what do we mean by a civ in a 6000 yr game?

I will not start with an easy example, like the Americans. We'll get to them later.

Take the French - who are they and where are they in 4000 BC?
We all know who they are from 1000 AD forward - but who are they before that - the Franks, no? which means that before around 500 AD they are Germans. Just a breakaway group of Germans.
Or are they the Roman inhabitants of Gaul? Thus a breakaway group of Romans. Or more precisely a group of Romans who are conquered by Germans, but culturally subvert their conquerors.
Or are they the ancient, pre-Roman Gauls, and therefore Celts? Breakaway Celts?

Are the Englsih a distinct civ, or just brekaway Germans? In 200 AD the ancestors of most English (assuming all british celts fled to wales or brittany - a simplification) were living in a tiny area of Northwest Germany. Indeed Americans are just a breakaway of that tiny area in northwest Germany. So americans are really just a breakway from German civ.

Which raises the even more difficult questions when we go back before 1000 BC. All these civs Romans, celts, germans and greeks in 4000 BC are just tiny, obscure group of Indo-Europeans, living possibly in Ukraine or Balkans.

Related issues are raised by Babylonians/Akkadians/Sumerians, Indians/sanskrit speakers/Indus valley civ, and in different forms by the new world civs.

Really there is only one 6000 year civ that deserves to be in this game, with unique charecteristics that last more or less for 6000 years.

CHINA.

Even if most civs didnt excist back in 4000 BC - who cares? The main game isnt aimed to be an "100% accurate historical simulator" - you have to create historical tailor-cut scenarios for that. And even then you have to accept many compromises and shortcomings.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-20-2001 05:53 AM Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 20, 2001).]

Couldn't agree more Ralf!! I understand what the other posters in this thread have said, but if you want to start of with just one civ and have civs breakaway from it...well, it's not really "Civilization" (the game) as we've come to know it, is it?

Civ is the way it is, and it works that way. It'd be a pretty boring game if you had to wait around for certain civs to spring up at different points in history. And, if we were to play from 4000BC, then everyone would have to start as China...it's just not the "civ" experience.

Of course us american's havn't even been around 300 years. heh heh.

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo on 05-20-2001 02:33 PM The chineese have been completly conquered several times, I don't think that they can qualify for the 6000 year award either.

That's twice, the Mongols and the Manchus. Both times they left the culture untouched. The Manchus themselves went a step further and literally became part of Chinese.

It doesn't matter though, Civ doesn't pretend to begin being historically accurate

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-21-2001 09:27 AM Okay, CivilizationIII is a game, not SimAnthropology. It's fun, not an evolutionary humanity simulation. So what if none of the civs in the game existed for longer then 3,000 years of prominence, not even half of the game's length. The fact that Civ allows me to watch Ghandi declare war on me and start heaving nukes at my cities, for me, this is worth most of the game price alone.

You guys are missing my point. This is not to indicate that civ3 wont be a good game. On the civ vs history simulator issue i have other thread i intend to start.

I was intending to give another perspective ont he unque civs question. And yet again to strengthen the case for generic civs, not just on gameplay grounds but on historic grounds. And yet at the same time to acknowledge the one case, in which i beleive the unique civ ground has a strong case to make - China. While you may dispute China, I think it is clear that China is by far the strongest case that can be made HISTORICALLY for unique civs. As opposed to Americans, Germans, etc.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-21-2001 10:02 AMAnd yet at the same time to acknowledge the one case, in which i beleive the unique civ ground has a strong case to make - China. While you may dispute China, I think it is clear that China is by far the strongest case that can be made HISTORICALLY for unique civs. As opposed to Americans, Germans, etc. LOTM

S.Kroeze, a Netherlander poster here at Apolyton, is an history fan who pointed out some interesting posts months ago, about the very same arguments. I bet you'll appreciate them, if you run a forum search with its name as search parameter.