Eastern Knight
Dragons!
it should be the Nigerians...
The remaining Civ
- Thread starter aaminion00
- Start date
- Status
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
The fact that they are using a "seafaring" characteristic in the expansion gives me lots of hope for a polynesian civilization.
aaminion00
Stoned
I agree with Yom on this one. Africa's accomplished a lot more than you give them credit for, although I fail to see why you group them all as "Africans". Yes they're all Africans, but only as much as Indians and Chinese are all "Asians". There are dozens and maybe even hundreds of seperate ethnicities within that continent, not just one people.
Sweden should definetly not be in. And you say that Denmark should be next? Are you of Nordic ancestry or something?? For the love of god, we already have the VIKINGS, who string together all those things. Yeah it was a move done for profit, and Sweden might be more worthy than such a blanket civ, but to suggest to add 2 other Scandanavian civs, whose capitals are among the Vikings top 5 cities is laughable.
With the Vikings already in, Sweden deserves to be a civ no more than Hungary, Poland, or Scotland even. And why on earth would it be an infantry unit??? Everyone knows that the Swedish golden age came when they were using Dragoons. I'd make it a cavalry UU that was slightly different from the Cossack or Sipahi.
To be blunt, you really seem to know very little about African history. If you're gonna endorse the Swedes AND Danes over the Ethiopes, Mali, Morrocans, Ghana, Songhai, Nubians, Nigerians and some other fine empires from the region, it really makes me wonder if you know anything about the above mentioned civs at all.
aaminion00
Stoned
Oh and by the way, we're now the biggest thread in the history of the Conquests forum. Even bigger than the thread announcing the expansion.
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
:soldier: 
:soldier: 
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
The Iroquois were a united group of tribes who negotiated with the Europeans united, fought united, and were very influential in the colonization of America.
I don't know much about African civilizations, but, IIRC, Mali is a better civ than the Zulu, but the Zulu are famous for fighting the Brittish and loosing.
Could you explain what Mali did, so I can know how you think that they are better than the Iroquois?
It appears Firaxis has chosen civs almost completely on historical value, not because it fills a region. I support them for this.
Congrats on this thread becoming the biggest ever about C3C aaminion00, you must be proud of your baby 
I'm not completely familiar with Mali, but I am aware that it was a grand empire in West Africa just south of the Sahara. From what I know right now, it was a major trading civilization and the main route to trade across the Sahara.
Louis, if you think civs should be chosen on historical value, don't you think that the Ethiopians would be a much better civilization than the zulu, seeing as we not only fought, but defeated a European colonizer? Also, Ethiopia has been much more influential and important in the past than the Dutch or the Zulu. In addition, the Nubians were also very important in ancient times, and are much more deserving than the iroquois. I don't know a lot about the Iroquois, but I do know that the Nubians were immensely important in the ancient era, and I doubt the Iroquois have played a greater part in history.
Thanks, I hope so as well
but to get to the point of the post....
I agree with everyone else that there needs to be a new african civ (though not at the expense of my Byzantines!)
I also agree that both Eithiopia, AND Mali should be in (I have...given up on the Azande...)
BUT
I havent seen a greatdeal of info which might convince Atari to make it so, in which case, i suggest that my criteria for what would there units be- after all, waging part of the battle for ATari in information, and unit choice ,might be a good step towards the great goal of inclusion...
Furius
Prince
From what one can peace together about Mali (and due to the Eurocentric attitude of history, that's not much) it was very rich (When the King went to Mecca he gave away so much gold it took the region 15 years to recover from the inflation) and very large (The 3rd largest in its time).
On the Black Civs front, take a look at the original Civ3 box. The one with the flap on the front that opens up. Inside are pictured all the original leaderheads. If you scan across them you will notice that there are four black leaders, Shaka, Hiawatha, Ghandi and Cleopatra. For a somewhat obvious reason Cleopatra has since become a pink person, like the majority. Even with her included, this is pathetically eurocentric.
The thing is, this isn't done on purpose. Rather, these are either the Civilizations that the Creators thought were great after (presumably) much research and those that represent nations that buy large amounts of computer games (Though these are mainly preset in PtW).
And those of you out there who want the Maori as a Civ, it seems to me, as a New Zealander, a very strange request. On the world stage Maoridom is extremely minor.
To give you an idea, imagine the state of North America before colinisation (Lots of warring tribes, no domestic animals, practically no technology, etc.) imagine it as slightly more primitive. Now shrink that into an area half the size of California (total Maori pop in 1840 is estimated at around 20,000). Now imagine that these people are eternally at war- over things like not being given enough fish at a feast. And who absorb the mana of those they defeat in battle by eating them. Their staple crops are a semi-edible fern root and a tropical potatoe.Not that I don't respect the Maori, (I do) but they are hardly worthy as a Civilization.
And if they were put in, the Maori would probably protest and want them removed.
On the Black Civs front, take a look at the original Civ3 box. The one with the flap on the front that opens up. Inside are pictured all the original leaderheads. If you scan across them you will notice that there are four black leaders, Shaka, Hiawatha, Ghandi and Cleopatra. For a somewhat obvious reason Cleopatra has since become a pink person, like the majority. Even with her included, this is pathetically eurocentric.
The thing is, this isn't done on purpose. Rather, these are either the Civilizations that the Creators thought were great after (presumably) much research and those that represent nations that buy large amounts of computer games (Though these are mainly preset in PtW).
And those of you out there who want the Maori as a Civ, it seems to me, as a New Zealander, a very strange request. On the world stage Maoridom is extremely minor.
To give you an idea, imagine the state of North America before colinisation (Lots of warring tribes, no domestic animals, practically no technology, etc.) imagine it as slightly more primitive. Now shrink that into an area half the size of California (total Maori pop in 1840 is estimated at around 20,000). Now imagine that these people are eternally at war- over things like not being given enough fish at a feast. And who absorb the mana of those they defeat in battle by eating them. Their staple crops are a semi-edible fern root and a tropical potatoe.Not that I don't respect the Maori, (I do) but they are hardly worthy as a Civilization.
And if they were put in, the Maori would probably protest and want them removed.
aaminion00
Stoned
You can hardly point to Shaka, Hiawatha, Ghandi and Cleopatra to claim 4 black civs.
Native Americans origins are shrewd in mystery but they're definetly not African.
Indians are actually a type of caucasian.
Cleopatra was Greek.
Shaka is the only black ruler and he's probably the least worthy out of Mansa Musa, Sunny Ali, or Menelik II.
Native Americans origins are shrewd in mystery but they're definetly not African.
Indians are actually a type of caucasian.
Cleopatra was Greek.
Shaka is the only black ruler and he's probably the least worthy out of Mansa Musa, Sunny Ali, or Menelik II.
I'd say Ezana would be a better leader than Menelik II. Ezana made Christianity the state religion in 324 A.D., making Ethiopia the 2nd state ever to do so (Armenia was first), invaded and conquered Nubia, and I think he conquered Yemen as well, though that was also done by Kaleb circa 550 A.D.
god_money
Prince
Recent DNA tests have shown that Native Americans are most
likely European in descendance, having crossed the Atlantic at
a time when the continents were closer together.
Sorry I don't have a link to back this up.
likely European in descendance, having crossed the Atlantic at
a time when the continents were closer together.
Sorry I don't have a link to back this up.
aaminion00
Stoned
My own little hypothesis is that native Americans are a mix of many different cultures. Mostly asian and possibly european, that crossed over at different times.
aaminion00
Stoned
Seems like it. But it achieved it's purpose. The fact that it had so many posts even after the Byzantines were announced is a testament to it's greatness 
.
.The thread stands as a pinnacle to argument for Byzantium , although its getting a bit late to seriouslly discuss new civs nowadays, I f the thread comes back, I'm sure it will be over an African civ, like the Ethiopians, whom I am now swinging into more full support of
, although its getting a bit late to seriouslly discuss new civs nowadays, I f the thread comes back, I'm sure it will be over an African civ, like the Ethiopians, whom I am now swinging into more full support of 
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
@SoCalian
WHAT???
Why And the Ethiopes and Mali are some of the most needed civs in the game. they certainly are more needed than Portugal and the Netherlands???
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, there wasnt no expansion through the Oceans!!!
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, there wasnt no AMERICA (with or without Colombo)!!!
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, you still need to buy to Ottomans 30 times or more for an item MADE IN TAIWAN!!!
OK. Its true, because of Portugal, AFRICA became a continent of slave trade, (but 2 wrongs cant make 1 right). But dont forget the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, they also add them share on this point.
@Yom
What do you mean by Also, some of the European civilizations included aren't even true civilizations; rather, they are modern nation-states.?
The only one that I can see are the Celts, but they arent a modern-state
@music_theory7
I dont know. The Vikings, werent they the people before the Sweden, the Danish, the Fins, the Icelanders and the Russians???
@aaminion00
In case of Poland, you should reconsidered. I know they had a great empire, perhaps isnt the right word, but Im not the expert of Slavic civs.
@Furius
Calling Hiawatha and Ghandi black leaders isnt a little extreme?!? The 1st was a Native-American, the 2nd Indian. So how come they ARE black leaders???
And OK, you persuade me to forget the Maori and to think large: Polynesian
@andvruss
Why the obsession of CANADA???
They still say that they leader are the royally of UK? So they are British!!! (No!?!)
Zenon
WHAT???
Why And the Ethiopes and Mali are some of the most needed civs in the game. they certainly are more needed than Portugal and the Netherlands???
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, there wasnt no expansion through the Oceans!!!
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, there wasnt no AMERICA (with or without Colombo)!!!
If wasnt for PORTUGAL, you still need to buy to Ottomans 30 times or more for an item MADE IN TAIWAN!!!
OK. Its true, because of Portugal, AFRICA became a continent of slave trade, (but 2 wrongs cant make 1 right). But dont forget the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, they also add them share on this point.
@Yom
What do you mean by Also, some of the European civilizations included aren't even true civilizations; rather, they are modern nation-states.?
The only one that I can see are the Celts, but they arent a modern-state
@music_theory7
I dont know. The Vikings, werent they the people before the Sweden, the Danish, the Fins, the Icelanders and the Russians???
@aaminion00
In case of Poland, you should reconsidered. I know they had a great empire, perhaps isnt the right word, but Im not the expert of Slavic civs.
@Furius
Calling Hiawatha and Ghandi black leaders isnt a little extreme?!? The 1st was a Native-American, the 2nd Indian. So how come they ARE black leaders???
And OK, you persuade me to forget the Maori and to think large: Polynesian
@andvruss
Why the obsession of CANADA???
They still say that they leader are the royally of UK? So they are British!!! (No!?!)
Zenon
durfal
The Dutch Daredevil
Yes that is true, but the point is a civilization doesn't mean a country in the sence that we use it today. So there has been a german civilization for a long time, even if the 'country' Germany doesn't exist for such a long time.
A civilization can co-consist out of a lot of different country's (like Germany did before 1800) or none (the Gypsy's or better named the Romani never had there own country but are still a different group with it's own language and customs).
It's just how you use the word civilization.
A country like India exists today with 1000 of languages and ethnic groups (Dravidians, Mon-Khmer, Sino-Tibetians, Indo-Europeans etc) and a mulititude of religions (hindu, budhist, moslim, sikh , christianity etc). And still we have a civilization called India in game (and with full right I must say thanks to the amount of people, influance on the world history and it's very rich culturaly history).
In a sence you can say that about the US also. Although it started out 'partialy' as an English Colony. In it live people who come from all over the world and still a lot of their languages are still spoken. They have all religions I can think about. Culturally they developed in a direction very distinct from Europe (including the UK) and have a major influance on the whole world culturally, industrially and millitairly at least since halfway down the last century. So they can be called a civilization on there own or at least are right on track for that.
And then countries like Canada and Australia. Although there is a paralel to be drawn with the US it's not the same. They both are still part of the British Commonwealth. Canada even has among a lot of smaller ones two major cultural different group (the Quebequoise and English) between it's borders. Canada is an independent country but I see it as a cross between American and English or French civilizations and not as one of it's own.
Australia is developing already more to it's own culturaly different "independence". But on this moment are still majorly influanced by the UK and in some way also by the US. They aren't in my humble opinion not different enough to be called a civ yet. But maybe someday they will.
But probably both Australians and Canadians don't see it that way.You can always say it's just 1 opinion of a world citizen.
A civilization can co-consist out of a lot of different country's (like Germany did before 1800) or none (the Gypsy's or better named the Romani never had there own country but are still a different group with it's own language and customs).
It's just how you use the word civilization.
A country like India exists today with 1000 of languages and ethnic groups (Dravidians, Mon-Khmer, Sino-Tibetians, Indo-Europeans etc) and a mulititude of religions (hindu, budhist, moslim, sikh , christianity etc). And still we have a civilization called India in game (and with full right I must say thanks to the amount of people, influance on the world history and it's very rich culturaly history).
In a sence you can say that about the US also. Although it started out 'partialy' as an English Colony. In it live people who come from all over the world and still a lot of their languages are still spoken. They have all religions I can think about. Culturally they developed in a direction very distinct from Europe (including the UK) and have a major influance on the whole world culturally, industrially and millitairly at least since halfway down the last century. So they can be called a civilization on there own or at least are right on track for that.
And then countries like Canada and Australia. Although there is a paralel to be drawn with the US it's not the same. They both are still part of the British Commonwealth. Canada even has among a lot of smaller ones two major cultural different group (the Quebequoise and English) between it's borders. Canada is an independent country but I see it as a cross between American and English or French civilizations and not as one of it's own.
Australia is developing already more to it's own culturaly different "independence". But on this moment are still majorly influanced by the UK and in some way also by the US. They aren't in my humble opinion not different enough to be called a civ yet. But maybe someday they will.
But probably both Australians and Canadians don't see it that way.You can always say it's just 1 opinion of a world citizen
.I am Canadian and our culture may have origins from the above mentioned peoples, but it is still distinct. As is Australia's. I have noticed that a lot of Americans perceive Canada as having a British culture. This certainly was true before, but in modern times we are closer to America then anyone else.
- Status
