Re-categorization of civilizations

[ShadowWarrior]

I suggest that we get rid of all the civilizations that currently exists in Civ III, and re-categorize the civilizations we get to choose into "Buddhist-Confucius-East Asia", "Muslim-Middle East, "Christianity-Catholic-Caucassian-European", "Hindu India", "Black African", "Native Americans", "Judaism-Jews", "classical Greko-Romans", and "very ancient Mesopotamia (the Babylons, Akkadians, Summer, etc)"

I think this categorization pretty much lists out the major civilization/culture that exists in history. When a game begins, we are to choose from among these eight civilization/culture, not Chinese, Mongolian, Koreans, Germans, Romans, Greeks, or Aztecs.

I suggest the following civ/culture attributes (which may possibly reflect my own stereotype, and offend some of you, in which case I offer my sincere apology):

Buddhist-Confucius-East Asia: Relatively faster research and population growth rate until this civilization attains technologies such as gunpowder, or other technologies associated with societies on the verge of industrialization.

Christianity-Catholic-Caucassian-European: Faster rate of research and population growth once this civilization obtained industrialization technologies or other technologies associated with societies on the verge of industrialization (opposite of East Asia in another word)

Muslim-Middle East: Relatively faster research rate, but not as fast as East Asia, but certainly faster than Europeans until it obtain industrialization tech. Relatively strong in commerce and trade, meaning more tax revenues.

Greko-Romans: Since Greeks and Romans are well known for their engineering, they should have an advantage when it comes to building wonder and improvement. Perhaps, it takes less resource shields for them to build any wonder or improvements. Since Democracy and Republicanism come from this civilization, it perhaps should take significantly less time for players of this civ to research those two "tech". (Should we give "research" bonus to civilizations that research technologies that historically first came out of that civilization? For example, research bonus for East Asia that is researching gunpowder)

I can not thing of a civilization/culture attributes for the rest of the civilizations I've listed. That's because I am not familiar with their history and culture. But having said that, I can not honestly say that I am expert in the history and culture of the civilizations whose attributes I have suggested. I can only say that compare to those civ/culture to which I have not suggested attributes, I am more familiar with those that I have suggested attributes.

By suggesting civilization/culture attributes for some civilizations/culture, I guess I am trying to make the point that civilization/culture attributes doesn't have to be confined specifically to leader personality or unique units as is the case in Civ III. Some civ/culture can have unique units, while other civ/culture may have advantages in research certain categories of technologies, while still other civilizations may have advantages in other aspects of the game. Designers should keep this in mind when desiging civilizations.

 

[searcheagle]

Your catergorization of civs would be too unbalancing. The Christianity-Catholic-Caucassian-European civ proably would not even make it to its optimal age.

 

[CivCube]

Part of the fun with Civ, however, is that each game is also a race for bragging rights. Who wouldn't want to be a Pharoah of Egypt, the king of Rome in its glory, or be Hannibal as he charges his army against a civ that could never have lived in the same area and period? It's a geek's dream come true.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I think you civ generalizations do not make much sense in terms of gameplay or reality. You can lump Koreans, Chinese and Japanese together. If you asked anyone of those groups they would say they are completely different from one another and they would be right. If you noticed civ has got more specific over time not general. This is so you can play through more viewpoints in this game. Grouping all these things together just borders on ignorance of history. You're just taking stereotypes to make civs. Muslims may have been scientifically advanced in one age rather than another because of a certain historical event, which would not exist in the make-believe of civ. This the prime drawing power of civ, to rewrite history. Plus no civ should be tied down to a religion, it could change as improbably as it has in the past.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

My original intention of re-categorization was simply so that it represents the major civilizations that exists in history without having us players to have to select the specific ethnicities which belongs to those civilizations I've suggested. By having to choose a specific ethnicity rather than civilization/culture, we risk leaving out many worthwhile ethnicities that currently exists on the planet.

How is ethnicities different from what I think is a bigger concept of civilization? I do not know how to define it in one statement. So I'll use examples. I think China, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese and all the East Asian countries belong to one greater civilization while individually they have their own ethnic characters.

Germans and French are also unique ethnically although they belong to one greater civilization rooted in Christianity.

The same is true of the Middle East Muslims. Iranians, Iraquis, and Egyptians are for most part Muslim countries and belong the same civilization based on Islamism although, again, these individuals are ethnically unique.

I argue that what currently Civ game do is to take some of the ethnicities that currently exists on the planet and incorporate that into the game. This has the very big risk of leaving out so many other worthwhile ethnicities that also has its place in history. In fact, I can't help it but to feel some degree of arbitrariness in the way that the designers choose the ethnicities that are to be incorporated into the game.

By replacing the more specific categories of ethnicities with the bigger concept of civilization, we will be able to represent all the major civilizations that exists in history.

However, I do realize that many people like to choose at the level of ethnicities rather than at the broader level of civilization. I myself woudl want this because I am a Chinese and would like to play as a Chinese. Keeping this in mind, I propose the below:

First, when the game starts, we are to choose from the broader level of civilization. The civilizations that can be selected are listed out in my previous threads. You can find them there. And feel welcome to add other civilizations that you feel is missing from the list.

Next, having chosen a civilization, we will type in the specific ethnicities we wish to play which belong to the civilization we chose. For example, if I pick "East Asia-Confucius-Buddhism", I can type in Vietnamese, Chinese, or Japanese. (Notice that current Civ games do not have Vietnamese. What I suggest will enable all the ethnicities to be incorporated into the game)

A list of spelling of ethnicities that belong to each civilizations should be provided so that players who aren't familiar with history will be able to choose from this list.

I further propose that each civilization has some advantages. But these advantages should not have to manifest itself in the form of unique units. Some civilizations may get unique units, while others may get economic advantages, while still others may have scientific advantages.

Also, when I categorize these civilizations according to their locations, race, and religion, I am simply trying to describe the civilization I have in mind. By categorizing civilizations by religion, I am not suggesting for these civilizations to be tied permanently to that religion throughout the entire game.

 

[thestonesfan]

But almost all civilizations are unique, so why not just be able to pick from them in the beginning? The Iranians shouldn't be "Middle East Muslims", they have a very long history before they were muslim and even now do not consider themselves very close to their Arab neighbors. Same with Egyptians. Makes more sense to me to just have Arabs, Persians, and Egyptians.

 

[Bibor]

But almost all civilizations are unique, so why not just be able to pick from them in the beginning? The Iranians shouldn't be "Middle East Muslims", they have a very long history before they were muslim and even now do not consider themselves very close to their Arab neighbors. Same with Egyptians. Makes more sense to me to just have Arabs, Persians, and Egyptians.

As I said before, it would be great if we could just *move* from the idea of "Ein volk, ein fuhrer" (one nation, one leader). You could start as a baron of some ****ty barony... later to overthrow the king and become an emperor, just to make some stupid mistakes and forced either to abdicate or to flee to your american continent colonies and make them independent. This way CIV would be actually city- not empire-based and the whole thing would be much easier even for AI to work out.
Or you could choose to be a religious leader and ignore the empire boundaries at all (but have different boundaries). And again you could be Martin Luther and severe your connections with Vatican etc.

- Bib

 

[Dravazed]

When I accessed this thread, what I thought was going to be suggested was that it be made possible for a given civilization to have its attributes change as it developed. That seems to me both a realistic and sophisticated idea, and one I favor. A civ that begins as industrious and expansionist might become commercial and religious later on. That sort of thing.

 

[covenant]

I think this is interesting in the sense that really human beings became civiled in two spots, Sumeria and China as far as I know. All other civs developed from these two points in Iraq and the Yellow River as the ideas founded there spread outward. So by starting with one of those two, you actually develope towards becoming French, or Egyptian or Thai or Korean. You are a civilization that goes from Sumeria to Persia to The Ottoman Empire to modern day Iraq, in all its form and itterations. That is real civ forming. I think that is what ShadowWarrior is pointing towards. Sorry if I put words in your mouth Shadow.

 

[Mewtarthio]

If you're trying to include everyone in all your options, why not just reduce the choices to the following list:

- Humans

It has exactly the same advantages.

 

[Punkymonkey]

What about the new world? You can't say that sumeria and china were the first civilizations but the first urban socities. Cultural civilizations existed at the same time but just copied the idea of adopting cities as a living strategy. In civilization, the game, some of the civilizations listed grew out of another one but to the people living in those areas they have a developed cultural identity which may make diplomacy hard but the game fun. I really don't see by broadening the civ scale it makes for a more realistic or fun game.