Hello everyone,

I was something of a fan of Civ 1 and 2, and have just started playing Civ 3 (I lost interest in computer games for a few years there so I am a bit behind)
but I don't like civ 3 as much as the other two games even though the Graphics are impressive (I particularly like the look of the Celtic, Viking and Arab leaders). I am curious as to whether I am the only one who was a bit let down by Civilization 3 despite the games strengths.

However my purpose in writing this concerns what I would like to see in Civilization 4 that was not present in the previous games- African civilizations. I don't know if anyone else has raised this point as this is my first post here but I feel that one of the down sides of the first two games was that when you played on Earth Africa was virtually empty apart from the Egyptians and the Zulus (oh, and the Carthaginians in civ 2). This meant that the Zulus frequently became very powerful when they were present on an Earth game because they had so much room to expand and because they were in contact with many other civilizations. This does not seem to be a problem in civ III but only because when you play on Earth it just puts you in a random location so you can't have very realistic games. (I hope this changes in civ 4).
The point is that there should be more civilizations in Africa simply because there were heaps of civilizations in Africa in reality. What about the Ethiopians; or the Kingdom of Benin (which traded with the Portugese in the 15th and 16th centuries?). I remember once back in the days of civilization 1 I looked through one of those old time-life books on the African Kingdoms and was impressed by the wide variety of Kindoms in Africa. In more recent times I read a book about African warfare and learnt that (among other things) in the 17th century there was a poweful Queen called Nijimba who ruled over the Kongo region of Africa but who few people today have heard of.
So I'd like to see in Civ 4 more African civilizations. I also hope they allow you to play on the real earth locations of the civilizations, as in civ 1 and 2.
One other thing- horses didn't survive for long in most of Africa which is why human labour was used to cart goods around much of Africa in the middle ages. Maybe Civ 4 should reflect this.

Thanks for reading my views; gealai

I've always felt that the Zulu were misfits in Civ3. They're in the "Mideast" culture group, which only make sense if you take into account Islam's affect on Africa. I don't know how south Islam got, though. Sure, I'd like to see other African civs, but not at the cost of other more worthy civs. There's only 19 slots at the moment.

Sorry Smellincoffee, I didn't realise there would only be 19 slots in the new civilizations.
I tend to agree with you with that in mind. However, I think the Ethiopians were important enough to be included in a new civ game.

Sorry, I should have said 'Civilization' rather than 'civilizations' in the above post.

Perhaps, after all the expansion packs are done, we can hope for Ghana or Mali in W Africa, Ethiopia in E Africa, and someone from S Africa - the Zulu, Zimbabwe (which are different), or Kongo. As for vanilla Civ4, there will be one at most. I agree with your thoughts Gealai. :)

Zanzibar, Timbuctu. But they are more arabian in a way.
In CivIII there are Egyptians and Zulu. America has got 3 civs.

It's true that the line between Africa and the Near East are blurred by Islam.

Still, Zulu should actually be further down the list. The top African Civilizations would be:

1) Egypt
2) Mali (Timbuktu was one of their most prosperous cities, in the "middle" ages)
3) Ethiopia/Abyssinia (One of few countries in the world to resist colonization)
4) Carthage
5) ... Zulu?

I would try to include at least 3. 3 African, 3 Near East, 3 Asian, 3 European, 3 American... and 4 other (probably European).

Everyone keeps calling Carthage an African civ! It should be placed as a Mediterranian civ. Just cause it's in the south Mediterranian doesn't mean it is more similar to Zululand than Rome.

indeed; egypt belongs in the middle eastern group, and carthage in the Med. Sea group.

Everyone keeps calling Carthage an African civ! It should be placed as a Mediterranian civ. Just cause it's in the south Mediterranian doesn't mean it is more similar to Zululand than Rome.

thats like saying america is a european civ not a american civ.

But i do like the idea of another african civ proberly eithopia , and a polynesian civ lead by Hone Heke

thats like saying america is a european civ not a american civ.


your exactley right; location counts for nothign rather then actual culture, and the ethnic make up; both cases the Americans [U.S] being counted as a european civ, and Egypt beign middle eastern, and Carthage being a med sea civ are completelly accurate; for, mainlyl due to the huge barrir that is the Sahara desert, the cultureal and ethnic make up of both civlizatiosn cannot be counted "African"

Yeah, unfortunately Civ hardwires culture group based on continental basis. America is appearantly culturally linked to the Iroquois and Sioux.

So, using that as our definition, Carthage and Egypt are both African. (Even then, I'd go so far as to say that they're still both African. But that's a moot point.)

personally, I'd like it if real african civs were put in and not the mentality of "hey, since thier are no african civs good enough to be in the game, lets give traidtional african civlization these handouts"

The Mali/Song-Hai/Ghana culture (lets be honest. they all were the same culture, just different poltical incarnations of it), Kush-ite Nubians, and Ethiopians all had more then just soem bar bare levals of sophistication- they were real cultural, economic, and poltical powers, and are more then good to stand against most other civlizations achievments; besides that, ti wouldnt be accuarte to depict either Egypt, or Carthage as "African"; thier populations were almost exclusivlly berber, whom are a branch of the eastern med sea Haplogroup J2, specificlly, the Y-chromasome brance M172

(for those without a clue of what I'm talking about, its ethnic composition as based on genetic fact, and not peoples assumptions, or baseless interpritations)

It shoudl be noted that M172 is a dominant in the middle east, and eastern europe; western europe has it in varying degress, such as souther italy where in soem communites it tops 20%, and in souther spain where it can reach 10%, though primarilly, western europe is of Y-Chromasome M343 composition)

The genetic stuff only goes so far. First off, the population of a country can change substantially over time -- genetically speaking. Take a look at Trinidad, or Brazil. Secondly, America is not an American civilization because of its genetics but because of its geographical location. That's just the way Civ has worked in the past. Thirdly, while you can verify that one gene is present in one population, and not present in another, I'm not about to go so far as to call one gene "the middle east gene", and another gene the "europe gene".

Be that as it may, Mali and Abyssinia are grossly underrated by people and easily make it into the top 19 most important civilizations of all time.

The genetic stuff only goes so far. First off, the population of a country can change substantially over time -- genetically speaking. Take a look at Trinidad, or Brazil. Secondly, America is not an American civilization because of its genetics but because of its geographical location. That's just the way Civ has worked in the past. Thirdly, while you can verify that one gene is present in one population, and not present in another, I'm not about to go so far as to call one gene "the middle east gene", and another gene the "europe gene".

Be that as it may, Mali and Abyssinia are grossly underrated by people and easily make it into the top 19 most important civilizations of all time.

thier is no one gene for any region of the world; only racists will hold that opinion; thier is however, such a thing as genetic dominace of a particuler genetic-marker in a region; however, one must remember; all it is, is a marker; a little sub-evolution quirk that happens to show where a particuler branch of human migrants split of from a larger whole.

that said, regions of the old world arnt subject to examples based in the new world; completelyl different sets of circumstanes, and events shaped both so wildlly differentlly, that no such comparison can be made; essentially speaking,t he genetic makeup- after the indo-european entrnece into europe is the same one we have today; not even the legendarilly large slavic-incursion smade a significant genetic dent (they did make qwuite a cultural splash however)

All the same, I wouldn't say that genetics are a necessary OR sufficient condition to differentiate one group from another. Not to say that Civ's way -- "what continent are they from" -- is better... but for now, I'm just going to assume that they're doing it the same way.

The problem is, that most of African civilisations remained on bronze age level. Except maybe Ethiopians, who were influential in the ancient times, African civilisations stagnated until the Europeans destroyed them.

They should be some in Civ4, but I'd like better some minor civilisations with limited cult/tech/mil expansion.

Many hit the iron age. It's the industrial age where Europe took them, if not making good use of gunpowder. Still, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) resisted colonization and industrialized, let alone democratized. ... not to say they're big players in the information economy today.

Africa was nowhere near as backward as so many people make it out to be. What too many people do is take the primitive tribe of the coasts and jungles, and assume that "this is what Africa was" ; this amounts to the same as, say, looking at the Ainu and saying "this is Japanese Civilization", or taking some obscure tribal village high in the alps and saying "this is europe in 300 BC" - and proceeding to completely ignore Rome, Greece, Macedonia, Carthage...

It ignores the great Sahelian and Sudanesse kingdoms ; it ignores Great Zimbabwe ; it ignores Ethiopia, so forth.

Setting a few facts straight :
-Africa - the great african cultures (Bantu, Sahel/Sudan, etc) - hits the Iron Age on her own (unlike, say, the Americas).
-This happened from about 500BC to about 100 AD. IE, long before European conquest.
-Your "bronze age" comparison is even more ironic given that Africa *skipped the bronze age entirely* and went straight from stone to iron - on their own.

Some more specific information on two areas :

SAHEL
-The Sahelian region, directly south of the Sahara in western AFrica, has seen cities et al since the BCs (old Jenné, reportedly occupied since 250 BC http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=116).
-From 800-900 AD straight through 1600, the Sahel saw three major empires : Ghana, Mali and Songhay sucede each other.
-The later two empires controled a major islamic learning center of the middle ages, Timbuktu.
-All three essentialy controled the Saharan trade, a major source of gold for Europe.
-At their height, these empires stretched from the Atlantic south of the Sahara (around present-day Dakar) to present day south-western Niger.
etc.

The Swahili
-The eastern coast of Africa has always been a trading hub. It has been called Swahili, Zanz, and Azania.
-As far back as the first century CE, Rhapta (identified today as being as far south as Kenya or Tanzania) was a trade city known to the Mediteranean world ; it is suspected that it was trade with Rhapta that brought about the Justinian plague that ended the Roman empire and truly began the byzantine one ; you can see Kafka2's most excellent post about this 535 AD catastrophe theory in the history forum).
-There is evidence of Roman trade as far south as Mafia Island and the Rufiji river (in Tanzania). This trade might have also gone just as far the other way ; reports by ancient authors mentions that Rhapta dealt in goods that are thought to have been, at the time, existent only in south-east Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, etc)

I don't remember exactly, whether it was in Timbuktu or any other sub-Atlas city, that some people think, first university was established. That influenced Cordoba and Southern Italy in 10. and 11. century, thus leading to universities at Bologna, Salamanca, Paris,...

Also, Europeans did not conquer Africa during the Atlantic Slave Trade. They sold weapons to Africans who could provide slaves in exchange. Africans screwed themselves up through the colonization days, where many worked with colonizers to oppress natives.

The Ethiopians/Abyssinians I think are without question an important civilization (as I said earlier). They defeated the Italians in 1896 just as the Zulus defeated the British in 1879 and were not conquered until the 1930's by Mussolini. Although the Zulus are famous, I don't think they were one of the great Civilizations of Africa. I don't know why they were included in the first three civilizations given that there were so many better African civilizations that could have been included (as have been noted in the above posts.) Having said that though, it would be odd if they got rid of the Zulus in game 4 after they had been present in the first three games.
Thanks for all the responses by the way, they were interesting.

Personally I would love to see Ghana and the Kongo in Civ, worthy in my opinion, as well as the previously mentioned Nubians.

Along those lines I think that SE Asia needs a representitive, preferably a native one like the Polynesians; they are probably on the near bottom of the list for "Includable Civs" as far as accomplisments go but they should definatley be added in an Exp.

Unfortunatley I think the Zulu will stay for the original game, Ghana, Nubia, etc.. will have to wait for an XPack....

Finally! People thinking outside the box... Like I said before in another thread, I'd really like to see Ghana/Mali/Songhai. I'd be content with the Ashanti and Oyo. The Kingdom of Kongo is nice too.

IMHO The Zulu are another tribal group like the Suthu or Xhosa. But if they have to be in, then why not add other tribal groups as well?

I certainly hope the Zulu are out of Civ IV. There will probably be only one Subsaharan African civ. Let it be one with a long and interesting history and cultural and economic achievements, rather than a tribe that is best known for a failed revolt.

To gealai, dunno if anyone addressed what you said about random placement on Earth maps in your post or not, this is only a problem with vanilla civ. If someone could elaborate on this, I'm sure he would appreciate it, because I do not know if vanilla patches will fix it or if you need PTW or C3C.

They should definatley include Mali or songhai and Ethopia and get rid of the Zulus.They have done very little to affect world afairs in there history if anything while.The malians wre one of the richest nations on earth as were the Songhai duringg there perio dof history.The Ethopians have a great culture with some of the greatst chuches on earth aswell as conquering much of the Arabian penisula.

Mali was very rich and important. When the king of Mali converted to Islam, he lavishly distrubuted so much gold on his 2,000 mile pilgramage to Mecca that he caused a worldwide decrease in the value of gold. The Songhai had a thriving system of universities and an elite group of knights, and the Ethiopians were one of the oldest and most advanced Christain cultures on Earth. Africa needs to be better represented. The solution: more civs (it wouldn't be fair to give preference over some of the great European or Asian civs) than 19, although I suppose they want us to shell out more money for expansion packs.

@NankingDan- the Mali were already muslims by the time thier first king, and a ledgendary folk hero in the area, Sundiata, created the Mali Empire; it was a descendent of his, possibly his son, though I unfortunatelly forget that exact detail whom pilgramidged to Mecca, spending so much gold, it decresed th emetals value for the next 20 years.

(ironically, he spent SO MUCH gold, that he didnt have enough left for the return trip, and had to make a loan from an Arab merchant )

I thought that most of the people were still pagans in the empire after the knig coverted well thats what we learned at school but thats genarly wrong what you learn at school.

as with most things, it all depends on the specific area; in the case of west africa as an entirety, most were still practicing tribal religions; in the area of (ancient, not modern) Ghana, and the Mali core areas, it was mostlly Muslim by that time, though local rulers (generally) let locals practice what ever religion they wished, or so I've read- I havent done any particuler study in that area, so i cant say for sure.

I see.Well Mali and Songhai and Ethiopia should definatley be in Zulu get them out there just a tribe.Plus there citys were mainly just battlegrounds or farming araes or villages at best how can they justify there place

Well, looks like we won at least one round.

Mali has been confirmed as making the cut for IV :-D.

it was a descendent of his, possibly his son, though I unfortunatelly forget that exact detail whom pilgramidged to Mecca, spending so much gold, it decresed th emetals value for the next 20 years.

Mansa Musa.

Just to add to the mix, Musa's brother Abubakari abdicated the throne to lead a massive expedition over the Atlantic, and many people think he discovered Brazil, 175 years before its "official" discovery by Europeans in 1500.

The Africans did screw themselves through slavery, they were enslaving each other before the Europeans showed up.

But, they have some neat ancient civilisations including:

1. Egyptians
2. Carthagians & Romano-Africans
3. Christian & Islamic Ethiopians
4. Bantu (Zulu, Kikuyu, Xhosa, Shona)
5. Nok (Iron-age civilisation in current day Nigeria)

And maybe others too. But hey, having them messed up is the least of my worries.

*Insert rant about Britons*

Finally! People thinking outside the box...


not really; its just that people found a bigger box ;)

to think "outside the box" would either include putting in relitivlly minor powers into the game, such as the etruscans perhaps; or, more vividlly, putting in the mysteriosu civlizations that never had a real chance to devlop; like th emythic people of Tartessos. (heh. I wonder how many people even knew of a thing called "Tartessos" before this very postl they are intrugiing because they seem to be the real basis for atlantis- an even better fit then the famed Minoans of crete)

It is true the Arabs also did it before the europeans but i think the Africans enslaved each other then thy sold them to the Arabs.

Who will be the leader of Mali in civIV? Mansa Musa probably (?). And what will his personality be? What will be the uu (vaguely confirmed in an interview) of Mali? the camel archer we can see in one of the new screen shots?

guessing mitsho