Petition for the Better Reprentation of Non-European Cultures in Civillization

[warpstorm]

Do you have any expertise in unit modeling? You say it's too late, but I'd like to know for waht experience you come to that conclusion? From just suposing or from actual experience making units.

From working with the people who make these types of units day in and day out.

So,... How can I meet these people for a beer? hehehe

Hang out in area Hunt Valley. I run into them in the restaurants all the time at lunch.

 

[Nobody]

When a mojority of the people who buy the game come from africa then im sure they will have more civs from there

 

[rhialto]

I said Chinese characters not Canji. Although Canji are Chinese characters, they sometimes have different meanings, some Canji were invented by the Japanese, while many are not used. I can't speak Japanese, so I don't know the exact Canji. I know Chinese. So I wrote the Chinese term because often they are the same, but not always. In Chinese Bushi is written 步士 which is also pronounced Bushi, and Samurai is 武士 or 武诗 (same pronunciation in Chinese Wushi, though different meaning), and Kyuba no Michi (马箭的法 Majian de fa) is Chinese. I don't know Japanese but I do no that no Michi is the equivalent of Chinese 的法 de fa, "Method of", but perhaps this phrase it written in Katakana and no Canji.

Anyway, we're really getting off track. Let's keep to the subject at hand: The Better Representation of Non-European Cultures. Alot of people have written in this thread, but none have proposed how we can get our voice heard. Any Ideas?

Hmm, you were talking about japanese cultural concepts, and ONLY japanese cultural concepts, and you mentioend "Chinese characters", which is a standard term which certainly includes Japanese kanji. From that, it certainly seemed reasonable to assume you were trying to write in Japanese.

Anyway, the Japanese terms...

bushi - 武士
samurai - 侍
way of the xxxx - 道 (common suffix for martial arts names)
archery (kyuudou) - 弓道
kendou - 剣道
juudou - 柔道
martial arts (budou) - 武道 (general cover-all term)

Peace.

 

[Sullla]

Trying to make Civ4 more non-European is all well and good, but virtually every post in this thread (aside from Warpstorm) seems to be failing to grasp the problems inherent with these ideas. Creating separate tech trees for each civ would be extraordinarily difficult, not to mention a balancing nightmare (can't you see people wanting to play ____ civ, which has the "best" tech tree?)

Different artwork is a good idea in theory, but it leaves the problem of 1) distinguishing the same unit where different artwork is used (this would almost certainly lead to much confusion), and more importantly 2) limitation on human resources. So we're supposed to get something like 80 units in Civ4, right? And they all have to be rendered in 3D, since the game apparently no longer uses fixed camera angles. And you guys want multiple versions of EACH unit, differed by skin tone and equipment for different culture groups?



Look, it's not going to happen. The extremely minor rewards don't come close to the time investment it would take to create this. Suggesting stuff for Civ4 is all well and good, but we have to try and stay realistic.

 

[Bolshevik]

I know this is stupid and probably off-topic, but to the Euro-centricism argument (the pro-Euro-centricism argument, that is): I'm not a scholar or anything, but it seems like Europe was pretty much a 'barbarian' region for most of history, with the exception of Rome (an off-shoot of Egyptian culture, as you stated). It wasn't until European imperialism really took off that Europe was of any signifigance to other regions of the world (once again, barring Rome and Greece). And when Europe did have an impact, it was almost entirely the result of imperialism... Granted they were being invaded mostly, I don't think the foriegn countries were any less important.

Asia and the Mid-East seem to me to be the most important regions of the planet for the following reasons: they pretty much started civilization, lasted for much longer than the important nations of Europe, and sculpted the basis of most European culture.

Monogolia, China, Sumeria, Japan, Egypt, Persia, the Huns, et cetera, all had a very powerful impact on world history and the course of human progression, not to mention European development. I mean, for the majority of recorded history, everything North of Rome was barbarian land (granted the Romans had a bit of a superiority complex, illiterate farmers are still not reason for not representing other, much more important civilizations).

However, the idea that their should be an equal number of civilizations is stupid... Representation, yes, culturally, militarily, technologically, et cetera, but Europe is divided into smaller countries in general. Europe obviously had an impact, and the main civilizations in Europe should be represented (as they are), but the countries that compose Europe were small: Britain, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Rome, Spain, et cetera. Europe will always have more countries because countries like China took up nearly the same space (which is also indicative of their importance to a certain extent).

As to how to actually represent them better, I think it would be interesting to see a different tech tree for each culture group, but I realize that's unreasonable. I would say add a number of civ-specific or 'culture-specific' techs, throw in more non-European civs a) for importance and b) for aesthetic purporses, maybe more civ or culture-specific wonders/improvements, and definitly at least change the skin color of the darker civs (hell, we already did it for civ 3... If a number of unpaid, freelance, civfanatics can recolor most of the ancient era, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a comparable effort from the developing group -not to be rude, of course, I just don't see any problem with developmental effort in that respect).

You might want to take the aforesaid with a grain of salt, since I'm still thinking in civ 3 and 2 terms (obviously, no one here's experienced with 4)...

By the way (and this may start another argument... If so, I appologize in advance), communism isn't a government, and I've always seen that as one of the biggest flaws in civ 3. WAY too general with governing systems... Considering that economics weren't even considered, but moreso thrown in with governing systems. I know it's off-topic, and I know it was used in that context 'cause it's used in that context in-game, but I just can't keep my mouth shut about civ 3's socio-economic options (or lack thereof). SMAC's system was much better, in my opinion...

 

[Bolshevik]

TO Sullla: units in the previous game had -to attain any standard of quality- to be rendered in 3D first too. It's not unreasonable to ask for different skin tones, or modified attire. At this point in game development, I doubt they'd see it as profitable, but it's still no where close to impossible. I would think programming above all else would the most time-consuming aspect of game design (it always was for me, but I'm naturally inclined to artistic development, so that may be a bit of a bias assessment).

To the tech tree part, yeah, I totally agree. Individual trees for each civ or even each culture group would, at least in my eyes (and I don't think I'm alone here), be a balancing and developing nightmare.

To the confusion part, I doubt that would be too terribly confusing (unless you were fairly ignorant and exceptionally lazy... In the latter case, I don't see why you'd be playing this game anyway). I mean, if worse comes to worse, just click on the freakin' unit to see what it is... Unless you have Alzheimer's (sp?) disease, I don't see how you could forget something that doesn't seem to complicated in the first place (if he's carrying a spear, he's most likely a spearman... If it's something as 'drastic' as completely different equipment and look, like I said, click on the friggin' unit for its stats!).

 

[Meleager]

Unless you are willing to wait till the middle of next year to see your units, its not going to happen. Besides it is simply not worth fraxis time and effort to add something that has a better chance of making gameplay worse instead of better (due to confusion with units). If you really want it you are just going to have to wait till someone mods it.

The technology tree thing seems to be already in place, so you dont need to worry about that too much.

Maybe when we have civilization 6 and 7 there will be enough people buying the game in asia for fraxis to worry about them.

 

[Belcarius]

RE Belcarius:

You've seriously mis counted. There are are 13 European Civs as of Civ:Conquest and 13 out of 31 accounting for 41% of the civillizations. Don't Beleive me. Here's a list: European Civs (13)
Rome, Greece, Germany, Russia, America (although it's in America, it's based on European Civ. And is not a native American state.), France, England, Spain, Scandanavia, Celts, Netherlands, Portugal, Byzantines (Ambiguous, but it's based on Rome, so I classify it as European).
Middle Eastern Civs (8)
Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Ottomans (amb.), Arabia, Carthage, Sumeria, Hittites
Subsaharran Africa (1)
Zulu,
Americas (4)
Aztec, Iroquois, Inca, Maya
Central Asia (1)
Mongols, (you could possibly place the Persians and Ottomans here as they originated here and moved West)
South Asia (1)
India,
East Asia (3)
China, Japan, Korea,
Austro-Asia, South East Asia (0)

Your second point is extremely false if you look at the Middle East and Asia. It's actually the other way around. There are more written records from Inia, China, Japan, Persia, and the Caliphates of the Islamic world that Europe up until the relatively modern times. Europeans were mostly illiterate, while Asia and the Middle East was much more literate, with a beaurocratic class. It only seems that the West has more historical evidence than Europe because we learn history in the West. When you go these other places, you'll discover they have much more in terms of records like the ORIGINAL census. In Ancient China, one can actually tell who was living where in many regions of Han China (208 B.C. - 220 A.D.) and even major production companies because the actual records still exist. Even the Roman census does not exist in its orgininal form, but is instead passed down from later historians.

I'm not trying to say Europe is less by this. What I'm saying is that Europe is only one part of the world, and no part of the world is better, but Europe is over represented in a game called "Civillization". Civillization is a widespread social structure found through out the world and every region, so why is it that our "image" (literal and figurative in this game) is based heavily upon one region as repreented by technology and unit art. The technology aspect may already been implemented, but I have no way of knowing. I have never played Civ 4. I want to make sure it's implemented.

Thanks very much for taking the time to thank me for all the times I agreed with you, it's so nice that you recognised I wasn't totally trying to bring you down.

In regards to your first point: I have a Mac. The only version of Civ 3 I have is the original. So my figures were based on the orignal version. I would love to include the expansion but I'm not in that situation so I can't.

My second point is not false, you just took it out of context. In terms of the technological progression of mankind there is more western evidence overall. Just because the records of other cultures go back longer doesn't mean they are more substantial. IN FACT, if you examine the tech tree carefully you'll notice in the Ancient Age it follows the model of progression for most of those middle-eastern countries, but it slowly shifts to the european line. Is this a bad thing? Given that many cultures had not developed major things like gunpowder and electricety by the time they made contact with Europeans, you would be speculating if you imagined how they would have progressed in this area. You made the point about Chivalry: that may well be true but what are you saying exactly? The Iroquois didn't have horses so they shouldn't be allowed to build knights? In terms of realism that hits a new level, but in playability terms it would really disadvantage them and people would not use them as often.

The last thing you've said is completly and totally true. But, I think you've interpreted it the wrong way. Because of the different levels of development that occured in various areas of the world, if Civ wants to be a fair game (unlike Age of Empires), then they need to have the potential for all civs to expand technologically in the most logical and successful way. Now I grant you that some things should be rejigged early on (the alphabet never made any sense to me), but Europe has provided the best example of how technology has progressed in later periods. And at this point most of it is scientific anyway, which you can't dispute.

Look, I would like to see more non-erupoeans in the game, but I don't think you need to take it too far. I mean, your chinese mate has a right to get cut about all the whites but did you hear him say "Hmm, in my culture we developed chemistry before gunpowder, so therefore they should change the game to reflect that."

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I think you're both forgetting that the history of the world is a history of interdependence. As much as empires were willing to sack each other's capitals, they practically needed each other to exist (as trade partners, catalysts for change, or justifications for certain tasks).

Europe's development as technologically advanced and economically dominant was dependent on its ability to leech off of others since the Europeans initially had little to offer to the rest of the world until the advent of the Industrial Revolution. European science would not have become as well developed as it is in the Industrial and present day had it not been for the Arabs' and Persians' farsightedness in preserving the knowledge developed by the Greeks and developing it further as well. Chemistry as we know it has its roots in the studies of ancient Egyptian alchemists ("Chemistry" is believed to have been derived from the ancient name of Egypt - "Khemet"). Technologies as simple of the wheelbarrow and as monumental as gunpowder travelled westward from China, entering Europe. The fact of the matter is, just as much as the world currently depends on European science and technology, the West was (and definitely still is) extremely dependent on the technological, political, and cultural changes that other civilizations were going through. As we can see from the example of Japan, non-European civilizations have the capacity and potential to modernize and become true world powers without having to become "European." The Japanese adopted European science, but did not simply throw away their culture in favor of some white man's ways.

"Civilization" shouldn't just be a matter of representation of cultures. Just simply sticking a culture in without much thought should be considered more offensive than leaving them out (like the way Civ3 gives China those overly generic "Riders" that aren't even Chinese to begin with! And don't get me started with using "Mao Zedong" as its leader! ). That's where simple representation becomes just stale.

The problem that the "Civilization" series has is not just that it fails to include other non-European civilizations, but that it does not portray nor does much research regarding this interdependence and dynamic interaction between civilizations as much as it should. It seemed that the developers only understood this interaction in more regional terms. The interaction between European civilizations is relatively well-documented and well-known in the West, thus Europe is extremely crowded with playable civilizations. Perhaps the reason why the developers did not include other non-European civilizations is because they didn't know or understand their significance.

While casual observers might think that "East" and "West" are separate spheres, the fact of the matter is that there is substantial evidence of interaction, whether it is the travel of ideas and technology along the Silk Road or something like Marco Polo showing up at Kublai Khan's doorstep.

What I would propose is simply this: Rather than simply sticking in cultures for the sake of sticking them in, there should be further investment in existing non-European cultures in the game as well. In choosing which civilization to go in, when it comes to non-European cultures, the developers should not be so random and add. What came off as peculiar to me was that they stuck in the Zulu rather than the Mali or the Nubian Empire, both of which were remarkably wealthy, powerful, and advanced. And of course, there was the oddity of sticking in the Aztecs rather than the Maya (who date as far back as the second millennium BCE and developed the basis of ancient Mesoamaerican science) initially. My view is that it isn't so much that non-European civlizations aren't represented, but rather, it's more that the developers just seem to half-heartedly represent them.

*On a side note, I think it's also kind of funny that the developers have even failed to accurately represent European cultures as well. "Joan of Arc" for France??? And let's not forget the lame-duck "Man o'War" UU.

 

[warpstorm]

*On a side note, I think it's also kind of funny that the developers have even failed to accurately represent European cultures as well.

What ever gave you the idea that they were trying for accuracy? That has never been a goal in the Civ series.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Creating separate tech trees for each civ would be extraordinarily difficult, not to mention a balancing nightmare (can't you see people wanting to play ____ civ, which has the "best" tech tree?)

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous posts, but I think I already brought up the fact that having variable tech trees could negatively affect gameplay. My Bushido vs. Chivalry idea was a direct one for one substitution that would otherwise leave the tech tree untouched. But, perhaps my posts were unclear/confusing.

Different artwork is a good idea in theory, but it leaves the problem of 1) distinguishing the same unit where different artwork is used (this would almost certainly lead to much confusion),

Again, I think I brought up this point. If there were some sort of system (e.g. all Swordsmen have X, wheras all MDI have Y), then the confusion could be avoid. Without a system, I agree, it'd be a mess.

and more importantly 2) limitation on human resources. So we're supposed to get something like 80 units in Civ4, right? And they all have to be rendered in 3D, since the game apparently no longer uses fixed camera angles. And you guys want multiple versions of EACH unit, differed by skin tone and equipment for different culture groups?

I think I was clear that I realized that this would require a significant increase in the manpower strain on Firaxis. Likely, we wouldn't get it until an expansion if then.

Look, it's not going to happen. The extremely minor rewards don't come close to the time investment it would take to create this. Suggesting stuff for Civ4 is all well and good, but we have to try and stay realistic.

Realism is overrated.

Seriously, I'm sure Firaxis can come up with a great game that we'll all love. This conjecture is just part of the fun of anticipation.

I know this is stupid and probably off-topic, but to the Euro-centricism argument (the pro-Euro-centricism argument, that is): I'm not a scholar or anything, but it seems like Europe was pretty much a 'barbarian' region for most of history, with the exception of Rome (an off-shoot of Egyptian culture, as you stated).

Rome, an offshoot of Eqyptian culture? That's a bold claim. Please support or withdraw it.

Yes, there was a period in Europe's history where barbarian invasion set their society backwards by centuries. However, most scholars have abandoned the term "Dark Ages" for that period because it inaccurately glosses over a lot of what was happening in that period.

You say you're not a scholar. You might want to research what you're talking about more before making these kind of radical claims.

It wasn't until European imperialism really took off that Europe was of any signifigance to other regions of the world (once again, barring Rome and Greece). And when Europe did have an impact, it was almost entirely the result of imperialism... Granted they were being invaded mostly, I don't think the foriegn countries were any less important.

I feel like you are underestimating the impact of European imperialism. The imperialistic periods lasted for several centuries and touched on nearly every other part of the world. Why is that not impressive?

Also, I dislike the word "important". Important in terms of influential? It's hard to argue that any other region was as influential on world politics as Europe was. Important in terms of worth? How then do you measure worth? By longevity, by cultural achievement, by wonder building, by influence? To argue this point, we need to be more specific about what axis we are measuring importance on.

Asia and the Mid-East seem to me to be the most important regions of the planet for the following reasons: they pretty much started civilization, lasted for much longer than the important nations of Europe, and sculpted the basis of most European culture.

More very bold claims, especially that these regions "sculpted the basis of most European culture." Please support or withdraw. I'm not arguing that they didn't interact with and influence Europe in some ways, but you've gone far beyond that.

Also, Longevity is impressive and a mark of distinction, but it doesn't necessarily mean "better". Garfield has been in the newspapers a long time, but I can point to far better comics. The United States is a relative newcomer to the world stage, yet no one can deny that it is influential.

Monogolia, China, Sumeria, Japan, Egypt, Persia, the Huns, et cetera, all had a very powerful impact on world history and the course of human progression, not to mention European development. I mean, for the majority of recorded history, everything North of Rome was barbarian land (granted the Romans had a bit of a superiority complex, illiterate farmers are still not reason for not representing other, much more important civilizations).

Really? Japan had a powerful impact on world history AND on European development. Please support or withdraw. I definitely think Japan is a worthy civ to be in the game, but now your claims are getting ridiculous.

Also, you're North of Rome comment shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about the area. Yes, it wouldn't truly be influential on a global scale until the rise of imperialism, but that alone is incredibly impressive.

I'm not trying to argue the othe civilizations in the Middle East, Asia, etc. weren't important or influential or worthy to be included. Far from it. That's ridiculous and overly Euro-centric. But let's not go to the other extreme and say that Europe had no influence or development of its own. I think I've shown, in my previous posts, exactly how influential Europe was.

By the way (and this may start another argument... If so, I appologize in advance), communism isn't a government, and I've always seen that as one of the biggest flaws in civ 3. WAY too general with governing systems... Considering that economics weren't even considered, but moreso thrown in with governing systems. I know it's off-topic, and I know it was used in that context 'cause it's used in that context in-game, but I just can't keep my mouth shut about civ 3's socio-economic options (or lack thereof). SMAC's system was much better, in my opinion...

I don't think governments in civ are restricted to politics. Look at the inclusion of Feudalism, which differs from a Monarchy mainly in socio-economic ways. Or the difference of Republic and Democracy, which have a very thin line between them in terms of politics.

I would imagine, with the various Civics options, that we will see more of what you are looking for in terms of variation based on multiple Socio/Political/Economic axis.

To the confusion part, I doubt that would be too terribly confusing (unless you were fairly ignorant and exceptionally lazy... In the latter case, I don't see why you'd be playing this game anyway). I mean, if worse comes to worse, just click on the freakin' unit to see what it is... Unless you have Alzheimer's (sp?) disease, I don't see how you could forget something that doesn't seem to complicated in the first place (if he's carrying a spear, he's most likely a spearman... If it's something as 'drastic' as completely different equipment and look, like I said, click on the friggin' unit for its stats!).

I think you're underestimating the tremendous amount of variation that would involved in making every unit civ specific. Without an underlying system, the possibilities would be too dizzying for the average person to keep straight in their head. It's easy to tell spearmen and pikemen apart now, because there's only two graphics with color variations between the civs. With customization by civ, you jump to 32 graphics to keep track of. Even with only culture customization, that's 10(5 culture groups?) units to keep track of in place of two.

Clicking on the unit for stats isn't a great solution either. If you force the player to click too much, it'll interrupt the flow of the gameplay and become quite annoying.

 

[Belcarius]

Actually, just on the Chivalry point, it is in fact untrue to say it was wholly a Western development. The Japanese had a very similar development of a code of practice for warriors, called Bushido.

 

[Iovah]

There are way too many off-topic discussions here. Although I'm dying with anticipation to address certain comments I disagree with, I'm going to ignore comments I find incorrect and ignorant accept one- RE: Belcarius. There are mor records and evidence from non-Europeans than Europeans. Like I said, it just seems that way because you were educated in the West. The records and evidence are richer in other parts of the world; however, high school history and even college largely ignores this unless you have good teachers and know where to find these sources and can speak that language.

On to the topic:

There seems to be two subjects causing issue.

Tech Tree Issues: Some seem to think there should be seperate tech trees for each Civ. I don't know who originated this and some people seem to think that I'm asking for this although I have specifically stated I don't. I think the tech tree should be flexible and not static in order to reflex different ways of development. That way development is not limited to the European modle of development, but to many different ways. On Chivalry and Bushido, quickly, Both Chivalry and Bushido are too specific. Chivalry is European and Bushido is Japanese, but what about India, China, Meso America. There aren't there concept. I think Chivalry and Bushido and all warrior codes of conduct should be put under a more generic title like Warrior Code. Warrior Code is more fitting, and it turns out that there is already a "warrior code" advance. Well That's all it is a code of conduct for aristocratic warfare just like Chivalry, Bushido, and ancient chariot warfare of China, Egypt, and Greece (probably more, warrior codes for charioteers seem prevalent in the ancient world). Actually I think Warrior codes are more of a social and cultural advance not a technological advance, but they seem to be there anyway.

Unit Art: Some people seem to think it'll be difficult to distinguish between units from units of different culture groups. Now, lets think back to the first day you got Civ 3, you took it out of the box, installed it, and began playing. When you first started some things were familiar. You saw a Spear in the hand of a man, so you assumed it was a Spearman. You saw a sword in the hand of a man, so he was a swordman. Generally, however, you learned the units by looking at the Tech advances you wanted to see what units it would give you. There you saw you'd get a swordsmen, furthermore, when you wanted to build one, the icon had the word swordmen next to it. Sometimes you'd see an enemy unit you'd never seen before either something more advanced or it was a civ unique unit. Generally, you didn't panic and scream "Oh my God! What is that!? I'm DOOMED!" (unless it was a tank and you only had lucky spearmen to count on) Generally, you immediately recognized a unit by the weapon in its hand. A Musketeer from France was recognizable as a replacement for the Musketman, and the immortal was a replacement for the swordsmen. If you were entirely baffled by a new unit, you could always right click on it and it would say something like "See Civilopedia entry for Hopolite" and then you realized it was a replacement for the spearman. In fact, you almost always right clicked a new unit the first time you saw it to look at its stats. Afterwards, you never needed to look at it again, because your human brain could remember what that unit looked like.

Similarly, I don't think Civ group flavored units will be any more difficult to recognize. They will mostly be recognized by easily identifiable weapons. If one is completely baffled, one can right click the unit. Aftrwards, no confusion would remain because the human mind can surely remember some 30-40 different units. I think a monkey can remember 30 - 40 different images why can't a human? If you can't remember, look at the weapons in the unit's hand, and if that's too hard, a simple right click will instantly reveal the units true nature.

Warpstorm and a couple others seem to think this is too late, but how about pushing for it in an expansion (come on, you know they'll do expansions, it's their way of sapping us for money).

I have no clue where Hunt Valley is Warpstorm, but if you ever meet them at lunch, please put in a good word for us.

 

[warpstorm]

Off topic, Hunt Valley is in Maryland just north of Baltimore. It is a local hub of game development with at least six (current and many defunct) game development companies (well, one is down the road ~2 miles in Timonium) in a town that is about 2 blocks wide and about 2 miles long. If I look out my window, I can see Firaxis.

Up until last year, it was the home of the World Board Game Championship. Not surprisingly, many of the same people who are into computer games are into board games. (Avalon Hill games used to be located in the area).

 

[myhairlosing]

As a Chinese who started playing this game since Civ 1 and has been fairly annoyed by some of the game designs, I totally support the origin post, as long as the game balance is maintained.

At least get the UU and the civ traits right. If ancient Chinese were indeed "militaristic" they wouldn't be conquered first by Mongols and then Mandarins (in fact, both Mongols and Mandarins were essentially "demilitarized" by the soft Hans' culture). And if there is only one civ that deserves the "agricultural" trait that would probably be Chinese. I like using riders, and Chinese did use mounted warriors a lot. But it's the multiple crossbows that made ancient Chinese so formidable.

Some changes can be easy, use "alphabet/character" instead of "alphabet", build "grand temples" instead of cathedrals. Little things like these may not sound too much, but mean a lot to oriental players.

 

[John Lennon Jr.]

Perhaps we could start a thread for the customization for non-euro civs in Civ3? I could lend a hand to anyone, wherever I could.

 

[Iovah]

Oh Cool, I'm from Frederick, Maryland, but I never heard of Hunt Valley. I think I'll have to make a trip up there. hehehe.

Re Myhairlosing:

Yes, I also beleive that the balance should maintain. In fact, the unit art changes I would like seens are merely that... unit art changes. They would be the same essential unit with the same stats. Just look different to represent something other than Europe.

I also agree with you about the problems with the Chinese. Militarist seems like the least likely characteristic for the Chinese. I think "Industrious and Agricultural" are best, and the crossbowmen should have been their special unit. The Rider was supposed to represent the kind of Semi-barbarian Chinese of the frontier of Xinjiang, Gansu, and Menggu. I think it was a poor choice for Chinese special unit. It'd like to have seen something like Nongbing -农兵- farmer-soldier. Chinese used them alot throughout history, especially in the Tang dynasty.

RE John Lennon Jr.:

I'd love to do what you suggested. I tried to get help in creating Ancient Chinese units for my Warring States 战国时代 mod. But No one would help me and I don't have the know-how of how to make units. If you'd help me or teach me how, I'd definately work on such a project.

BTW: I might be releasing my Warring States Scenario soon even though I never got special art for my units. The Warring States scenatio is the same period that the movie "Hero" takes place in, even though the movie isn't historically acurate except for the Emperor of Qin and I detest the movie "Hero" as a poor story and Zhang giving into Chinese government's propaganda.

 

[Belcarius]

RE: Belcarius. There are mor records and evidence from non-Europeans than Europeans. Like I said, it just seems that way because you were educated in the West. The records and evidence are richer in other parts of the world; however, high school history and even college largely ignores this unless you have good teachers and know where to find these sources and can speak that language.

Prove it. (unless you would prefer to stay on topic, which is fine by me)

On your two points:

I have already stated that I agree with the concept of unit art, and would love to see it implemented.

I still think there really is nothing culturally wrong with the present techtree. I think that the way you look at this issue is "Abscence of development for individual cultures means that Civ should represent that overall." And it does this, doesn't it? Chivalry is an optional tech. That takes into account that not all cultures developed Chivalry, and presents the player with a choice what to do in that regard. I can see that maybe a few technologies could be revamped namewise a little, but generally speaking they already get it right. Anyways, they probably put detailed information on how different cultures introduced these developments in the Civilopedia, which is as much justice as needs to be done. (if they don't then they should)

I must agree with myhairlosing, I was always a bit puzzled by where they got the Militaristic/Industrious setup for the Chinese. It sort of seemed that they were trying to create a set of civilizations which represented all combinations of their model rather than reflect them on reality. Whether that is a good thing or not I don't know, but I would lean towards not sacrificing gameplay for realism.

 

[warpstorm]

It sort of seemed that they were trying to create a set of civilizations which represented all combinations of their model rather than reflect them on reality. Whether that is a good thing or not I don't know, but I would lean towards not sacrificing gameplay for realism.

Bingo! Hand the man a cigar. The first priority was to ensure that all combos were covered. Remember, Civ is not a history simulator, but an entertainment title. Hell, Sid himself has said that they don't research the history till the game is nearly done to write up the background text, but rather rely on the Golden Book version of history.

 

[mastertyguy]

Even more than an entertainment: it is a way to make lots of money!