The remaining Civ
- Thread starter aaminion00
- Start date
- Status
Inhalaattori
Emperor
Shame, shame on you "Game- makers". You are gonna burn in hell for your crimes.
31 civs, and 1 "black civilization", you must be some kind of racists.
And feminists also, come on, Kleopatra, Jean Darc and Theodora.
Anyone who knows something about history wouldnt say that Mali or Ethiopia are less important civs than iroquois, Zulus, Koreans or Dutch. Iroquois, a tribe of 30- 40000. "Great civilization, oh yes"
31 civs, and 1 "black civilization", you must be some kind of racists.
And feminists also, come on, Kleopatra, Jean Darc and Theodora.
Anyone who knows something about history wouldnt say that Mali or Ethiopia are less important civs than iroquois, Zulus, Koreans or Dutch. Iroquois, a tribe of 30- 40000. "Great civilization, oh yes"
aaminion00
Stoned
And a stupid black civilization at that. The zulu? What made them so much better than the ethiopes or Mali?? I bet that if they didn't have those wars with the English they'd just be another goody hut.
aaminion00
Stoned
yeah but for some reason i have a problem playing behind a female face
[rant]
I don't really care if the leaders or female or male, most civs have accurate leaders. Actually, cleopatra was neither egyptian, nor a great leader, Egypt's leader should be Ramses the Great or someone like that. France's leader's ok with Joan D'arc, though I would have put Charlemagne or Charles Marteaux, if it was up to me. Catherine is a good russian leader (even though she was German), but the main problem is that there are way too few african civs. the Zulu is a pathetic choice for a civilization. Even if the Zulu are kept in as a civilization, the next Civ3 expansion, or Civ4 should have Nubia, Ethiopia, and Mali/Songhai/Ghana as civilizations and should create a new civ type called "African." Just because These civilizations aren't as well known as some others, it's not an excuse to not include them. I mean, come on. The Dutch have been a relatively small and insignificant civilization, and they add them in an area that's already too crowded instead of adding more african civilizations that were much more influential and important, in an area that is lacking civilizations.
[/rant]
To Xen: Congratulations on getting the Byzantines, I just hope for you that they actually have the cataphract as the UU and not some other unit.
I don't really care if the leaders or female or male, most civs have accurate leaders. Actually, cleopatra was neither egyptian, nor a great leader, Egypt's leader should be Ramses the Great or someone like that. France's leader's ok with Joan D'arc, though I would have put Charlemagne or Charles Marteaux, if it was up to me. Catherine is a good russian leader (even though she was German), but the main problem is that there are way too few african civs. the Zulu is a pathetic choice for a civilization. Even if the Zulu are kept in as a civilization, the next Civ3 expansion, or Civ4 should have Nubia, Ethiopia, and Mali/Songhai/Ghana as civilizations and should create a new civ type called "African." Just because These civilizations aren't as well known as some others, it's not an excuse to not include them. I mean, come on. The Dutch have been a relatively small and insignificant civilization, and they add them in an area that's already too crowded instead of adding more african civilizations that were much more influential and important, in an area that is lacking civilizations.
[/rant]
To Xen: Congratulations on getting the Byzantines, I just hope for you that they actually have the cataphract as the UU and not some other unit.
Inhalaattori
Emperor
Yom. Good stuff.
Joan Darc was just a knight. She must be some kind of "symbol of France" then. She was not a ruler of France.
In some ways i would mind if there were no "Great leaders" at all. There would be some kind of ambassor and kings and queens would chance as time goes by.
Some could say that complaining about this "anti -africanism" is stupid, but I think that combuter games could teach history to players. They could take to the game some important, but not so well- known civs.
Reason why these old african civs are not better known, is that during the colonization europeans tried to deny that africa had history at all. All african achievements were explained as a work of some lost european civilization.
One reason for choosing Dutch, could be that they are sea- faring and commercial. Quite uncommon combination.
Joan Darc was just a knight. She must be some kind of "symbol of France" then. She was not a ruler of France.
In some ways i would mind if there were no "Great leaders" at all. There would be some kind of ambassor and kings and queens would chance as time goes by.
Some could say that complaining about this "anti -africanism" is stupid, but I think that combuter games could teach history to players. They could take to the game some important, but not so well- known civs.
Reason why these old african civs are not better known, is that during the colonization europeans tried to deny that africa had history at all. All african achievements were explained as a work of some lost european civilization.
One reason for choosing Dutch, could be that they are sea- faring and commercial. Quite uncommon combination.
Inhalaattori
Emperor
that should be "In some ways i would NOT mind"
aaminion00
Stoned
Quite uncommon? Are you sure? To me it seems the most logical partner trait to commercial. Think of Carthage, England, etc. etc.
aaminion00
Stoned
Hmm, only a few more posts left...
Inhalaattori
Emperor
True. Carthage will propably be commercial/sea-faring.
England I would see Seafaring and expansionistic.
England I would see Seafaring and expansionistic.
aaminion00
Stoned
IMHO, Commercial and Expansionist are better than any other traits for Britian. But maybe that's just me.
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
Summary ideas
@Furius
A name for the Leader of the Israelites maybe King Salmon (in Portuguese: Salomão). You cant denied this fact. He was the figure of the earl civ of Israel.
@Inhalaattori
1st From times to times, the Jewels or Israelites (whatever) like the Pollens have appeared sometimes in History. But the Israelites had a Kingdom since the time of ancient Babylon, while the Pollens appears on the Napoleon invasions. (correct me if Im wrong). So Israel should be on the next Civ.
2nd The Sumerians were truthfully the first civilization constitute with independent state-cities. And they are quite different of the Babylonian.
@Yom
I agree with you Ethiopia should be on Civ3: Conquest.
@Xen
I know that you love the middle age civs. But Byzantium??? Like they said in your land: NO WAY, JOSE!!! The Byzantium were the Eastern Roman Christian Empire. So they were Romans, right???
So the remaining civs: for me should be:
(1 The Sumerians
2 The Hittitans
3 The Incas
4 The Mayas)
5 The Portuguese
6 The Ethiopians
7 The Israelites
(and if 8 The Maori).
Zenon out
@Furius
A name for the Leader of the Israelites maybe King Salmon (in Portuguese: Salomão). You cant denied this fact. He was the figure of the earl civ of Israel.
@Inhalaattori
1st From times to times, the Jewels or Israelites (whatever) like the Pollens have appeared sometimes in History. But the Israelites had a Kingdom since the time of ancient Babylon, while the Pollens appears on the Napoleon invasions. (correct me if Im wrong). So Israel should be on the next Civ.
2nd The Sumerians were truthfully the first civilization constitute with independent state-cities. And they are quite different of the Babylonian.
@Yom
I agree with you Ethiopia should be on Civ3: Conquest.
@Xen
I know that you love the middle age civs. But Byzantium??? Like they said in your land: NO WAY, JOSE!!! The Byzantium were the Eastern Roman Christian Empire. So they were Romans, right???
So the remaining civs: for me should be:
(1 The Sumerians
2 The Hittitans
3 The Incas
4 The Mayas)
5 The Portuguese
6 The Ethiopians
7 The Israelites
(and if 8 The Maori).
Zenon out
music_theory7
Warlord
I would like to see the Byzantines come in but problem is that their a combination of Romans and Greeks(which were in the original) Other then that I think they should have the Macedonians or some other Balkan group e.g. Austria (probelm there too cause their german) how about Hungry?And yet there is aleays room for the Swedes. By the way I think we have a bit too much primitive civs in this game so personally I don't think I'll like them to add another like the polysians along with the zulus etc.
music_theory7
Warlord
By the way I heard some guys complaining about the game being Eurocentric. What do you expect? They took over the whole world for christ sake! lol. Actually I don't think there should be more then 1 or 2 black civs cause that entire and I mean entire continent was conquered by europe. Again the swedes they rock e.g.- 400 swedes defeated 3000 Russians in a battle near Navra in 1682. Must I say more? Sweden is a must!
SoCalian
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,901
Sure europe canqured all of Africa except, Ethiopia and Liberia. See then if there are no Africain civs in the3 game how can Europe conquer Africa. And the Ethiopes and Mali are some of the most needed civs in the game. they certainly are more needed than Portugal and the Neatherlands.
Europe took over the whole world Music_theory7?
I'm sorry, but you are horribly mistaken. If you're speaking of the period of colonisation in which many European nations were powerful, that was an extremely brief period in history compared to other periods of time. In fact, great civilizations were flourishing in Africa and Mesopotamia while Europeans were barbarians still living in caves trying to tame fire. Europe's importance is actually very recent in history's eyes. And your idea of only having 1 or 2 black civilizations is very racist, seeing as there are already numerous European civilizations, some of which are much less worthy of being included than certain African civilizations. Also, some of the European civilizations included aren't even true civilizations; rather, they are modern nation-states.
Furthermore, do you feel that one battle won by sweden is good enough to include it as a civilization; whereas you feel that there shouldn't be many African civilizations, some of which accomplished far, far more? I really feel that your comments are more than Eurocentric; they are truly racist. Until you look further than the age of colonialism and solely Europe's accomplishments, you will be horribly ignorant of true history.
I'm sorry, but you are horribly mistaken. If you're speaking of the period of colonisation in which many European nations were powerful, that was an extremely brief period in history compared to other periods of time. In fact, great civilizations were flourishing in Africa and Mesopotamia while Europeans were barbarians still living in caves trying to tame fire. Europe's importance is actually very recent in history's eyes. And your idea of only having 1 or 2 black civilizations is very racist, seeing as there are already numerous European civilizations, some of which are much less worthy of being included than certain African civilizations. Also, some of the European civilizations included aren't even true civilizations; rather, they are modern nation-states.
Furthermore, do you feel that one battle won by sweden is good enough to include it as a civilization; whereas you feel that there shouldn't be many African civilizations, some of which accomplished far, far more? I really feel that your comments are more than Eurocentric; they are truly racist. Until you look further than the age of colonialism and solely Europe's accomplishments, you will be horribly ignorant of true history.
music_theory7
Warlord
Ok maybe I was too "ignorant" of black advances, I mean after all didn't the modern human develope in Africa? But I studied european history and they done a lot. Trust me far far more than the africans who even today kills each other leaving the entire continent in ruin. As to sweden not only did they win that battle in which they were outnumbered like 10 to 1 but others as well. Sweden was the only great power in the north for 220 yrs. They crushed the Danish, poles, Fins, Baltic states, and for a while Russia. unfortionately they got smart and decided to gang up on mighty sweden. At poltava the power of Sweden was ended but what could you expect when they were outnumbered 9 to 1? Sometimes quantaity is a quaily of it's own. I think Sweden should have be in either that or the Danes. Their UU would be a infantry unit or something and traits are militaristic, and Science.
- Status
