Rhye should remove Greece, Incaland, and Aztecland

[Aeon221]

This may seem silly, but many nations just are not worth playing... unless you have a latent strain of masochism.

Greece, Incaland, and Aztecland are three nations I consider irrelevant to gameplay.

No nation bearing the name of Greece existed prior to the 19th century. Even the current leaderhead of what is clearly intended to be Classical Greece (remember that the UU is the Hoplite, not the Phalanx) is a Macedonian. Up until the Unificiation, Greece was a patchwork of city states: in civ terms, a barbarian nation. If you want to call it Macedonia or the Byzantine Empire or the Ottoman Empire, fine, good, excellent. But a Greek nation starting around 2200BC with Athens as its capital is simply silly.

The Incas and the Aztecs are interesting nations, with exotic, little understood cultures and mysterious religious beliefs. They occupy otherwise empty areas of the map. They, much like Babylon, Sumeria, Israel, Korea, and the Zulu would be better represented as barbarian states. While culturally important to the modern archeologist (I have committed wordicide!), their main claim to fame is their conquest by another, more violent power: Spain.

All three of these nations suck up processor power in order to represent what are, essentially, minor powers that disappeared from the map not long after they ran up against some nation or other. I'm too drunk to think up a better way of phrasing it than that, so pretend I wrote something that sounds better.

I would suggest the inclusion of the Scandinavians, and perhaps the Turks, if these nations were removed... but honestly, I think it would be difficult to find more nations worth putting in, regardless of how beloved they are.

 

[Prestidigitator]

I really detest threads that have little if not any reasonable meaning(s). What do you mean "Greece isn't a civilization?", haven't you heard of their advanced technology? Their vast empires and their conquests? It seems absurd to me to leave it out.

We have been discussing the possibility of making some civs and barabarians minor nations. You can join in and contribute if you have interest.

Babylon as barbarians??? Given that the game has been quite insolent towards the Cradle of Civilization, we decided to include Babylon in the mod. I have with the help of many members created ALL the assets required to make Babylon as unique as all the other civilizations in the mod. It is now not open to discussion whether adding Babylon is an option, it has already been decided.

Again, the Turks, Babylonians, Vikings (Scandanavians) and the Carthaginians WILL be added to the Warlords version of the mod. It has been decided and discussed too, to be honest you should have joined those three discussion earlier. Why do people forget ?

 

[Head Serf]

Well then I must have a latent strain of masochism because I personally enjoy playing as the Aztecs.

The idea that Greece shouldn't appear until the 19th century is like pushing Germany back to 1871. I completely oppose changing any of the current civilizations into minor civs.

 

[Tyranausaurus]

To be honest, some people must join discussions earlier or probably never join if they are this late...

 

[seamus75]

Here Here Tyranausaurus!! But pity the person who finds the forum after the fact - I guess we should just shut the hell up & bask in the glory of your early arrival. Opinions are like as...you know the quote - just cause this guys stinks as bad as any other doesn't warrant the tongue lashing given nor the apparent mark of shame branded him by you for coming to the party a little late. Grow up people.

 

[Aeon221]

You may want to check what I wrote again. I posted the word nation, not civilization, for a reason. I believe that the Greek civilization can be best represented by barbarian cities. Until the 19th century, the Greeks did not manage to unite themselves as one nation. Only outsiders (the Macedonians, the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Turks) were able to unite them.

Also, I first raised this complaint on the original thread prior to this forum being created. Its not exactly coming out of nowhere.

I have no objection to the "Greeks" remaining if renamed to the Macedonian Empire, because that is who they are! Alexander is their leader, not Pericles, Lycourgas, or Agamemmnon (I know I mauled at least one of those names).

If you want to depict Minoan, Mycenean, and Classical Greece, use the barbarians, rather than pretending that pre-Macedonian Greece was united as one nation.

I have no doubt that many players hit up the Incans or the Aztecs at one time or another. I have, and I found it to be remarkably boring. The inability to interact in a meaningful manner with any other nation for much of the game, coupled with an intended handicap in tech meant to make you easy meat for Spain... why not just solve the whole mess by using our barbarian friends? Especially since they never manage to really interact with other civs when a human is not playing one of them.

As for the inclusion of Babylon, I think it is a bad idea. The Crescent was certainly an important part of the birth of civilization, but... they end up sitting right in the middle of the Arabian and Persian spawns. If the Turks get added... well...

Its very nice of you to do all that hard work getting together the widgets needed to make a playable Babylonian civ. Absolutely stellar! But is there really room for a Babylonian civ?

I'ma get back to playing the game.

 

[Prestidigitator]

Yes, there certainly is, Babylon will have its place just like the Arabs and the Persians do. When the Turks arrive, well, what's wrong with their arrival?
What are you trying to say "They end up sitting right there in the middle of the Arabian and Persian spawns [...]" , they are way above the Arabian spawn and way west of the Persian spawn.

Anyway, why am I discussing this? it has been decided... There is no need for further discussion.

As for the Native civs, if you don't play them it doesn't mean everyone doesn't... Not that I play them everytime, but I think if its really bothering you you can change a few variables in XML.

 

[onedreamer]

You may want to check what I wrote again. I posted the word nation, not civilization, for a reason. I believe that the Greek civilization can be best represented by barbarian cities. Until the 19th century, the Greeks did not manage to unite themselves as one nation. Only outsiders (the Macedonians, the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Turks) were able to unite them.

This is wrong. The greek city states were indeed united as a civilization, meaning that they had a national identy, culture, language, etc and always fought their common enemies united, ever since the Mycenean. They also had their feuds and wars, true. Their colonies overseas instead followed a different fate. You are too narrow minded in thinking of the meaning of nation, this is a "modern" word (I mean post classical) and you compare it to a modern scenario, but in the ancient and classical age the dominant scenario was of city states. The Etruscan situation was exactly the same, for example, and if I'm not wrong even Egyptian cities would compete among themselves. True, greek city states weren't united under a single ruler or flag. So what ? This is easily expressed by the fact that when "Greece" comes in, their gov. civic will be barbarism. But they're still a civ. with their own identity. They didn't feel like uniting under a common king, that only means, in game terms, that they didn't choose Hereditary Rule as civic but "City States" (there should really be a civic like that). And the capital is Athens only because there needs to be one in game terms. I can also object on the capital of Egypt being Thebes, for example, or Memphis, it could be one of a long list.

edit: when you choose to play the Greeks, you choose to play the Greek CIVILIZATION. Where did you read "Greek Nation" ? Ah, it's because of the name "Greek Empire" ? Well American Empire sounds as much funny ;-)

 

[Gunner]

I agree that with Greece you need to look at them as a civilization, not a nation. Thats also how you have to think of Germany.

 

[dh_epic]

To say that you have to be a unified nation to be a civilization would basically destroy the fabric of this mod. Japan would appear in 1850, as would America, Germany, and the Greeks you just mentioned. You wouldn't have many gameplay options or competitors before the modern era.

Civilizations exist long before they are self conscious of their own identity. Long before Athenians and Spartans and Macedonians thought of themselves as Greeks, they was a Greek Civilization. They faught amongst each other. They invented Democracy. And they built an empire.

 

[MrThing]

Strictly speaking, the nation state in general did not exist until the 18th century. I am sure what you are getting at with respect to Greece is that it was not a single political entity like China. In truth Japan for most of its history was not a single political entity, nor India, nor the Arabs.

It would be interesting if the game could simulate Civs that are, politically speaking, a lose collection of city states or small semi-independent provinces.