Why no Lithuanians as a civ?

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by Nebukad

However, when thinking about scandinavia in any other way I can't quickly come up with any reason why Denmark would be part of it and Finland wouldn't.

Culture and language. Geographically, of course, the Scandinavian peninsula includes only Norway and Sweden. Denmark and Iceland are Scandinavian culturally and linguistically. I can't speak for Finnish culture, but I know they are not related to Scandinavia linguistically. And if there were ever any Finnish Vikings, I'm totally ignorant of their activities. Actually, I've never understood why anyone includes Finland as part of Scandinavia at all. I just don't see that it is.

 

[Seanirl]

Actually, I've never understood why anyone includes Finland as part of Scandinavia at all.

Maybe because it's just... there to the east of Sweden.

It's not part of Russia. It's not part of that former Soviet block like Belarus, Ukraine etc.

So... It kind of looks like part of Scandinavia and yeah...

 

[FenrysWulf]

Someone asked why the Iroquois and Zulu were included. Well, for once thing, they needed someone to represent each continent, and those were the best choices. Also, the Zulus had a pretty decent empire growing before they met up with the British and their vastly superior weapons. Left on their own, they may have become a major power, at least compared to their neighbors. The Iroquois had a complex government and were much better organized than the rest of the North American Indians, so that's why they were included. The Maya really should be included in Civ, but there are already a few from that part of the world.

Someone else said that the civs included are the most popular. that's true, but they are popular because they accomplished a lot. All of them either controlled a vast empire at one point or have endured for centuries as a significant power. "Empire" may not be a prerequisite for status as a great civilization, but great civilizations tend to have empires sooner or later.

 

[Sarevok]

well you got your wish, the mayans are gonna be in conquests, which i think is kind of cool

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

The Maya really should be included in Civ, but there are already a few from that part of the world.

They are a new civ in Civ III:Conquests

Well, for once thing, they needed someone to represent each continent, and those were the best choices

Not every continent has a civ on it. South America and Australia don't. Though the Incans will be added in C3C so South America is now represented.

 

[Sarevok]

but does australia really need a civ on it?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yes, Australia could really need a Civilisation on it...

(Seriously, no. I can see the NZ Maori qualifiying as a Civ - not an important one that deserves to be included, but a civ - but not the Aborigines.)

 

[troytheface]

Lithuanians? Were they a unique civ that invented something, changed the course of world history or made themselves a huge empire....am i missing something from my education about the grat Lithuanians that did ..what?..
And i think Australia should be a Civ , and Canada- becuase of land mass and they both have been around fighting wars since the Crimean- Australian Guerilla like unit for UU and for Canada-
infantryman UU

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Ahem...while I'm against including Lithuana, including Australia or Canada (and for some reason, everytime someone comes with that argument 'Because we fought in the World Wars', c'mon, then Luxembourg could be in, too) would be even more far- stretched.
Poland - Lithuania was a major power during its time, covering a large part of Eastern Europe (from the Baltic Sea to Ukraine, including the former Kievan Rus territory). And nowadays Poland and Lithuania have easily twice as many inhabitants as Canada, Australia and NZ together.
That said, there are equally important regional powers all over the world (Khmer, Mali,....), and considering Europe is very crowded, I don't want P-L in the 31 Civs version (but it would make it in, if there were 63 Civs).

 

[Gen]

Poland - Lithuania was a major power during its time, covering a large part of Eastern Europe (from the Baltic Sea to Ukraine, including the former Kievan Rus territory). And nowadays Poland and Lithuania have easily twice as many inhabitants as Canada, Australia and NZ together.

...and don't forget we also fought in the world wars

I agree that this hardcoded limit is indeed very limiting One could think they should plan to have greater reserve with expansion packs in mind.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Hardcoded limits...fact is, some parts of the program (mainly the algorithms for trade network calculation) seem to be done quite inefficient. Just play a WM 31 Civ game, and destroy a Harbor in the Modern Days.
On my machine, this causes a 5 minutes lag. now, I mainly play DyP, with even more commercial coastal building

So IMHO, the 32 Civs as of now already reach the limits of many systems, if another exponetnial would be added, the system requirements would explode.

The thing I fail to see is why it isn't possible to pick a limited number of e.g. 31 simultaneously playable Civs out of an theoretically unlimited number of proposals.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
The thing I fail to see is why it isn't possible to pick a limited number of e.g. 31 simultaneously playable Civs out of an theoretically unlimited number of proposals.

That's exactly what I had in mind speaking about hardcoded limit. If they had to use binary system for some reason (or just for convenience - being programmer myself I can understand that) -why not 64? 128?
The largest game I tried was huge map with 16 civs, archipelago with max water to speed things up. It was painful in the modern age but without such extremes as in your example (I have quite good system specs though) - 5 minutes for destroying a harbor - ouch! But I guess it goes worse very fast as civ number goes up. Maybe even exponentially... I wouldn't have such patience...

 

[Sarevok]

ya, we do need to have some hidden scivs that you can use so that we can use them if we want specific matches between civs but cant do it completelty cuz not all the civs are in the game.

 

[Angelscotboi]

The have the hidden Civs thing in SMAC - u could create ur own Civ/Faction and substitute it in in place of one of the other factions so I would think it would have been quite easy for them to do the same thing for Civ 3.

 

[Sarevok]

ya, and we all know about the REALLY cool unit editor in SMAC. if they had something like that...

 

[Angelscotboi]

I know they were experimenting with new ideas in Civ 3 which is why it is so different in many respects - ie the 3d units, but they seem to have dropped a lot of features that worked really well in favour of features which are supposed to do the same or similar job but dont do it anywhere near as well as the earlier method - why?
Very probably because those features in "Sid Meiers" Alpha Centauri were not created by Sid Meier but by Brian Reynolds the guy who actually created SMAC and Firaxis didnt want to use them either for copywrite reasons OR because it was Brian and his team (who later left Firaxis to form BHG) who created it and didnt want to use the ideas of a "Traitor" - cutting off their nose to spite their face really.

If they DID introduce many of the SMAC features then there would be no problem for ppl to have obscure or less well known but no less well loved "Civs" their game such as Lithuania and Poland, Hungary and Austria or even the Khmers or Mughals/Timurids.

 

[kzk]

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by SuperBeaverInc.
The Lithuanians aren't a civ as Firaxis decided that they wanted a different civ. Civs aren't chosen on how much land they control, but on what impact they have had on history.

It might be partially that but I think civs are chosen basically on which countries are buying Civ III
(notice how many European and American civs there are, and now Australia?)

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by sabo


It might be partially that but I think civs are chosen basically on which countries are buying Civ III
(notice how many European and American civs there are, and now Australia?)

This is most likely true. Everyone likes the idea of running their own respective nation. Being an American, that was the first civ I tried.

Being of both Polish and Lithuanian decent, I would love to play both and wished that they were in teh game. I also think that they should be (as a combined civ since their greatness was during the commonwealth). But with that in mind, I would rather see more diversity in the game with more African and Asian civilizations. Both those regions are grossly under represented considering the mass of European/Med. civs.

 

[angelface]

Poland (or, correctly, the Baltic area) could be a good choice. (Mainly for I always smile when I meet an American caveman at the beginning of the game, and his name is Abe Lincoln...)

Maybe a stupid idea, but what about the Austro-Hungarian Empire? I know that it was a mixture nations (like America, wich exists in Civ), but its importance was great for so long, and the two main nations in it (Austria and Hungary) had a great cultural importance on their own, too, before the union.