New Civilizations

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by King Aldous XI
I think the Celts should be divided into 3 groups,
-Welsh
-Irish
-Scotch

It annoying to be the Celts because all of their cities are Latin translated!

Certainly not. The Celts are enough. There is absolutely no reason to divide these. These cultures are in influence nowhere near so many others that are not included now (Phoenicians, Israelities, Ethiopians...). With this logic Scandinavians should be broken down into Swedes and Danish (And Norwegians) and if Welsh is included, then should Finland be too - And I definately think that Finland should NOT be included.

In Civ civilizations represent bigger groups. There is no need to break Germany into East and West Germanies - not to mention the few hundred little kingdoms it is formed of. There should not be Civs representing every nation. Celts - such as Scandinavians - represent the Celtic culture. That is enough to represent all Northern Britain countries, IMO.

I do agree though, that Celtic cities should NOT be Latin translated. The city-names should be as near to the original form as is possible.

By the way, I mean no offence when I say these things. They are just my opinions. There is nothing wrong with Scots (or...well...never mind ), but I just think that not every nation and people should be included. This is a dangerous thread, as it quite easily offends people...

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by CivArmy s.1994
- Australia

This is perhaps not a good idea, but I wonder if they could implement the aboriginals in some way.. They may not be a high-culture, but it would be interesting to have some civs from that region too. In addition to Polyneisians.

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by deo
I know a part of the serbs history because i live in Kosovo(look my location)and I know all the history of balkan.The serbs were barbarians that came here at the VII century and estabilished Serbia.Than after dusans death(The greatest leader of the serbs) the turks came in balkan and conquerd Serbia.



Sorry venice was my mistake but in fact they where more importiant than Serbia



Yes that will be nice and i think the Highlander will replace the swordsman and be powerfuller.William Wallec ( I hope i spelled it correctly) will be the leader.

Are you Serb or Albanian?

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by EddyG17
you know it is funny because it is true. In the first test I had in my World History class there was a question the teacher didn't went over, it was:
What continet is Egypt in?
No body knew the answer except by me. It is so sad... That's why now that I've learned English, i'm getting into the IB(international Bacclerau?) program.
Australia it is not a continent, it is a country. But Australia and along the many Islands in the Area are part of Oceania(Hope it is spelled rigth) or at least that is what they taugth me back in Peru.

How can you say so stupid thing that Australia is not a continent???????? There are seven(7) continents in the world:
1.Europe
2.South America
3.North America
4.Africa
5.Asia
6.Australia and Oceania.
7.Artic and Artantic
And some lesson on Serbia.Serbia is a part of a country Serbia and Montenegro.She's one republic and Montenegro is another.After that really cool guy Moderator Action: Vulgarities are not allowed here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 Josip Broz Tito who let stupid Albanians to go to Kosovo and settlement there,few yers later they(Albanians)started genocide on Serbian population who emigrated to other parted of Serbia so now(2004 year,it's past 59 years after Albanians came to Kosovo)on Kosovo there are around 10 000 Serbs and 3 000 000 Albanians.When the Slobodan Milosevic came as a president of ex Yugoslavia(now changed name to Serbia and Montenegro)he started to to help Serbs on Kosovo and to clean it from stupid Albanians.Hag's Tribunal closed him and judge him(judge is still in procces).Before month ago Albanians started etic cleaning on Serbs on Kosovo territory.Their reason as they say is "That Serbs drowned their two childrens" which is not correct and one chilld who survived the drowning said that tahey were only playing while the river took his friends. They started to attack Serbs houses,burn them and also they burned and destroyed 33 churches, burned sementaries and they took the bounes from the graves and throwed all over the field around church.They also opened the grave of 3 Saints and burned them and American and Britan who looked all that thorwed up .After that they took all Serbian houses who left their homes and burned them.It was obvious that was ethic cleaning because they attacked all big towns and villages at the same time.That's all from me.

 

[RedAlert]

Hmmm..... new civs eh?

Well, since there's no known limit to the number of civs that will be in Civ4, I'll just name anything and everything I would like to see, even if they were not that important.

Lets see....

- Mali/Songhay
- Khmer/Cambodia
- Polynesia
- Indonesia
- Tibet
- Nubia
- Ethiopia
- Israel
- Hungary
- Poland
- Canada
- Australia
- a few Latin American ones (not sure which ones though)

and while I'm at it, I would probably make changes to existing civs, since they are starting from scratch, not simply adding to the civs of Conquests.

- Iroquois: in dire need of better city list
- Germany: includes historical German territories such as Austria, Bohemia, etc.
- Byzantines: although I like 'em, they are already covered by Rome and Greece.
- Zulu: change to Zimbabwe? or maybe just make Bantu
- Sumeria and Babylon: merge into one civ.
- Ottomans: what about all the other Turks?
- Celts: new city list (I never even heard of Entremont anyway)
- Hittites: Probably just me, but I never thought they were that important.

Just ideas, simply ideas.

Sorry about the long post

 

[RedAlert]

Originally posted by h4ppy
why is that, canada didn't get full independance until the 1980's and Australia is still technically ruled by a forgien power. (the queen) I do agree with Argentina and Brasil though.

Ummm... I do believe Canada has been independent since 1867.

I know we only cut our final political ties with Britain in the 80's, but up till then, Britain's job was merely to rubber stamp whatever we came up with, they had no real power.

Australia ruled by a foreign power? Oh..! you mean New Zealand! (just kidding, lol ) I know I am no expert on Australian govenment, and I do not claim to be, but Australia; Canada and most other of the Commonwealth countries are merely allies and associates of Britain, ( despite recognizing the British Queen as sovereign, which is only a testament towards the common history and bonds which the commonwealth nations share) which has, as I said before, no real power in these countries and only in alliances with them.

Besides, if there's room in Civ4, why not? I do not like to (and I think it is not right to) judge if a country should be in the game merely by how long they've been an independent political entity.
Heck, Canada has been a country for longer than Aztecs were countries if you must look at it that way. But remember: all these mentioned nations have been Civilizations for centuries longer before they became 'independant countries', wheter they were colonies or tribes or several different nations.

Again, sorry for the long post

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Corey<PHT>
How can you say so stupid thing that Australia is not a continent???????? There are seven(7) continents in the world:
1.Europe
2.South America
3.North America
4.Africa
5.Asia
6.Australia and Oceania.
7.Artic and Artantic

Er, no. A continent is a single landmass.

The continents of our planet are:

1. Eurasia
2. Africa
3. America
4. Australia
5. Antarctica

Optionally you could say six if you consider the connection between the Americas a mere landbridge.

The arctic is just ice on water, not land.

 

[Shyrramar]

The definition of a continent is NOT a single landmass. This definition would of course combine Africa with Eurasia - not to mention make continents of every islands. The definition is not that simple. It's not about continental plates either, because there are more of these than actual continents. Nonetheless, there are seven continents in the world: Europe, Asia, Africa, N-America, S-America, Australia/Oceania and Antrarctica. These are the "official" seven. Artic is not a continent, as you Ribannah, already said. The reason why there are these seven is somewhat vague. There is actually very little reason to separate Europe from Asia, so you could of course argue the point.

This of course is not an important topic. I just want to add that there is indeed big trouble when drawing the lines of continents, because they are basically continental plates, but this would make India, for example, a separate continent. What is certain, though, is that Australia is a continent AS WELL AS a country.

EDIT: Before launching a counterattack, please consult:
http://www.graphicmaps.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm

 

[Cuivienen]

Why are we arguing about how many continents there are? There are either six or seven, depending on whether you count Europe and Asia or Eurasia.

1. Africa
2. Antartica
3. Asia
4. Australia
5. Europe
6. North America
7. South America

 

[Ribannah]

Continent literally means holding together. The confusion is caused by sloppiness of the English language. Other languages have a word for 'world part', which gives the following list:

1. Europe
2. Asia
3. Africa
4. North and Middle America
5. South America
6. Oceania (of which Australia is a part)
7. Antarctica

whereas there is no such word in English.

The country named Australia includes a number of islands, those are not part of the continent.

 

[Shyrramar]

@Ribannah: you are correct. This is what I ment by "official" continents, "world parts" as you put it. The link I gave points you to a site (one of the many) that lists the correct ones.
Australia is of course not the same thing as Oceania, but as the site in my link also says, this Oceanian continent is also known as Australian continent. The Australia-as-a-country is not the same as Australia-as-a-continent. The point is that both exist.

Oh boy, did this conversation get out of hand or what?

 

[EddyG17]

I didn't know that there was a diccusion about wether Europe an Asia are different continents or that they are part of one, Eurasia.
Why do people say that Europe and Asia are one single continent? Because there are connected together? You might as well say the same with N-america and S-america, even better Africa, Europe and Asia are together rigth? so what about Afroeurasia.

 

[Shyrramar]

@EddyG17: The problem with Europe and Asia is that the landmass connecting them is way larger than the one connecting them both to Africa or the one connecting the Americas. By looking at the map, you can see that there are distinctly two Americas, but you can't really say where the line between Europe and Asia is drawn (many people have no clue, by the way). That's because they are fully connected.

You are correct, though, that there are other "continents" connected, but that is not such a big deal. They could of course be united, but that would make the whole concept of continents a bit irrelevant. I think that Europe is disconnected from Asia simply because the whole continent-concept is European. Europe's borders were probably laid out in the early days, the landmass left to the east of it was simply called Asia. That distinction lives on today, although it has very little geographical foundation..

I am still a bit shocked by enigma, so sorry if I sound grumpy...

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: Stop this flame war now! If you want to discuss politics, take it to Off Topic. This forum is for suggestions, not for flame wars and politics!

Thread re-opened. Corey<PHT>, enigma2010, and Ribannah warned for trolling and flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manverulin]

Okay, one thing I don't really get is the difference between Songhai and Mali. Which one would be better in the game?

 

[Ribannah]

Songhai grew larger and richer, but prospered only for a little while, whereas Mali's importance lasted for 3 centuries. So since it was basically the same people I would say Mali.

@Chieftess: now everybody will think we flamed each other over continents.

Nah, I already said I split the flamewar.

 

[Acubed]

at least one new African civ (Songhai would be good) and one new Asian (Khmer, maybe Australian Aborigines) would be nice to round things out.

 

[Manverulin]

Originally posted by Acubed
at least one new African civ (Songhai would be good) and one new Asian (Khmer, maybe Australian Aborigines) would be nice to round things out.

I'd say more than one new African and Asian civ. The more the merrier!

 

[RedAlert]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Songhai grew larger and richer, but prospered only for a little while, whereas Mali's importance lasted for 3 centuries. So since it was basically the same people I would say Mali.

Mali? Really?
Personally I'd go for Songhai. Mali may have been around for longer than Songhai was, but as you said, Songhai were more prosperous. Similarily, the good people at Firaxis chose Aztecs over Mexico (although for different reasons). They are the same people too.

Besides, what are most of the civs in civ for? Power and Wealth or Longevity?

Ah well, in the end, I guess, it is only a name.

 

[V. Soma]

I know that it is very subjective and everyone would like to see his or her country, but I guess Hungary could have some reasons to get into this game. Just as Poland, for example, yes...

Hungary has a history of long, uniquness, too...

Soma
(Well, a Hungarian, surprise there? )