally important that the Chinese at least be in (one of the 4 major river valley civs), and the Japanese are also crucial!

Unique units:
1. the yiddishe mama - armed with pot of matzah ball soup. Ignores city walls.

2. Uncle Jake - every city with a colisseum has odds each turn of generating uncle Jake. He cost 1 gold per turn, until the bookies get him.

3. Cousin Max the Red - can be built in any city with a library , university and harbor. Acts like spy, but can only bribe cities, no other spy functions. Can be used against any other civ even commie one ("didnt i tell you I broke with the Stalinists years ago!!!")

When computer advance is discovered all Maxes are transformed into yuppies, who add to the science and trade output, but require high levels of luxuries.

If capital is conquered, civ splits into "jewish" and "israeli" civs

Jewish civ is EXACTLY the same as American civ, but cannot go fundie.

Israeli civ has good military tech research capabilities, is exempt from happiness penalties when at war as a demo, but has low trade output until the development of the internet advance, when it becomes possible to build "silicon wadi"

Each turn some workers from jewish civ migrate to Israeli civ. They require very high luxuries, or they become very unhappy.

In turn some israeli workers migrate to jewish civ. They are happy with low luxury level, but they reduce jewish civ attitude toward israeli civ.

Occasionally some "yiddish" cities survive the split. However they no longer produce jakes or maxes, and mamas lose offensive capabilities, are only good for enforceing martial law. When in demo the leader is called "the lubavitcher rebbe" When in fundie the leader is called "the szatmar rebbe" and automatically declares war on Israeli civ.

LOTM

Quality post.

I still reckon the barbarians could be diversified.
Perhaps Vandals, Mongols, Thugs, Hun. From the 20th C on, Anarchists.
All with different abilities.ie, Anarchists cause extra pollution due to their fondness of dogs and 'punk rock' and aversion to soap.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-10-2001 07:23 PM a new civ each week to dl. With unique attributes. and they are going to playtest a civ per week for balance? Nah, if you get new civs it will be after a year, in an xpack, and you will pay between $20 and $40 US for it. See the history of AOK LOTM

Every week is unrealistic, to said the best, but looking to others succesful game experience, after a couple of months (and may be the first patch ) you'll need to keep the hype to the game every months and so.
"It's marketing, baby".

You can spend money advertising or using Internet leverage (forums, newsgroups, etc.) giving away some more food for them.
Balancing the civ can be a minor issue: first of all we don't know for sure about the relevance of unique attribute (if any) will be added to standard 16 civ, then consider that Firaxis could simply look at fan mods, chose the more interesting available (and mod author anf early players have surely tuned it a bit already) then take a professional graphic to draw and skin leader, units, cities, what's in game and need professional touch.

The xPack is more likely for Firaxis (looking back to SMACX) but I hope they change this habit. AOK is from Microsoft, it's their embedded nature to pack and sell "enhancements": see Win98, Win98se, WinMe ...

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-10-2001 08:42 PM Yiddish civ LOTM

ROFLMAO!!!

This is really good. I hope they take you up on that.

I think that it's a necessity that a jewish / israeli / hebrew / israelite civ appears as we effected lots of things! We gave you monotheism, we gave you enstein, we gave you circumcision!

For god sakes people, we rule the world.

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 05-11-2001 01:20 PM ROFLMAO!!! we gave you circumcision!

you can take it back !

Let the player change the name of his civ during the game too. I always felt strange playing the Americans in 2000BC, or the Romans in 2020AD.

Great Renaissance/Industrial Civs:
England
France
Spain
Mongols
Byzantines (Constantinople was the light of the Western World during the Dark Ages)

Great Modern Civs:
Americans
Russians
Japanese
Germans

Now just try and tell me that the bleeding Celts, or Apaches, or Vikings should be on here, and I'll tell you a little something. None of them affected the course of human history on so grand a scale as any of the civs I listed. The Apaches were just another name on a long list of victims of disease and greed. The Viking raids didn't last that long, didn't afflict many people, and they eventually settled down and were assimilated into the British culture. And the Celts had their butts whooped on their own turf just like so many other cultures around the world. One could make a better argument for the Gauls or Huns as being significant in history (their impact in the early Dark Ages on the rise to power of the Roman Catholic Church was immense), but they still lacked the longevity and magnitude of the other civs on my list. I'll put them on my list of the top five alternate civs:
Huns
Gauls
Carthaginians (I was tempted to put the Phoenicians instead, but they were really just Mediterranean middle men, and made money doing so)
Ottomans (major players before WWI)
Muslims (not really a civ, but Mohammed's Jihad was very crucial to history)

And what is this about Greek pyramids? If you're talking about building square tetrahedrons out of stone, I'm sure Greeks weren't the first. It's so common a symbol across all cultures that I'm sure its origin predates the Greek or even Mycenean cultures - but I may be wrong about that.

And Greeks weren't the first to appreciate thinking: Indians had developed greater mathematics and architecture that even the Greeks never discovered, and provided much of the basis for science and philosophy in Persia and Greece. It's just that the Greeks killed the Persians, and the Indians suffered from isolation, so couldn't directly impact the Western world. So from the modern Westerner's point of view, Greek science and culture is incorrectly seen as the first to appreciate the power of thought.

For that matter, the Turks or Ottomans have to be in. Huge, powerful, with contributions to science, philosophy, and cultural stuff.

And kick out the Mongols. Gengis led nomadic warriors (lacking recognizable cities). And Khubli tried so hard to be chinese, he might as well be considered a dynasty for game purposes.

Kick out the Sioux/Apache/etc. Again, no cities. For some strange reason, the native americans prone to building cities resided in the southwest (Anasazi/Pueblo). But the Aztecs pretty well cover this end of the continent.

Mali makes more sense than the Zulus. (this was the BIG medieval African power). Mansa Musa built a huge empire and destabilized the world gold market (which earned the greedy attention of those to the north of the Sahara . . . )

The Carthaginians were big, but other than being conquered by the Romans, I'm not sure there's much else to say.

Vikings? Lose them - see mongols above.

My revised list:

Must be in: Romans, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indian, Incan, Aztec, British, French, Mali, Turks, Spaniards, Egyptian

Runner Ups (3 go in): Germans, Brazil, Cathaginians, Persians, Portugese, Japanese, Babylonian/Sumerian/Assyrian, Canadians (wild card), Argentina (wild card)

Should be out: Mongols, Zulus, Native Americans w/o cities, Vikings

SO

GREEKS ARE IN
AMERICANS ARE IN
GERMANS ARE IN
CHINESE ARE IN
ROMANS ARE IN
FRENCH ARE IN
RUSSIANS ARE IN
ZULUS ARE IN

quote: Originally posted by Pedrun on 05-13-2001 10:35 AM Paiktis22, Call the american British and change the Zulu. You just chose the civs for a European scenario.

Pedrum I don't understand what you said.

BTW, the civs I posted are the ones that are definitely in CIV 3 according the snapshots and Firaxis statements.

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-13-2001 02:30 PM Pedrum I don't understand what you said. BTW, the civs I posted are the ones that are definitely in CIV 3 according the snapshots and Firaxis statements. Do we know for sure about any others?

Pretty sure England is in. Screen shot of Elizabeth next to Lincoln and Mao in the gallery section on the Firaxis website.

So we have: