The Civilization III Unequality of Civilizatoins

[Mr Funkypants]

We all have come to know and love our favorite civs, and we have all met Mr. Funkypants, me, and sworn at him, and we have replayed the game of Civ many many times. But I have something that I have noticed. Civilization, especially conquests is EXTREMELY unfair on the area placement of the civs. For example, in C3C in W. Europe there are the Celts, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Dutch, Vikings, and Romans. In E. Europe in C3C there is Greece and Russia. Why do they do this? I'm saying this as a Belgian, so don't be angry, couldn't they have replaced the Celts and the Dutch, 2 relatively minor civs, with more major eastern european civs, i.e. Hungary and Austria. And they also forgot a South Asian civ! The Indonesians or Khmeres should have been added instead of the Iroquois. (sorry Iroquois fans, but they were a small nation) And they should've also had the Mali or Songhai! 2 major African civs, I believe more important than the hittities. Hopefully Civ IV or a 3rd Civ III expansion will include: Mali and/or Songhai, Khmers and/or Indonesians, Austria, and Hungary. BTW, say to TETurkhan for including many new civs in his Test of Time scenario.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Well not everyone plays on a perfect world map, so it isn't a worry for alot of people. Also, they don't choose civs based on world location, they choose them on how deserving they are. And so far, IMO, most of the civs chosen have been worthy.

 

[Mr Funkypants]

Originally posted by SuperBeaverInc.
Well not everyone plays on a perfect world map, so it isn't a worry for alot of people. Also, they don't choose civs based on world location, they choose them on how deserving they are. And so far, IMO, most of the civs chosen have been worthy.

Okay, think about it, Austria is worthy a LOT more than the Hittities. I don't even know where they live! And the Celts?!?! Sure, they were the basis of all European civs, but then why didn't they include the Caucasians? Or the Indo-Europeans? Or the Tanzanians? Go figure. I personally believe that the Hittities, Celts, Iroquois and Zulu are not worthy. They shouldve done Mali or Songhai instead of Zululand, that's true, isn't it?

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I think that the Zulu should stay. The Iroquois can go, the Celts and Hittites should stay. The Hittites were the first empire in modern Turkey. They were a strong middle eastern empire, that rivaled even Egypt. Austria is already technically in the game.

 

[Gengis Khan]

But then you'd end up with 26 European Civs and 2 American.

Since early history is documented through mostly European nations I'm sure we can all think of dozens of "deserving" Civs that didn't make the cut, while somewhat obscure tribes like the Zulu & Iroquois did. This is for balance, and to keep the numbers roughly even.

And I like the Iroquois.......... except when they start next to me.

 

[superslug]

The game can only support 31 civs out of the hundreds (thousands?) of nation states from millenia of history. There's no list of 31 the developers could come up with that wouldn't piss off someone. So, the obvious solution is the editor...but you already know this:

Originally posted by Mr Funkypants
BTW, say to TETurkhan for including many new civs in his Test of Time scenario.

 

[supaguruzebidy]

Mr funkypants the hitties were the nation that wiped out the ancient egyptians!Study your history lad!!!!Alot of the civs picked were powers in their area of the globe!! They were also culturely strong the austrians and hungarians were only really powers for a short time during the 17th to early 20th century you may as well say why aren't the prussians in the game!!You dont see me getting upset because australia isn't in the game despite the fact we have more land mass than most nations!! You have to accept that some nations made history while others were just along for the ride!!!

 

[Longasc]

While neither the UU nor the traits are my favorite, supaguruzebidy has a point.

The Hittites were really one of the most important early civilizations.

I also cannot understand your complain that so many civilizations are of european origin.

Not everyone plays a world map, and there are scenarios like TETurkhans e.g. if you want so.

The native american tribes have the problem that the Americans of today are of european heritage and that their culture is of european origin - and well documented, due to the fact that one knows his own origins better than those of others.

I think you are right that the fertile crescent and europe are already well presented in the game.

There is also the question if adding more and more civs will make the game better. E.g. a canadian and australian civilization.

I think for Civ4 they will have to produce a lot of city name lists for every nation and then let dozens of Civs share the same traits and UU, because everyone seems to want his nation represented ingame.

So i suggest making certain trait groups with different civs and give everyone of them the most fitting of a group of UU's for Civ4 and a own list of city names. Well, that is what makes a Civ in Civ3 at all, nothing more.

We could also say: We already have enough Civs. And I think the most important civs are already in the game, Rome e.g. (biased, I know) and some perhaps not so prominent but fun ones, e.g. Zulu and Iroquis.

For a real worldmap scenario, I think Civ will never be good if you want to go into detail because europe would be too crowded.

So I would say TETurkhan is way to go for you, Mr Funkypants.

 

[supaguruzebidy]

Well it does sound like Im am right you cant please everyone all the time!!

 

[Carthage!!!]

The world map I'm playing now has the Hungarians, though I don't know much about them, I don't have much contact with them, and we rarely have anything the to trade with each other...

 

[dojoboy]

I believe Austria is in C3C, as an extra civ. IIRC, you can swap out one of the current 31 civs for Austria using the editor.

 

[trader/warrior]

well, i dont think we need vikings(even though im from norway) they only lasted for like three hundred years.

 

[Mr Funkypants]

Originally posted by Longasc

There is also the question if adding more and more civs will make the game better. E.g. a canadian and australian civilization.

I think for Civ4 they will have to produce a lot of city name lists for every nation and then let dozens of Civs share the same traits and UU, because everyone seems to want his nation represented ingame.

Well, I don't really care if Belgium isn't included. We are such a minor nation, it would be pointless to include us in the Civilizations of Civ III. It's just that it's kinda unbalanced. Instead of adding Portugal and the Netherlands in C3C, they should have added Songhai and Khmerland(?). These were major nations in the history of the world, and will include a better balance. That is all.

 

[Mr Funkypants]

Originally posted by trader/warrior
well, i dont think we need vikings(even though im from norway) they only lasted for like three hundred years.

But according to history, the Vikings had an advanced culture and an important part in history. That is why they are included. It's mainly cause the Vikings aren't like anyone else.

 

[Cuivienen]

Originally posted by Mr Funkypants


Well, I don't really care if Belgium isn't included. We are such a minor nation, it would be pointless to include us in the Civilizations of Civ III. It's just that it's kinda unbalanced. Instead of adding Portugal and the Netherlands in C3C, they should have added Songhai and Khmerland(?). These were major nations in the history of the world, and will include a better balance. That is all.

Portugal and the Netherlands are very important in terms of early exploration. Well, maybe the Netherlands isn't. They could have been cut. Songhai, however, is no more deserving than the Netherlands except in that there is only one African civ. In any case, were there no hard-coded limit, these civs should be added to balance the numbers:

Abyssinia
Mali (Songhai was much smaller)
Polynesia
Khmer
Sioux
Lithuania
Tibet

 

[badeend]

Actually Belgium is included, it's just part of the Netherlands.
They only took their independnce in the 19th century though.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

should all the nation in the U.N be represented?

Somalia, Tanzania,Zaire, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia,Congo and Rewanda are all part of the Swahili civilization.

 

[supaguruzebidy]

OK who said the netherlands werent important ever heard of the dutch east indies company!!The netherlands were one of europes most important importers of spices and tea!!Its just unlike other western nations they did it peacefully not through violence and conquest!!I do agree with funkpants i one department though and that is the inclusion of more asian civs!!While japan china mogols and korea are included(and they are the big ones) I feel that se of asia has been missed out on!Also the maouri of new zealand should be in it.They were a good blood thirsty warmongering race!!

 

[Longasc]

I agree, there are too many european civs and of the near east / fertile crescent.

A problem with the Maori would be the names of their cities, they probably did not have any, but the Zulu did not have real cities, too...

Of what SE asian Civs are you thinking?

Indonesia and Malaysia perhaps? I was once on Bali, their culture is quite different from the Chinese as far as I can say.

 

[supaguruzebidy]

Yeah Indonesia,Easter Island,Kyhmer,maybe the burmese and pacific islanders!!Just some of the more forgotten nations that actually occupied large territories and/or made significant cultural landmarks!!I agree that naming maori cities would be hard but Im sure if the team talked to some maori people they would be able to suggest some!