Expansion Civilizations

[Koelle]

pardon me, but what is your point?

 

[extraneus]

To Koelle:
Listen to me Koelle, I can see that you are a Viet, being proud of your country is good, but it would be better if you know how to respect other cultures and other people. If you ever did any further research about the Siam kingdom, you would know how wise the Siam kings were to keep their kingdom from European colonizations. Just remember that managing to keep your nations both independent and safe from war is much harder than going to war to keep independent. The Siam kingdom might be established later than some other nations in Southeast Asia, but it doesn't mean that the culture, the people weren't there before. The Chinese called the Viet barbarians, the Viet called the Cham barbarians, The Roman called almost everybody else around them barbarians, European colonizations called the Ibo of Nigeria barbarians. Calling people "barbarians" just don't make any sense. There is no reason to call the Thai or any other ethic groups barbarians. People's cultures may be different, but all of them should be regarded the same way, no culture is better than the others.

You were talking about Quang Trung, in many ways, he is a great leader, but I afraid that you were wrong when you said that he didn't invade Siam because he didn't want to, and because he thought about Siamese as barbarians. Culturally, it is easier for Vietnamese to get along with Chinese rather than Cambodian and Thai (This is just because of the differences between cultures). If you want to conquer someone, you have to understand their cultures, their religions, their customs. It's just logical for Quang Trung to think about invading China rather than Siam. If you are a national leader at that time, are you gonna try to conquer somebody who don't share border with you and you know almost nothing about them ? In case of the Siam army that was sent to Vietnam, they weren't there to conquer Vietnamese, what they want, first of all, is to get the Vietnamese out of their business in Cambodia, and to have more influences on Vietnam by helping establish the exile Nguyen prince, Nguyen Anh, as Vietnamese emperor.

About the Burmese, i don't know if you know about the Pagan empire of Burmese or not. If you know, you probably won't say that: "Burma is absolutely irrelevant for Vietnam"

By the way, your football stuff is just nonsense. I have heard that they have discovered a whole bunch of corrupted national Vietnamese football players recently. Do they really respect themselves and their own nation ?
respect yourself is good, but you should respect other people too including the Thai, the Europeans, and the American.

 

[altoclef]

The Vietnamese civilization:
Potential leaders aside from Ho Chi Minh could be Le Loi who defeated the Chinese and established a new dynasty, Tran Hung Dao, a general whom the Mongols could not defeat, in fact, Vietnam is one of the only places (there are others) the Mongols could not conquer. The Mongols were defeated at least 3 times. The Vietnamese conquered the Champa and Khamer kingdoms. The also eventually defeated the French and American efforts did not prevail in Vietnam.
Attributes would be Aggresive and Industrious
Cities: Hue, Saigon, Hanoi, Danang, Nha Trang, Dalat, Haiphong,
Unique unit-infantry who treats jungle/forest terrain as roads.
Make them usually annoyed with Chinese, French.

 

[Tricoz]

A) Ireland is not British, a slip on your part for sure but we're in to treacherous waters here
B) Living in Canada 10 minutes outside of a Mohawk reservation (making many of my friends Mohawk) teaches me NA or First Nations is better than Indian for all concerns
C) No, Canada should not be a civilization, because we have nothing unique about us beyond our British humour, and politeness (which I think would be hard to infuse into the game)
D) Has anyone considered the Minoan civilization? Amazingly strong economy but no interest in military, that would be pretty cool.

A) does not count for me
B) Counts but is not really a huge issue being from the west coast and being NDP
C) Canada should be a civ we do have distinct qualities just none that are current, although our civ unit should be the "Avro Arrow" seeing as it still would be capable of giving plane of today a run for their money.
D) sorry I really don't have an opinion on this but sounds ok.
Canada should be a civ still!!!

 

[Pratputajao]

Koelle--
This is NOT personal in ANY way. I have nothing but respect for The Vietnamese and I am not Thai ( My wife is). as to some of your specific responses.

what, surrounded by enemies? How could you call your neighbors enemies? We dont even share border with you. What kind of enemies do you have? Laos, Cambodia, Burma, lol

The Burmese where a VERY imposing enemy, one that Vietnam would have had to respect. While they were fractured in many ways, when they had strong dynasties the could field immense armies- During the last war against the Siamese they Invaded with 1,500,000 Soldiers 700 elephants and 3000 horses!! That is nothing to laugh at even by today’s standards ( well maybe the elephants and horses part ). Thailand could never gather such a force at that time. Thailand had to face this with 500k men. Every war they fought against the various Burmese kingdoms they were greatly outnumbered and while they lost the initial battles they were clever enough to rid the lands of their invaders and actually surrounded the Burmese Capital under the leadership of Narasuen. Anyway, it doesn’t matter WHO your enemies are when they can park more than a million and a half men on your border I don’t think anyone would really care if the invaders came from the Mighty Chinese empire or the Burmese. So you may laugh at who Siams enemies may be, I guarantee you that if Vietnam had been in the same place there would be no laughing. Oh, and BTW often when the Burmese would invade Siam, Khmer would launch subsequent incursions knowing that the Thais could do little when faced with such an enemy. True, Vietnam did not border Siam but they aided Cambodia or fought Siam within Cambodia with large armies. The two countries ( Siam / Vietnam) fought many times.

1700 when Emperor Quang Trung defeated 500.000 Siam's troops at rivers Rach Gam and Xoai Mut

The #s you quote sound accurate for the first large battle between Viet and Siam. Siam wasn’t attempting to Invade though they were attempting to get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. But Yes the Viet defeated the Thais, Just as the Thais defeated them in later engagements. I don’t think either one was superior enough to destroy the other fully. You had better believe that if the Viet. thought they could eliminate Siam as a competitor/enemy they would have; same with the Siamese in regards to the Viet. The two countries have a history of dislike for one another.

Chinese for thousands years, Mongols, French, American, all were super powers at times

Actually during Thailand history it had been enemies with everyone you mentioned with the exception of the Americans. They actually fought and beat the French in Cambodia in 1941 ( lost the sea battle though) and the English in the 18th century.

What would Siam look like, had they not hid behind their boss's back, the American

Oh, I see, because Thailand is on good terms with the US they are Thailand's Boss? Where was Siam’s boss until the 20th centaury? Heh, Siam actually offered The Union aid during Americans Civil war!

so-called "Venice of the east". Saigon was also "pearl of the east", but who cares

Ayuthaya was most definitely called the Venice of the east! And most Europeans who had been there were impressed in the extreme. But that doesn’t mean anything about Saigon? The only reason I mention that is because the City no longer exist as it once was. It is all we have- others accounts. I can go to Saigon (Ho Chih Mihn City) anytime. I am sure it is a magnificent city in its own regard.. But then again is Modern day Bangkok, I would encourage you to visit, Very cool! when we get the chance my wife and I had planned to go to Vietnam.

Yes, I enjoy Thai history I find it very interesting. They were able many times to play European powers against each other with finesse and were on good term with other powerful countries such as China and Japan. Thailand actually had Samurai fighting with them many times and at least one city had a Japanese governor. Siam had a history of being "Open" to forigners. I just happen to find it more interesting than Viet History. From what I can see- Lots of civil wars and constant war with China and Champa (who they would fully defeat). I do enjoy the fact that woman played a very important role in Vietnam and that it was in somewhat matriarchal in form. I have said before they are tough as nails, they repelled the Mongols at least three times. Admirable. But, to me, the history of Siam and other t(h)ai peoples (Lan Xang, Shan, Lan na, Nan Chao) is more interesting, Siam in particular of course. That is personal preference.

are your leaders well-known than Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Tran Hung Dao,

I didn’t say anything about Vietnam not having great people? I merely said Siam was blessed by some very great men- Ramkhamheang, Narasuan, Thaksin, Chalulangkorn, Monkul, and the current king Bhumipol Adulyadej come to mind but there are others- This is not in dispute I would think? To be honest I don’t think most people know much about any of them. But actually what does that (are the leaders well known) have to do with how great these people were in leading their nations? Hell, Hitler and Pol Pot are "well known"

what it your strength anyway?

Thailand's strength today is its Economy; this is by no means a small deal. Vietnam has 20 million more people but has half the economy of Thailand. I am sorry, but this does mean something. Vietnams Economy is improving though. But after spending alot of time in Thailand I can tell you that Bangkok is one of the most Modern cities I have ever been in without a doubt! You can see the money- everywhere you look new skyscrapers and modern building going up. Also (from what I have heard) the biggest airport in the world is due to open later this year outside Bangkok.

But Viet have bought all best Thai's footballer (incl. Thai's Zico) and i'm sure they would rather play football in Vietnam than in Thailand . And most important, we do respect ourself and dont need respect from "the Europeans" like you guys

Um, I don’t really care about Football... Ok.. Vietnam has a better football team, good.. That is good that The Vietnamese people respect their country.. They should, it is a great country! But believe me, from first hand experience, I have never met a more proud people than the Thai ( alot of that has to do with avoiding colonialism)

It appears that you are Vietnamese and this is almost personal? I never meant to insult anyone. This is my opinion after looking at all the Issues you are free to yours.

extraneus To answer your intelligent post- Yes, Vietnam should be in the game. I am just saying that for me if there has to be one, and only one I would pick Siam for all the reasons already mentioned in many posts. But this in no way takes away from what you have written about Vietnam. I have a sneaking feeling though that if they even do pick one SE Asian civ (A big If, don’t want to leave some obscure American tribe out...) they will probably go with the Khmer. I disagree with this. I mean nothing disrespectful to the Khmer! To me it (they’re empire) was just to long ago and not important enough to include over others. Korea, khmer, Siam, Vietnam should all be in. I'd add Burma to that you could creat some really cool SE asian scenarios.

 

[Pratputajao]

Depravo

Congratulations, you've changed my mind (when was the last time you read THAT on the internet?).

Thanks. ( didnt see your post at first)

 

[Ankenaton]

Are you talking about Israel? Even without religion, it deserves to be in the game.

Although i am not really happy with Mali, I would much rather prefer Ethiopia. As because, as far as i can remember, it was the only African country to not be colonized, and is a continuously existing civilization.

It's peak, might be that of the Axumites.

In fact they have the longest unbroken royal line; going all the way back to the fabled Menelik - the scion of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. I think however there is room in Civ for more than two African Civs, and yes Khemet (e.g. Egypt) is an African civ. Africa is the second largest continent, so there should be at least 4-5 civs representative of their historical, regional and economic importance. Therefore in my opinion you would have Khemet, Axum/Abyssinia, Carthage, Mali and Zulu. In unmodded Civ III and Civ IV you are stuck with just 1 1/2 African civs (Cleopatra's bastard Greek/Egypt and Zulu; Hatshepsut's Khemet and Mansa Mausa's Mali respectively) as compared to modded civ where you have additions to the African, Asian and Meso-American Civ lists.

 

[loui89]

In fact they have the longest unbroken royal line; going all the way back to the fabled Menelik - the scion of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. I think however there is room in Civ for more than two African Civs, and yes Khemet (e.g. Egypt) is an African civ. Africa is the second largest continent, so there should be at least 4-5 civs representative of their historical, regional and economic importance. Therefore in my opinion you would have Khemet, Axum/Abyssinia, Carthage, Mali and Zulu. In unmodded Civ III and Civ IV you are stuck with just 1 1/2 African civs (Cleopatra's bastard Greek/Egypt and Zulu; Hatshepsut's Khemet and Mansa Mausa's Mali respectively) as compared to modded civ where you have additions to the African, Asian and Meso-American Civ lists.

I loved playing with cleopatra in civ 3, Hatshepsut is ok but cleopatra was better, very blood thirsty. So they should give egypt two leaders, cleo and hatshep. Other than that i cant comment on anything else about african civs, not very familiar with anything in that part of the world, although it would be nice to have an african civ that would develop into a superpower either in economy or military. Mainly because most superpowers i deal with in the game are european, also would it be possible to give each civ a personalized profile for the game. For example, France would tend not to make trade or alliances with England or Germany, but would rather keep a closer bond with Spain, something historical but unique.

I know this is a bit far fetched, but during the game if your leadership lacked abit, your country or empire could roll into a civil war, and the computer would play half of your empire why you played the other. Then parts of your empire could become independant or eventually sign a peace agreement, something to give the game a little more flavour, i would welcome something like that. But like i said its just an idea, and a little far-fetched.

 

[illram]

Wow this is a long thread. Suffice to say that the last expansion of Civ 3 had a pretty hefty list of civs and I was happy with that one. Extras are what mods are for and I am glad we have so many talented people making new ones for programming illiterate people such as myself.

As to the argument that small civs or civs that no longer exist shouldn't be on there, part of the fun of the game is in re writing history. The other point, as someone pointed out earlier, is to have a diverse/generalized enough selection that everyone feels included and as much of the worlds history and diversity is represented.

At least I think thats the point. What do I know? Meh.

 

[shahreevar]

i didnt read the whole thing. but to address the topic, can we have the Celts back again? i dearly miss my brave Gallic Swordsmen!!!

 

[scootch]

Korea.

Celts.

proper vikings... not some blood thirsty horn wearing war mongers, but expert navigators and resourceful civs.

I'd imagine civ choices will be a bit more limited since the civs in game talk in their proper language. finding people who can speak some of these languages would proove quite difficult.

 

[Laurence72]

A bit late in responding to whoever thought that Singapore and Hong Kong had zero potential as a civ, but why not have a couple like that for One City Challenges? I think it would be neat anyways.

 

[nano2]

I think there should be Iroquois, Babylon, Vikings, Zulu, Byzintines, and Civilonians-headed by Sid Meier

 

[gargarin]

Why the portugueses?

in XIV century, they were the biggest empire in the world (even bigger then G.B.);

great navigatores;

they discovered america (the continent);


they discovered the ocean route to india, japan, indonesia, china,...;

portuguese is in the top five languages in use;

great liders like:

Vasco da Gama (discovered the ocean route to india)

Pedro Alvares Cabral (discovered Brazil)


Fernao Magalhaes (discovered australia and the first Around the World )

plus they were the only country that defended sucessfully against napolean attacks ;

they discovered and improved many ocean tools, and nowadays there is some instruments that are used in sea and in space;

the first civilization of the 20th century that abolish slavery;

the civilization, together with spain that spread more the cristianism;

Colombo was portuguese;

Portuguese have a great soccer team;

and thats enough, i could stay here all week telling you the wonder that is PORTUGAL

 

[loui89]

Looking at a few things, it would actually be far more better to have Britain than England, or maybe both. I came to this thought, when it crept up on me just how important britain was to world history.

Early 1900's Britain became the single biggest empire in history with over a quatre of the worlds land and population. "the sun never set on the British Empire"

First country to have industrial revolution,

Country that saved Europe from imprisonment of German barbarism in WW1 and WW2.

Was a country that was never conquered, unlike a few... France, Germany, Poland, etc.

Invented some of the worlds most used technology, like radar, and tanks.

Today has the most culturally diversed city in the world, London.

im not going to go on, mainly because il probably end up insulting a few people, not intentionally though

 

[GenFX]

Country that saved Europe from imprisonment of German barbarism in WW1 and WW2.

You mean the United States? In WWI the UK was as much the problem as the solution... and sticking it to Germany after WWI did not work out so well.

WWII the UK was admirable, but could never truely project any power. But I still give high marks to the UK for standing the onslaught... Churchill shoud definitely be a leader for England.

Was a country that was never conquered, unlike a few... France, Germany, Poland, etc.

England was conquered a couple of times, just not since the Barouque era... and even then this was not terribly bloody as far as those things go.

Today has the most culturally diversed city in the world, London.

Agreed, though the Muslim protests and subway bombings might not suggest a harmonic diversity...

 

[JBG]

You mean the United States? In WWI the UK was as much the problem as the solution... and sticking it to Germany after WWI did not work out so well.

WWII the UK was admirable, but could never truely project any power. But I still give high marks to the UK for standing the onslaught... Churchill shoud definitely be a leader for England.

England was conquered a couple of times, just not since the Barouque era... and even then this was not terribly bloody as far as those things go.

Agreed, though the Muslim protests and subway bombings might not suggest a harmonic diversity...

You've been watching far too much Hollywood "true story" films of the eras. In both wars the UK was one of the primary forces against the Germans. The UK invented Radar and shared its technology with the US, giving the USN an edge over the Japanese in the Pacific, to cite but one example.

The last time England was conquered was in 1066 by the Normans, so I don't know about that 'since the baroque era'. the monarchy was very briefly overthrown following the civil war, but both agressors and defenders in that conflict were english, so the Civil war doesn't count.
England as we know it today has never been conquered. When the Normans overran England it bore very little resemblance to the modern entity (or indeed the entity of 500 years later). And as for it not being bloody, the English Civil war was one of the fiercest and bloodiest civil wars in Europe. The siege of Oxford was a terrible battle, and I would strongly advise you to look it up on Wikipedia before dismissing it any further.

The UK could most certainly project power in WWII although the substance of that power was occasionally in question, agreed. However, the UK was able to hold onto virtually the entirity of its overseas empire (including India) thoroughout WWII and it was only international pressure via the UN following WWII that caused the eventual break-up of the Empire. And the UK remains a potent (but by no means very powerful) modern force - I give you the South Atlantic War of 1982. The Royal Navy remains, in terms of gross tonnage, the world's second-largest navy, and before the Afghanistan/Iraq war the UK was regarded highly as an international mediator and fair dealer (the EU aside).

I find that comment about the UK being equally 'problematic' as Germany highly offensive. I can tell that, once again, the Hollywood brainwashing effect (eg. the US broke the Enigma code/won the Battle of Britain/won the Battle of Trafalgar/won the battle of Hastings, &c) has worked very well on you. It is in large part thanks to the UK that Germany was not able to completely subdue Europe - if it had done the face of the world would have been very significantly changed.

In WWII, the comparative size of the Royal Navy and USN was equal - the Washington Naval treaty established that the size of the RN and USN compared to the Imperial Japanese Navy should be 5/5/3.

As for WWI, I agree that American assistance was invaluable, but I nevertheless find your comments offensive and your general attitute a brilliant example of the arrogance of the modern-day american poorly-educated middle classes.

And as for the Muslim protests, they were conducted by a tiny minority of Muslim britons - and many of the participants were not even British. The entire muslim community vehemently condemned the violent placards and it is generally agreed that those people who chose to wave the placards were part of a tiny minority, as were the people who conducted the 7/7 bombings. You tread on very thin ground, my friend.

To give you some idea of what your comments aroused, how would you feel if I were to tell you in all honesty that I believed the French won the Battle of Midway? Or that the people who destroyed the World Trade Centre were Americans?

I accept that my comments may cause unintentional offence - my purpose is not to offend, but rather to educate. I apologise if anyone feels insulted by what they read.

 

[loui89]

You mean the United States? In WWI the UK was as much the problem as the solution... and sticking it to Germany after WWI did not work out so well.
WWII the UK was admirable, but could never truely project any power. But I still give high marks to the UK for standing the onslaught... Churchill shoud definitely be a leader for England.
England was conquered a couple of times, just not since the Barouque era... and even then this was not terribly bloody as far as those things go.
Agreed, though the Muslim protests and subway bombings might not suggest a harmonic diversity...

you serious??, the USA had no hand in helping WW1, as usual the USA came in at the last minute to claim glory but it didnt quite work. The winning was due to Britain and its Empire, Russia was too backwards... France placed all its troops in the wrong place, and if it wasnt for the BEF and Belgium, france would have been over-run. Belgium put up the most admirable fight in the war though, the germans predicted them to surrender without a fight but they fought brilliantly. As for Britian being much of the problem, Germany wanted an empire and decided to build an army to challenge the British simple as, the arms cannot be said to have caused the war, Britain was just making sure that they could defend their trade routes and shores. Also if you remember Britain was the last one to declare war before WW1 got into full swing of battle, Britain was dragged in because they held an alliance with Belgium, which is why the BEF went into Belgium at the begining.
Uk couldnt project any power!! lol... keep in mind that in WW2 most if not all of central Europe was defeated, and the target was Britain from begining to the end. If the British people didnt sail to the shores of dunkirk in their own ships, you would have seen a massacre of about 200,000 french and belgian troops. WW2 i guess proved to the outside world that you cannot take down an english mans home, the spanish couldnt, the french couldnt and the germans couldnt. Its said that WW2 could have been prevented if the USA was part of the league of nations.
Well reluctantly, i believe the bombings came with a silver lining, because if you go around london and other major targets in the UK, you will see excellent security measures in place and people being more vigilant as they go about. Unlike the states, the UK was able to pin point who did it within a matter of a couple of days, and not in with a monthly campaign that resulted in a hopeless war. But im gonna stop now, becuase i agree with the guy above... american arrogance is really offending.

 

[Artanis]

Looking at a few things, it would actually be far more better to have Britain than England, or maybe both. I came to this thought, when it crept up on me just how important britain was to world history.

Ok, I don't know a whole lot about the history of Britain/England, so I honestly have to ask...what practical difference would there be between the two? For example, if the English UU is already the British Redcoat, what would the British UU be?

Basically, what I'm saying is that, at least to this ignorant American, it looks like Britain is already in the game, but Firaxis has just named it "England" for whatever reason. So to have "Britain" officially in the game, why would it take anything more than a simple re-labelling?

 

[loui89]

Ok, I don't know a whole lot about the history of Britain/England, so I honestly have to ask...what practical difference would there be between the two? For example, if the English UU is already the British Redcoat, what would the British UU be?

Basically, what I'm saying is that, at least to this ignorant American, it looks like Britain is already in the game, but Firaxis has just named it "England" for whatever reason. So to have "Britain" officially in the game, why would it take anything more than a simple re-labelling?

Good point, you actually made me think... well it wouldinclude some cities from all over Britain, maybe some from its Empire days. Also the redcoat was a british unit, so englands UU should be, a longbowman or a manOwar or something. Also it could have different leaders, both prime ministers, Churchill and maybe Margret Thatcher, and the personality of the Civ a little bit more, from that of the English. For example, because it was such a huge empire, it could have an added expansion rate and be a civ thats more willing to trade and be a little war thirsty. Unlike the english civ who tends not to ant to trade or go to war, lol.