Need for Diversity

[armchairknight]

With artificial I mean, using your example, if the only difference between the Blue team and the Pistons is the name and nothing else then this is "artificial flavour", and that would be the case with more civs in Civilization. I rather modifiy the XML if I really want different civs or just immagine that were it say "Aztec" it actually say "zulu" and where it show "persians" is actually "babilonians", et voilà instant new civs.

Not so, my french-typing friend. Each civ also gets one or more leaders, a flag, and a unique unit. And if you act within the next 15 minutes, you also get - for no extra charge - a free color for your cultural border!

 

[naterator]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherUser
just immagine that were it say "Aztec" it actually say "zulu" and where it show "persians" is actually "babilonians", et voilà instant new civs.

justanotheruser, i want some of what you're using! i thought video games replaced imagination.

 

[Sohan]

I tend to play on the Earth map, with all the civs in their historic starting locations (except for a few, but I won't get into those technicalities here), and almost always the best AI civs are Egypt, China, and India. Sometimes America, Persia, Japan, and even Germany do really well though. Most of the European civs get boxed in early and don't have many advantages. Honestly though, it's not that big of a deal. Just mod in a few new civs. They don't necessarily have to be made by Firaxis in an expansion.

 

[Howitzah]

Sorry, delete this one mods.

 

[Howitzah]

It would be hard to put a lot of new Civs while still keeping each Civ somewhat unique; you can only make so many special traits.

Do we really need an Industrious/Aggressive Napoleon AND an Industrious/Aggressive Hannibal? (just as an example, I would make Hannibal Financial/Industrious personally).

 

[Joh]

Indeed...as i have said before, this is Civilisation 4, not Barbarian 4. It would be ridiculous to include masses of mediocre "civilisations" (many of the suggestions are for peoples like the Zulu, who fit the definition of barbarian far better) just for the sake of it.

The zulus were hardly mediocre. They conquered vast tracts of africa, until the european powers invaded for no good reason. Many of the so called 'barbarian civs' as you put it had or have very sophisticated cultures. In fact, most of the european civs got to where they are today by appropriating aspects of culture. For example, the scientific method and mathematics was discovered centuries before the europeans even thought of it in the middle east. People like Francis Bacon just copied it and proclaimed it as theirs.

You can't judge a civilisaiton to be barbaric or backward just because they don't fit the european development path.

And as for the comment aobut why would polynesian civilisaitons make it in... well the polynesian cvilisaitons such as the Maori have managed some pretty spectacular achievements. They managed to colonise disparate islands over vast stretches of the pacific ocean in only canoes. That is very noteworthy.

 

[Antiochus]

Yet they could not work stone or metal, nor develop a written language.

Civilisation 4 has both civilisations and barbarians in the game. This is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a difference between civilisation and barbarian, and that we can put different groups into those categories.

civilisation

n 1: the social process whereby societies achieve civilization [syn: civilization] 2: a particular society at a particular time and place; "early Mayan civilization" [syn: culture, civilization] 3: a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); "the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization" [syn: civilization] 4: the quality of excellence in thought and manners and taste; "a man of intellectual refinement"; "he is remembered for his generosity and civilization" [syn: refinement, civilization]

 

[Raloth]

Yet they could not work stone or metal, nor develop a written language.

The Inca never had a written language. Stone tools and weapons are usually superior in quality to metal weapons, until you get to steel and brass (iron can be exceptionally difficult to work with). None of these things necessarily make a civilization better, and you can have civilization without writing or metalworking. Even architecture is not a fair measurement - take the Indus Valley Civilization, which remained intact for hundreds of years with no warfare and no monumental architecture.

 

[Sohan]

The debates on "civilization" and "barbarians" still go on today among the most learned of scholars. Inevitably, a game isn't going to be able to make a judgement call on civilization and barbarism without someone disagreeing with them, because even the experts disagree.

 

[Tee Kay]

Barbarian was originally a term used by classical "civilizations" such as greece and rome to describe a foreigner. By this definition a nation/culture can be barbaric but still civilized. But over time the term's meaning became: "1. uncivilized person 2. person who behaves in a rough and bad-mannered way, and who has no respect for art, literature, education etc." Each person's view of what a barbarian is will vary, because people view each other differently.

 

[Joh]

civilisation

n 1: the social process whereby societies achieve civilization [syn: civilization] 2: a particular society at a particular time and place; "early Mayan civilization" [syn: culture, civilization] 3: a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); "the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization" [syn: civilization] 4: the quality of excellence in thought and manners and taste; "a man of intellectual refinement"; "he is remembered for his generosity and civilization" [syn: refinement, civilization]

That's a very euro-centric definition of civilisation imo.

It implies that a society is better than another because they have certain material things.

The zulus did develop extensive legal, organisational and religious capabilities.

I know that the game acknowledges differences between barbarians and civilisaitons, but this is not what I am referring to., I am referring to the view expressed here that civilisaitons like the zulus were not real civilisaitons because they cannot be measured against european notions of progress. I strongly disagree with that view.

Civ 4 is all about what if's. The romans didn't last past the medieval ages and failed to capitalise on thier gains in the classical era, yet people think it's ok to have them in the space race but not ok to have zulus in because they didn't discover metal working. There's a big contradiction there. What if the european powers hadn't invaded africa? Given Africa's extensive natural reosurces they could well have been a super power today.

 

[T.A JONES]

Yeah... Canada.... *Laughs out Loud* And I live in Canada.

Hey! stand up for you county Man. You tell em Havn't you played Balancer Reloaded,
The maker was a Canadian, so he tossed the Canadians in the mix!

It starts Canada with a bunch of 'native canadian' units then we got a bunch of british made stuff (red coats) and ww2 toys american Shermans plus other commonwealth weapons. We also had mounties and our special forces.. um what are called again? Oh ya my favorite was all the cool UN gear that they could build. Peacekeeping is are thing right? in the later ages. you take the white caravan out on peace missions or try an protect weaker trade partners. Its cool cause of the H.I guariila's that are also lurking at the same time. You can get the kill(even the odds)with out starting a war. just like real life!
You could even bring in Backup with our hand me down sea kings:

No my real favorite was the Avero Aero supersonic jet Canada's would-be top secret weapon, After tons of sheilds in reseaerch and construction I got those Aeros of the ground not grounded and dumped in the drink like the true story.
See Canada is alreadyan establish Civ in both worlds, at least in Civ3 anyway

 

[armchairknight]

Yet they could not work stone or metal, nor develop a written language.

Civilisation 4 has both civilisations and barbarians in the game. This is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a difference between civilisation and barbarian, and that we can put different groups into those categories.

civilisation

n 1: the social process whereby societies achieve civilization [syn: civilization] 2: a particular society at a particular time and place; "early Mayan civilization" [syn: culture, civilization] 3: a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); "the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization" [syn: civilization] 4: the quality of excellence in thought and manners and taste; "a man of intellectual refinement"; "he is remembered for his generosity and civilization" [syn: refinement, civilization]

Actually it is not implied by the game. Rather, it is being inferred by you. The barbarians are unplayable tribes. The only real difference is that you can't play as a barbarian without a mod.

 

[zeeter]

I have a great idea. If we were all willing to pay $100 for the game, then maybe Firaxis could afford to put the extra time in to research, design, and program every civilization in history.

C'mon, folks. They have a limited time to build the game. Limited mostly because when they're not selling games they're not making any money for the Civilization division.

I'd like for my car to have power breaks, heated seats, and to have more storage room in the back. I don't want to have to pay for it, though. We can understand this when applied to cars. The same goes for games.

 

[armchairknight]

I have a great idea. If we were all willing to pay $100 for the game, then maybe Firaxis could afford to put the extra time in to research, design, and program every civilization in history.

C'mon, folks. They have a limited time to build the game. Limited mostly because when they're not selling games they're not making any money for the Civilization division.

I'd like for my car to have power breaks, heated seats, and to have more storage room in the back. I don't want to have to pay for it, though. We can understand this when applied to cars. The same goes for games.

I agree. Surprised? Well, I'm not relying on Firaxis. I'm currently enjoying the wonderful Sevomod which (among other things) adds many, many civs. I will, however, take as many civs as Firaxis is willing to churn out. And pay the full asking price as partial punishment for my stunning lack of patience.

 

[T.A JONES]

C'mon, folks. They have a limited time to build the game. Limited mostly because when they're not selling games they're not making any money for the Civilization division.

Ahh Jeez I guess I better mention the Canada thing was in gest, like the quote I refered to. Some don't realize Canadians are like the irish we can make light of ourselves, and are well liked but we are still proud of courageus soldiers who fought alongside the most powerful nations of all time.(US, Britain) we didn't puss and go nuetral(not pointing at anybody)
Its just a Canada Civ could woudn't work not because were not old enough. America is only are big brother in arms not that much by age. We both split from england and are made up of tons of Euros, Yet Canada would never be in a Civ game I know that

There was a mod that did a superb job of summing up our handme down military history and also balanced it out with our own unique triumphs(Dudley Do Right). I thought Id put it out there in case he hadn't seen it. Sorry it wasn't completly off topic was it, btw how old is that econbox you ride? No power breaks!!, that sh#ts code up here

 

[Grit]

Pretty easy i would have thought. Look at their size, their accomplishments, their cultural impact, their longevity, and their impact on history and world affairs. Also, being an actual civilisation rather than a bunch of nomadic barbarians is a great help.

If you will recall a couple of the main civs were nomads for a while befor they setteled down and some didn't exist for ages like in civ3 the American Indians and the Mongels

 

[Xanikk999]

The Inca never had a written language. Stone tools and weapons are usually superior in quality to metal weapons, until you get to steel and brass (iron can be exceptionally difficult to work with). None of these things necessarily make a civilization better, and you can have civilization without writing or metalworking. Even architecture is not a fair measurement - take the Indus Valley Civilization, which remained intact for hundreds of years with no warfare and no monumental architecture.

Sorry thats just not true. Learn a little history. You sir are so ignorant your quotes going in my sig!

Stone is not superiour to iron or even bronze.

Iron is sharper and can pierce other armor if designed effectivly. Like with bodkin arrow heads. If you made a bodkin arrow out of obsidian that most likely wouldnt pierce any kind of armor.

Not only that stone is extremely brittle compared to metallic weapons. Obsidian is easy to break and would shatter apon hitting mettalic weapons in combat.