G&K pushes the naming of CIVS into two distinct paths

[jjkrause84]

There are actually a ton of unique civs in South America - Most of them unknown though to the West which makes them all poor choices to get in.

Who said there weren't a ton of unique civs throughout the world? The fact of the matter is, most of them cannot (and should not!) be included in Civilization. Something like EU3 would be better if you want to go through the back alleys of history.

 

[noncognosco]

People on an internet forum do not . . . engage with reality . . . and can get carried away.

Isn't that just the story of the internet right there?

 

[Zerrigan]

Did anyone here every play Empires: Dawn of the Modern World?

The game was set up where you had some basic starting civilizations that at some point in the tech tree would "evolve" into another civilization. You can start in the medieval period at England, but by the time the industrial/modern area rolled around you could choose to become the UK. The franks could be France, and etc. I think this would be interesting in keeping older and newer civilizations in play. For example I could start off as Rome and switch to Italy in order to make sure I still have UU's worth using.

I don't expect that to happen and it may not even work that well, but it certainly sounds interesting.

 

[DixieBull]

I've been 'fanatically' reading these postings the past few days in anticipation of G&K, but am noticing something that is bugging the anthropologist inside of me.

It all started with G&K's inclusion of Sweden, which led many to ask, 'should Sweden even exist in G&K considering Denmark is a civ?' And it got me to ask the same question, and come up with my response...'Isn't Sweden very similar culturally and could just be lumped together with Denmark as Scandinavia?'

But this is a common theme of CIV that becomes more confusing. Civ names are based on TWO naming mechanics: CIVILIZATIONS/COUNTRIES/STATES (Ottoman Empire, Rome, USA, Japan, etc.) and TRIBAL/CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS (Arabs, Celts, Polynesia). The former are recognized entities with boundaries or used to be tribes/cultures (France as the Franks for instance) that assimilated into political entities, and the later are ethnicity based (Arabs are people that exist in Egypt, Ottoman Empire, and present day Carthage & Byzantium, and the Celts are present in most of Western Europe).

Just makes me think... which direction will CIV go seeing as G&K continues this trend? Like, why not make EVERY Civ based on a tribe that becomes a civilization later in the game (i.e., Celts can become Britian or France)? Or, just the opposite... no tribes. (Instead of the Celts, just call them Scotland, Ireland, etc.?)

So what do you think... keep the CIVS as ACTUAL civ names? Or have more tribal/cultural-based 'civs'?



And yes, I'm ready for the maelstrom of 'you dont know anything about history' replies that come along with this posting... bring it on.

I like the way you think... I would like to see this happen, and it has always bothered me that currently in Civ everyone starts out as an Empire, even the weakest Civ in a game is designated as an Empire.

I think the naming conventions should be revisited, and redone to reflect a clear ranking system that also changes with the ages.

For example in the ancient era "Tribes", "Kingdoms", and "Empires" would work fine, but later in the game, like in the modern era the designation of "Tribe" just won't work.

 

[El Caballerion]

Did anyone here every play Empires: Dawn of the Modern World?

The game was set up where you had some basic starting civilizations that at some point in the tech tree would "evolve" into another civilization. You can start in the medieval period at England, but by the time the industrial/modern area rolled around you could choose to become the UK. The franks could be France, and etc. I think this would be interesting in keeping older and newer civilizations in play. For example I could start off as Rome and switch to Italy in order to make sure I still have UU's worth using.

I don't expect that to happen and it may not even work that well, but it certainly sounds interesting.

That's exactly what I would like in CIV! An ability for the world around me to progress into new CIV names as the game progresses. Take for instance if you're playing against France. In the very beginning, maybe they're called The Franks, but as soon as they enter the medieval age, they change to 'France' and get some sort of bonus. Maybe this happens later in the game, maybe it doesn't happen at all. If you were playing against Rome, maybe they stay as Rome during one game, and in another game, they opt to become Italy. Ottoman Empire can become Turkey, America can become the USA, Persia can become Iran, etc.

Keeping it random like that just makes the game more colorful, though of course I realize something like ANcient Rome is a lot more different than Modern day Italy, but it's the evolution that matters.

 

[kungming2]

There are actually a ton of unique civs in South America - Most of them unknown though to the West which makes them all poor choices to get in.

Chachapoya, a Jungle/Mountain based trading empire that introduced slingers to the region ruled for hundreds of years and established a big confederation. Very unique styles of architecture, pottery, and religion [Kuelap outshines Machu Picchu in almost every aspect - but is less heard of. Its the city with the most stone in the world]

The Wari and Tiwanaku - Two empires that engaged in a literal cold war for centuries and eventually ended up in fighting. Controlled massive populations

The Moche - Amazing Stadiums, Carving abilities, stone work is amazing.

The Nazca - City names known, specific buildings unique to them known (desert aqueducts for example), and of course amazing accomplishments (Nazca Lines, various pyramids, living in an arid desert)

The Mapuche - Not my favorite but considered the Sioux of the South

ETC.

Thanks for this comprehensive list! The only two I knew were the Moche and the Nazca. Imagine being able to build Nazca lines on desert tiles in Civ. That would be amazing.

 

[Gucumatz]

Who said there weren't a ton of unique civs throughout the world? The fact of the matter is, most of them cannot (and should not!) be included in Civilization. Something like EU3 would be better if you want to go through the back alleys of history.

While this is true - I would just like to point out some of these civs mostly unknown to the West were among the most populated empires of the world (Mesoamerican and South American)

Again you have comparisons of when Teotihuacan had a population of 300,000 people, the largest European city only had 10,000 people.

In South America too there are plenty of empires that were among the most populated of the world too. The Chachapoya created the widest trading network in the Americas (until eventually that became challenged by the Inca), charged levies on trade, and had cities of populations comparable to Maya City states. (30k-70k) The Confederation fought for centuries against the countless Northern Barbarians from the isthmus of Panama and against invaders from the south (Inca, Wari, etc.)

There are actually plenty of civs in South America that would be better than a civ like the Sioux. The only thing against them is they are fairly unknown. Some feats accomplished by the South American Empires still can't be explained today. (I.E. Puma Punku, a monument that was so intracitely carved that scientists have said they could not do the same with current technology.)

I don't hold any aspersions on civs like the Toltecs, Chichimecs, Veracruz, etc. getting in Mesoamerica simply because their lot has been covered fairly well, but there are plenty of civs that South America could still use that fill different niches

=============

In North America I just hope if they add another civ it isn't the Sioux. South America also only has one civ, and North America already has 4 so it looks decent. North America still has options like the Navajo, Pueblo/Anasazi, Apache, Comanche, Cherokee (or Possibly you could just call them the 5 Tribes and include more like the Seminoles, Cherokee, etc. within that) that would be refreshing from the same rehashed Sioux. Everyone knows those other civs and their accomplishments probably are more famous than the Sioux's anyways.

 

[Calouste]

Again you have comparisons of when Teotihuacan had a population of 300,000 people, the largest European city only had 10,000 people.

Teotihuacan is contemporary (1st C BC - 8th C AD) with the Golden Ages of Rome and Constantinople, so that statement is patently untrue.

 

[Gucumatz]

Teotihuacan is contemporary (1st C BC - 8th C AD) with the Golden Ages of Rome and Constantinople, so that statement is patently untrue.

Yea poorly phrased that. For some reason my mind completely bypassed Rome and Constantinople, and I only went to Paris (10k). Rome at 100k-200k

Constantinople 200k-300k

 

[Bad Wolf]

The only ones that really get me are like Polynesians and Native Americans... just grouping huge swathes of different cultural and linguistic groups together into one "civilization" has always felt very cheap to me.

 

[Wolle68]

Yea poorly phrased that. For some reason my mind completely bypassed Rome and Constantinople, and I only went to Paris (10k). Rome at 100k-200k

I can find estimates as low as 450k for Rome, but most seem to be around a million +/- 200k. Where did you get 100k-200k?

 

[Gucumatz]

http://web.archive.org/web/20080211.../citypop/civilizations/citypops_2000BC-1988AD

For Rome - where it placed it at 150k pop during 100-300 a.d.

Just did a few other searches as well, seems like there are estimates of much higher sas well

 

[Wolle68]

http://web.archive.org/web/20080211.../citypop/civilizations/citypops_2000BC-1988AD

For Rome - where it placed it at 150k pop during 100-300 a.d.

Just did a few other searches as well, seems like there are estimates of much higher sas well

From your link:

  Time        Civilization   City        City
                                         Size  
  100 A.D.    Central        Rome        450

So still 450K

 

[Gucumatz]

Time Civilization City City
Data Rank Size
361 A.D.
Central Constantinople x 1 300
Ctesiphon x 2 250
Rome x 3 150
Antioch x 4 150
Alexandria x 5 125

 

[Gucumatz]

at 100 A.D., population declined after. As said, as of 100-300 A.D. Pop was 100k- 200k. Probably should have changed time period to another 50k-80 years to 180-300 A.D. But yep looks like Rome's peak population was higher than I thought too. So thank you for the correction!

 

[Gucumatz]

500 A.D. - 100k

100 A.D. was its max

-----

And even before the Mesoamerican World was still more populated prior to 100 B.C. anyways in the Guatemalan Yucatan Region. Estimates are still being calculated for the Mirador Basin (Mostly because excavation is still being done, but the city radius is wider than that of Los Angeles at El Mirador a city from 1000 B.C. - 100 A.D., and population estimates vary at the moment from 150k-250k)

=== And just finished watching the Euro games for today - Can't believe Russia is out, wow...

 

[Kimuyama]

The only ones that really get me are like Polynesians and Native Americans... just grouping huge swathes of different cultural and linguistic groups together into one "civilization" has always felt very cheap to me.

Actually, Polynesians are closely related, both Culturally and Linguistically, rather like how India is, or Arabia.

The Native americans on the other hand, that was just plainly bad by Firaxis, it would be like having a civilization called "Asia". :/

 

[Bad Wolf]

I knew about Polynesians (though still, they really painted with a very wide brush there, I mean, the Maori, Samoa, Honolulu and Tonga...?) but was more referring to the Native Americans in terms of grouping peoples who had really nothing to do with each other into a single civilization.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Answering OP:

I don't think it's a problem, civ5 has a lot more important problems to deal IMO.

But if I had a choice in the matter I would go with;
1. Initial naming according to tribe/descent/ethnic etc.
"You have met Chinese people", "Welcome, I'm the leader of Romans", "Britons, Franks, Germanic people or simply Germans, Swedes etc.

2. Name of state later shaping according to policies and size of civ.
"Republic (state?) of Rome (if one city with liberty) or Roman Republic (if more cities)",
"City State of New York (one city duh with (no policies?)) - American Empire (self explanatory) - SA or SSA (Socialist America or Socialist (State? if one city) of America)"
"Kingdom of England or English Kingdom - Kingdom of London ("CS X under attack by London" or something, while: "Want to help me destroy Britons?"
etc.

As you probably can tell, I was a big fan of dynamic civ names mod for civ4.

Also "USA" should not exist in this game. The possibilities above plus more, but I don't see why it should be and/or evolve into USA. We don't see England being referenced to as UK in this game or Russian Federation for Russia.

 

[Liex]

Answering OP:

I don't think it's a problem, civ5 has a lot more important problems to deal IMO.

But if I had a choice in the matter I would go with;
1. Initial naming according to tribe/descent/ethnic etc.
"You have met Chinese people", "Welcome, I'm the leader of Romans", "Britons, Franks, Germanic people or simply Germans, Swedes etc.

2. Name of state later shaping according to policies and size of civ.
"Republic (state?) of Rome (if one city with liberty) or Roman Republic (if more cities)",
"City State of New York (one city duh with (no policies?)) - American Empire (self explanatory) - SA or SSA (Socialist America or Socialist (State? if one city) of America)"
"Kingdom of England or English Kingdom - Kingdom of London ("CS X under attack by London" or something, while: "Want to help me destroy Britons?"
etc.

As you probably can tell, I was a big fan of dynamic civ names mod for civ4.

Also "USA" should not exist in this game. The possibilities above plus more, but I don't see why it should be and/or evolve into USA. We don't see England being referenced to as UK in this game or Russian Federation for Russia.

A mechanism like this would be great, indeed. (I just don't concur with the America vs USA thing, but that's for personal reasons)