Two biggest problems with Civ right now

1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.

1. Yes, we know, I want to ramp up the # of civs.
('sides, theres 3 in civ3)

2. Esp isn't cheating. Its just a game with the RGN. Esp sometimes could be useful to steal that tech to propel to the SS or something.

Corruption is always a problem, i can do nothing about that

The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.

Click to expand...

Oh, please, let's be realistic here. For one thing, there is a lack of African civs because they have not been worldmakers. Look beyond your pretentiousness and take a look at the civs included. Why are they there? Because they've had the biggest impact on world history.

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.

Face it: Europe has made a large impact on the world, so a lot of the civs in the game are from there. America is also in the game because the producers from the game are American, which speaks for itself: America has been a world superpower for a while now. It would also alienate the largest pool of fans for the game if they weren't included. As for the Middle East and Asia, the civs in the game from those regions are in there because *drum roll* they've had a large impact on world history. I doubt I need to explain further.

The Zulu and Mali are good enough. I mean, come on now. Africa is a continent of mystique in that so little is known about it in comparison to other places in the world. Most people know little to nothing about tribes that populated the area throughout history. Do you really expect the game to have a considerable amount of civs from there? I think not.

I know the game won't be spwailing with African civs. But what has India the Dutch or portugal done on a global scale. Very little. Why is it that the moors invaded and controlled spain France and Italy for 800 years but the Arabs are in the game and are actually credited with these invasions. What has any Native American contribtubed on a global scale or how about Korea. All they have is Zulu, Mali and Egypt. The Ibo of Nigeria had contributed to the slave trade which was a major part of history and the devlopment of America and Europe. Italy only beat Ethipoia after help from the Germans. Regardless civilization should be measured by contributions and advances not so much military strength. I just find it ridculous that so many civs who are not civlizations like the dutch and portugese and the austrians as well as most of the Native American civs. I'm just saying why do they keep adding in civs from asia and native america who didn't contribute as much as 1-2 civs from Africa. I agree that there are alot of civs from Africa who don't deserve recogniztion but Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Moors have all contributed on a global scale more so than many of the civs who currently exist

I think you are in the wrong forum. This is about Civ IV, not civ III. The Dutch are not going to be in Civ IV vanilla. And you will have Mali, Egypt and Arabs in civ IV, three civs that were in Africa. (The arabs dominated most of northern Africa).

And we don't know much It will cost to perform a tech steal in civ IV or how much a ICBM cost.

Edit: And the Arabs only invaded Spain, not Italy or France.

Ethiopia would be a good one. I don't know much about the Ibo, but what little I know about African nations is that they weren't very urbanized. Since Civilization games are based on cities, non-urban nations would be a stretch to include. Also, they probably should not use the word "civilization" to describe "nations."

In democracies in reality there is plenty of corruption. It's just less in quantity and visibility compared to other forms of government.

And the Arabs only invaded Spain, not Italy or France.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Arabs did invade France. Don't you know what the battle of Poitiers in 732 was all about?

And it was the Arab tribe that started Islam's ambitious plan on world conquest, to unite the world under their banner. Don't even get me started on their invasion of Constantinople in the 800s.

The Egyptains are also considered a 'near Middle Eastern' civ, rather than an African civ.

You sound like a whinning pig stuck in the fence. This is a game not a life experience that you could write a novel about. Get real. Plus - You got access to the editor, create your own stats. Make the game you want and upload it in like so many others have already done.
If you do not know how then do what I did. Learn it. I am still learning. And when I get stuck I just email a couple of these guys and I always find someone who is always willing to help me out.
Make the African game.......

CTM said:

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.

Click to expand...

Your knowledge of Ethiopian history is rather bankrupt. Ethiopia has been under tremendous outside pressure since the decline of Axum circa 600AD. Ethiopia has been attacked from the Arabian penninsula, by jihadists from present day Sudan, by jihadists from Somalia, the Ottoman Empire was threatening to occupy northern Ethiopia, Egypt invaded Ethiopia twice at Gundat and Gura (1875 and 1876) and was soundly defeated both times, and Italy was defeated in 1896.

Yes, the Italians occupied part of Ethiopia in 1936 but they never conquered the entire country - and, of course, they were eventually driven out.

Ethiopia is a country which has stood the test of time, despite all obstacles the country has had to face (internal and external) they have always persevered, survived, and protected their culture and identity.

Okay, I made that up on the spot. Don't get all touchy about it. I'm sorry. Normally, I do research before I post about something I don't know about, and I didn't this time, mostly because the poster I was replying to was making a poor point.

Yes, the Italians occupied part of Ethiopia in 1936 but they never conquered the entire country - and, of course, they were eventually driven out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and it was the British that did it, as Ethiopia wouldn't have had a prayer on its own. Western power. Italy is a Western power; Ethiopia is not. The reason the West is so dominant today is because of its history regarding military operations (along with its cultural baggage that was usually entwined with it). The fact a power such as Italy could successfully occupy Ethiopia speaks for itself. The only reason they lost at Adawa in 1896 was because they were outnumbered and facing an army that possessed Western firearms.

Before European inscursion, Ethiopia did not have to worry about Western battle tactics and Western firearms. When they did, they only won because of European mistakes. Again, the fact that they were mere European embarrassments tells the real story.

Anyway, that's purely from a military point of view regarding Ethiopia. I don't really give a damn if they're in the game or not.

If the Mayans or Incans could be in, Ethiopia could be in.

It's not of question of COULD THEY, though. A lot of nations could be in, but aren't. The developers have to choose, and no matter what they choose it will upset somebody.

::shrug::

Lobby for Ethiopia for an expansion pack. That's how the Dutch and Portuguese got in to Civ3: in the expanions. Better Second Fiddle than Diddley Squat. Right?

For all that has been said, maybe they are already planning to add Ethiopia in an expansion. Or if not, maybe there is still a chance to persuade them it would be a good idea.


- Sirian

Sirian said:

If the Mayans or Incans could be in, Ethiopia could be in.

It's not of question of COULD THEY, though. A lot of nations could be in, but aren't. The developers have to choose, and no matter what they choose it will upset somebody.

Click to expand...

But it's also a matter of could they as well. There's only so many that are considered important that they make it in the game while others don't.

Anyway, like I said in my previous post: I don't really care if whatever civ someone lobbies for is in there or not. I only have issues with people who presume to use substandard points from history they probably got out of a crackerjack box.

CTM said:

Actually, the Arabs did invade France. Don't you know what the battle of Poitiers in 732 was all about?

And it was the Arab tribe that started Islam's ambitious plan on world conquest, to unite the world under their banner. Don't even get me started on their invasion of Constantinople in the 800s.

The Egyptains are also considered a 'near Middle Eastern' civ, rather than an African civ.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know were Poitiers is, Actually I have been in there many times. It is close to my hometown. It is in France, but, the Arabs where DEFEATED by the Franks in that point, so they didn't stay 800 years as the previous post I was replying to claimed. Compared to the time they stayed in Spain, that was an incursion rather than an invasion. I know that part of the history very well, but thats off topic, so I cut now before the administrators close the thread.

And Egypt is in Africa. Sorry.

Have a nice day.

Oh, for Pete's sakes.

Egypt is in Africa, but it's basically considered a Middle Eastern civilization. Or rather, 'near Middle East', straddling both the cultures of Africa and the Middle East, given its location. You were missing the point I was making entirely.

As for France, it was still an "invasion" in that they invaded the territory. It was more of a raid than anything, but that's still an invasion. That's the only point I was making. You, on the other hand, made it appear as if the Arabs stopped south the Pyrenees.

Of course, you decided to take a hard tone against me for no reason at all. Sorry pal, but the only person who loses is you, if you're going to start that crap.

Admins might as well lock this thread anyway, and put it out of its misery.

The point is that there are should be at least one or more african civs to be representive and recognize good civlizations. If I put in Australia or Canada and left out America, Americans should be pissed off. thats my point. You put in places like Spain or Portugal that was colonized for 800 years by Africans (Moors) but don't include the coloneizer it looks as if what is going on

Pardon me if this is wrong, but wasn't the ancient Egyptian culture, you know the most famous one, more of a mediterranean (Greco-Roman) culture?

Ghafhi said:

1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.

Click to expand...

Cause in real life there is alot of corruption in a democracy. I really think putting the Zuluz in the game was just dumb The Dutch are a civilization the live in a country called the Netherlands. Yes, they should have puit Ethiopia in the game or Libya. Why the Zulus? You know you can replace the civs you don't want in the game with ones that people have made.

1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.

Click to expand...

1. Egypt Cathage and zulu, soon to be mali. Thats 3 not 2. Plus how many people play civ in africa?? compared to europe. Yes i know they have had a big historical impact blah blah blah... not in my history i never learnt about to Isalbobo or the Ramagaragaa i learnt about france, germany, russia and britian. that only thing that saves them for me is that we need to cover that continent in world maps. Polynesia probably has more people playing that africa, (new zealand and hawaii)

2. Espinoage is very exepensive but it is so in real life, and risky. I would like to be able to train them better or for them to turn vet and elite with victoryious missions. Also i find it usefull. somtimes buy the end of the game the world can e very tense and you might not want to fight a world war. i often coverts cities like this during the modern and industrial times. also during space race, or Trying for UN destroying the production is usefull. And sometimes trying to stop the world buliding Manhatten project is fun. And knowing your enemys troops numbers is very usefull.

ac196nataku said:

Pardon me if this is wrong, but wasn't the ancient Egyptian culture, you know the most famous one, more of a mediterranean (Greco-Roman) culture?

Click to expand...

Nope. The ancient Egyptians of pyramids and such existed long before the Greek and Roman civilizations. Greece (through Alexander) and later Rome did conquer and assimilate Egypt, but it was old when they were young.

Ghafhi said:

But what has India done on a global scale? Very little.

Click to expand...

India? Second-most populous country on earth? Nuclear power? Growing industrial power? You are wondering why India is in the game?