Kushluk's Law of Civilisation Inclusion

I am proposing a law, rule, proviso, slogan or whatever you wish to call it. This saying references the thousands and thousands of threads and all the wild speculation concerning 1) future civs in future iterations of the Civilisation series. 2) inclusion or exclusion of any one specific civilisation or group of people from the current game or in past ones.

In short what I am proposing is this - a reasonable logical law that governs when a "Civ" is included, and when it is thrown amoungst the rubbish pile of history (not included in the game or included as "barbs").

Here it is: The Civilisation in question, at the height of their brilliance in real History, if allowed to continue in that vein unmolested, must have been reasonably capable of winning a Cultural, Scientific (space), Millitary or Religious vicotry given fair conditions and the strength of that Civilisation exhibited in real life history.

For inclusion a civilisation need only satisty ONE of these criteria.

For example let's apply this to a number of civs.

The ROMAN civilisation, at the height of its brilliance and left unmolested was capable of a cultural, scientific, religious or millitary dominance.

The Korean civilisation, at the height of its briliance and left unmolested may in time have won a cultural or scientific victory.

The Arab civilisation, at the height of its brilliance and left unmolested may have won a religious, millitary or scientific victory.

This formula safely keeps out minor states (Sweden, Andorra, North Ossentia, etc) and Barbarous peoples (NAs, Zulus, Celts, Vikings maybe). It keeps a tiny amount of reality in the selection process.

Ok I'm ready to be attacked, but I advise you before hand that I have an 80% cultural defense.

Interesting idea, but I think it would generate too few civilizations for a civ installment and its expansion packs.

Completely arbitrary definition

Who's to tell what a real world civilization's achievements might've been equal to in an abstracted gameworld?

The Irish could have flooded the world with Guiness is left unmolested, that would have to be a domination victory at the very least!!

Sorry KUSHLUK, didn't mean to undermine your thought processes, this could be the start of a good thread. All the best Marciv.

Germany would have won a Domination victory if they had been allowed to continue their Blitzkrieg without anyone fighting back (which makes the point of military supremacy rather moot).

Then again Mali degenerated rather harshly even without external "molestation" (they were in severe decline at the start of the slave trade in th 18th century).

So the rule is very interesting, but has its flaws.

What Henrik said.

You propose to only allow real world civilizations that would have a speculated potential power to fulfill criterias for victory in a fictional game that is based upon the question of "what if".

Just enjoy the game.

Civilization has a Z.

Civilization has a Z.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Civilisation may or may not have a Z in it, look it up.

Back on topic, this logic is flawed, and it still doesn't rule out Sweden. Left alone, Sweden could've achieved a religious or a domination victory.

Same with Poland, they could've achieved a scientific, cultural, or domination victory if they were left alone.

Goldflash said:

Civilization has a Z.

Click to expand...

Only in America.

It's an interesting idea, OP, but then we'd have to include Norway because they've already won a diplomatic victory.

Same with Poland, they could've achieved a scientific, cultural, or domination victory if they were left alone.

Click to expand...

And another polish thread begans.

(POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA)

TheLastOne36 said:

And another polish thread begans.

(POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA)

Click to expand...

I think NATO should start talks about repartitioning poland

brianshapiro said:

I think NATO should start talks about repartitioning poland

Click to expand...

As long as an Open Door policy is strictly followed, I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't have any issues with this

I have my own criterion...and they are somewhat complex. They factor culture(must be distinct), longevity, identity, coherence, and importance/power. Currently, for example, the following are acceptable civlizations, in my mind: Armenia, Hittites, Israel, Assyria, Vietnam, Thailand, Sweden, Poland, Polynesia(or, preferably a seperate "tribe" or two), Austria(I'm not found of it, but if stuff like Armenia is allowed to fail importance to an extent, than Austria is allowed to fail culture to the extent it does) Hungary, Italy...and...many more, I'm sure.

Civs in the game that FAIL: Holy Roman Empire and possibly Zulu.

That's how I see it.

frob2900 said:

.

Then again Mali degenerated rather harshly even without external "molestation" (they were in severe decline at the start of the slave trade in th 18th century).

Click to expand...

Several civs started to lose power once the Western Europeans figured out how to sail the oceans. Mali, the Ottomans, Venice, and others were all middle men in the trade between Europe and the rest of the world. As Spain and Portugal started sailing around their territories, these states lost the source of their power.

My first post (not counting one at that new members Thread...)
I find the rule given by Kushulk to be very solid, and will be better, if the civ of choice can be said to have historical victory (as in RFC).
So I really hope that the nomination from CFC n00b like me will be appreciated...
Here I would like to nominate my own civ, the Siam Empire !!
(from Thai point of view, this news is much more imperialistic, Thailand is the name right after the Japanese subjugation in WWII Pacific (anyone played RtW??))
(All citated by a fluent-Thai-speaking well-educated in History (both World and Siam) Thai, not Farang (Thai slang for the Caucasoid (spell correctly??)))
Sorry for complex paratheses, expect to see a lot more beyond this point. Let's get started!
First, I'll tell you why Khmer Empire doesn't represent the whole SE Asia so well in comparision to Siam (historically, I have played them already in BtS so don't get me wrong for my Nationalism, please!, bitte!, s'il vous plaît! whatever...)
Statement 1 - The Khmer Empire, can be said to be over-represented by the Siam (but I have to say that we, for sure, can't be represented by Angkor Wat...)
1. Khmer Empire : ca.900-1300 = 400 years < Siam Empire : ca. 1200-on = 800 years
2. Question: What brought the Khmer Empire to the oblivious??
Answer: the Siam Empire (that speaked our military superiority out loud!)
3.After the Fall of Khmer Empire the Khmer people have been assimilated mainly... by us!!
4.Siamese (Thai) culture is multi-ethnic by nature, so culturally speaking, we are obviously the bettor choice of representation, as that many of Khmer culture elements...

...are now seamlessly integrated in Thai culture... (Thai collective can be as much as dangerous as Borg collective in term of culture, I do believe that, really!!)
Statement 2: As mentioned before, Thai multi-ethnic culture represents most of all SE Asia countries pretty well...
Statement 3: Many city names of the Khmer in Civ4 is actually now Thai city (or town). For instance, the name Nakara Jayasri, is now what is called Nakorn Chaisri, the town...


Statement 4: Four words, We had PWNED them!!!!!
OK, enough of Khmer bashing... (don't blame me I'm Thai and I was deeply shocked (actually passed out in front of my laptop) when I know that the SE Asia representative in BtS is the KHMER!!) (sorry for some redundancy, I just want to point things out...)
Now I have to comply with the Kushluk' Law, and here comes my repliment...
What civ victory we the Siamese might achieve (if given right situation...)??
I think they would be...
1.Religious: We have the Buddhist Apostolic Palace called Buddhamonthon (Buddha's region) (right next to my school!!) which is officially declared by international buddhism organization to be the center of world Buddhism!! Just if this happened before the Vatican, hehe...


2.Cultural: As per all mention above...
I don't think all the others victory would be likely possibly for us, for now...
Let me point out one thing that's special for the Siam Empire...
That's, WE DID GREAT SUCCESS IN STANDING AGAINST WESTERN COLONIALISM!!! GREAT??
So here's how...
If you don't know, the Siam Empire is the only nation in the region...
...that WAS NOT COLONIALIZED by the Western Power at any time!!

You wondered how?? Please apologize me, because I can't tell you that. My knowledge about those period of our history is not clear enough. Maybe if you interest you might get the answer at Wikipedia, maybe...
OK That's all!
Now for those who disagree with me to attack...
Yes, I also know many things that would make the chance of the Siam Empire to appear in Civ smaller, but why would I write those, that should be left for those who wants to attack this nomination, right???
Maybe I should start a new Thread about this nomination so things like leader(s), trait, starting tech, UU, UB, can be discussed...
Thanks for reading!!!
Vader_Tat.

The only problem is that in the real world, there's no such thing as cultural, space race, domination or conquest victories...

All civilisations will fall eventually, whether through being destroyed by others, torn apart internally, or perhaps if they're lucky enough to last until the end of the world, then by the destruction of the planet/solar system/universe (depending on how far you think humans can spread).

That aside, it is still impossible to say what would happen even if they were left 'unmolested', and if this basis of inclusion leaves out the Vikings, Zulus and Celts, I'm not playing!

And if no one else has mentioned it:- *cough* 'What-if game!' *cough*

Now to sit back and see if my catapults brought your defense bonus down.