More Uniqueness wanted, ideas are welcomed

[dominatr]

The Spanish DID NOT exterminate the Aztec people, nor any other of the indigenous native tribes of Mexico. No where near enough Spanish came to the New World to do that. The Spanish emigrants became the aristocracy, the natives the working peasants. Having the Aztecs evolve into the Mexicans appears to me to be perfectly acceptable. When Cortez attacked Tenochtitlan the second time, he has something on the order of 20,000 or so native allies from tribes the Aztecs had been warring with for sacrifices. All those other tribes did not vanish into thin air. Cortez destroyed the Aztec civilization, not the Aztec people.

The old rubric that I learned in high school and college is still a good short description of how the Spanish, the French, and the English treated the natives. That is:

The Spanish enslaved the natives, the French traded with them, the English killed them.

Having the Iroquois replaced by the Americans should not be a problem, as that is pretty much what happened.

but my point is, is the spanish destroying the aztec civilization an evolution of the aztecs?

The iroquois most certainly didn't evolve into the americans, americans came from england and settled to make colonies and get rich.

 

[Steph]

the thing about the stuff you said is Aztecs evolving to mexicans is not true, since the spanish killed them and replaced them, sane with irioquois and americans. Simply describing a civilization living in a territory and then a different civilization living there is not really the evolution of one culture. If i worded it terribly (forgive me) i have a small example here.

this is like saying The celts evolved into the moors because they both controlled spain at different times

Once you accept that a civ is what losely occupied an area, and that there were crisis that would lead to a replacement of the ruling elite by another, with change of civ names, traits, leaders, units, etc. it makes perfect sense.
It's not because the approach is different from what you are used to that it is invalid.

In the case of Spain, I have a succesion of Iberian, Visigoth, Asturians, Leon, Castille, etc. I could have used Moors at some point, except
a) I already have another civ with with the Almohad / Almoravids
b) Even with almost completly invaded, Spain kept some other Christians factions that I can use.

In the case of the US, I'd rather have some Iroquois / Native with bows / spear until the colonial era, when I introduce Native with guns and horses, and some colonial troops European style, and progressively the native disappear.

For Mexico, the transition is a little more brutal. At colonial time, I replace the Aztec by Spanish looking colonial units.

Since civIII doesn't allow events, I think it's the best compromise.

Anyway , saying Aztecs are replaced by Spanish colonialist does not make less sense than
a) Keeping the Aztecs wielding obsidian swords against the European MBT in the modern age
b) Making a what if Aztec MBT decorated with feathers or painted with a jaguar - looking camo to make it fill aztec.

Even if we consider the Aztecs could have survived the Spanish invasion and be around, it's likely that they could have adopted the kind of weapons / armor used by the Spaniards, and so their units would probably look relatively close to Spanish colonial.

If it's the world "evolved" that you don't like, you can use "replaced".

Anyway, that's effectively how it works : when you reach a new era, the names, traits, leaderheads, units, etc of your civ from era n-1 are effectively replaced by the ones from era n.

But since evolution can be described as "survival of the fittest", Iroquois evolving to Americans is in a way correct. Disclaimer : by survial of the fittest here, I don't want to mean that the European Americans could in anyway by superior to the Iroquois as a race, just that they were the one who dominated the others thanks to weaponry, disease or whatever means, and in effect the "American civilization" in this area changed from Iroquois to "American from Europe".

The Spanish enslaved the natives, the French traded with them, the English killed them.

Good summarizing sentence, and as a French I'm rather happy with it. Even if colonialism is negative (to what extend is debatable), at least the French were not the worst for the native.

 

[timerover51]

Good summarizing sentence, and as a French I'm rather happy with it. Even if colonialism is negative (to what extend is debatable), at least the French were not the worst for the native.

This is probably not the best place to discuss the pros and cons of colonization, but I view the destruction of the Aztec civilization as one of the major pluses of European expansion to the New World, and although I regret the near-extermination of the buffalo, far more people are being fed by agriculture based in the Great Plains than ever could be supported by hunting buffalo. One could argue that the de-colonization of Africa was a net minus to the continent at large.

I do have a continuing problem with using any North American Indian tribe or tribal grouping as a separate civilization as there simply were never that many natives in what is now the United States and Canada. Given the large number of groups that were still at the hunter-gatherer stage, the lack of horses on the Great Plains for the hunting of the buffalo, and the large areas of less than idea habitat, i.e. the mountains in the East and the Rockies and Coastal ranges in the west, the desert Southwest, the Great Basin, and the extreme climate over much of Canada, I just cannot see more than a million total natives, it that, over the entire 6 million or so square miles. Compared to the dense populations of Europe and the Far East, that is a mere pittance.

 

[Wolfshade]

I don't play Civ to recreate history as it happened.

And I do. Since there was a question about ideas, I talked about the one I implemented in my mod. And I argued it since this idea has a chance to be made. Of course, nothing can make happy everyone - there always will be a group of dissatisfied people. There's a proverb in Russian "You can't be attractive to everyone", I don't know if there's a EN equivalent.

I tried something similar once

OK, about my experience. I never played for Aztecs in my mod (I hate them in my mod - I respect all the people who deserve it and Aztecs as the human race do - I hope I'm clear with it), but I played a number of times as their neighbor. They very powerful because of units number in Ancient times + Medieval, horse knights have more strength but they takes money from player while jaguars-swordsmen cost nothing to Aztecs.
So a situation - me, Aztecs + someone else. I can't invade someone else because military & aggressive Aztecs wait for me to be involved in conflict to join on someone's else side. Then they both make me hurt. A lot. If I develop my army, culture, science - they will beat someone else, easily enough sometimes. They will dominate me with territory & victory points, and I'll have to wait till the Industrial era to use artillery & powerful gunpowder based units. But it's not the end yet. Of course, I will attack them (usually they attacked me), but they will ruin my infrastructure in all nearby areas, they WILL take a couple of cities. Since I'm into Industrial era and I developed my cities enough, it's very bitter to see them ruined. Yes, I care for my citizens. And understanding I'm more powerful makes this feeling more bitter. So it never been "easy".

Maybe the Aztecs could work by keeping them weak from around their fall to mexican independence.

Yes. But I wanted something special and I got it. I told I made American Natives evolving to USA, so the same could be done to Aztecs. It's not & won't be - I like it as it is. It's like playing for Byzantine Empire in "Twilight" mod - you almost have no chance to win with them. My idea was to make something the same and I was happy when I saw it was done by someone else too.

Want to introduce 3 ideas more.
1) spies. Invisible units with hidden nationality, auto-produced by a small wonder, so available to all the civs in different variations. They can attack & pillage and may be visible by other spies.
Since we have a big discussion about different unique ideas, so I suppose I can ask about an opinions about some of mine. Visible units with hidden nationality always enrage AI, but if they INvisible? Will it be interesting? Have someone tried it? What in return?

2) goods. There's a strategy of victory points from special units: a "winery" can be constructed an it will auto-produce a "luxury" units - wine barrels. But if this unit could be sacrificed to make people happy and give an amount of culture? This may be not applicable for AI, but it could allow a new "sacrifice" system for "civilized" civs. Aztecs sacrifice people, French sacrifice wine, Germans - beer and so on.
But the same can be applied to strategic resources. For example, you can build a "manufacturing plant" (sorry for my poor English ) which auto-produces a good of iron, oil or something other valuable? This unit can cost a lot of shields, but it can hurry any production if disbanded ("Iron consignment turned into 100k shields").
Of course, these units should be immobile and can be transported by naval, air, ground transport (the last way is very doubtful).

3) cities specification split. I once introduced this idea to Steph, but very unclear, so I give it a 2nd chance. I tried it but it didn't work, I made a mistake somewhere. If anyone has a correction - please, tell me where I mistaken and how it could be done.
Idea is: to split cities into 2 categories - cultural & military.
In this case something should be done with veteran units built in the cities with barracks - they should be much more powerful than regulars.

An example of what I did to explain my idea clear an concrete. On early stage of the game I provided a possibility to build 2 city improvements: "obelisk" & "well".
"Obelisk": +1 of culture, 0 support, weak equivalent of walls, a basic "military" structure;
"Well" 0 of culture, 0 support, auto-produces workers (Civinator ), a basic "cultural" structure.
"Obelisk" replaces "well" and viceversa. "Obelisk" & "well" available to all civs.
To build a barracks & a shipyard (veteran ground & naval units) city must have an "obelisk" which will be replaced with a barracks. To build a "settlers center" (auto-produces settlers to prevent ICS - Civinator ) city must have a "well" which will be replaced with "center".

Basing on the barracks & settlers center, you can build military structures (knights stables, artillery iron plant, tank mechanized vehicles plant) or cultural structures (cathedral, opera house, cinema house).
So player have to choose whether they needs:
- a powerful army of veterans & less culture or
- developed culture & a less powerful army.
Changing of city specialization will take some time & may cost a defeat into war.
My problem was: AI refused to build "well". I forced it in debug mod, but AI destroyed a "well" the next turn to hurry up a production of spearman (defender). WHY?

 

[dominatr]

well, what i am trying to say, a Civilization to me is one group of people who lived together and built an empire somewhere in history.

in your instance i see it to be a area of land occupied by many diverse cultures, so this makes it one civilization.

I tend to play this game not to follow exact history, but kind of use aspects of it and create my own each game. I like to have those games when i play the Iroquois, like what if the Iroquois were able to become industrial and be very powerful?

 

[Steph]

The key point for me is flavour. I want to have unique units for every civilization and era. Since we don't have modern or ancient iroquois, I could either play with a few iroquois units for the whole game (then it's a little boring), or have Iroquois UU for a small time, and then have generic warrior, swordsman, musketeer, etc for the rest of the time. So "if the Iroquois survived, they would have developped riflemen".
But then I have generic dull looking units for most of the civ and era.

Not enjoyable to me.

Beside, if I mix civ the way I do, with evolution/transition, then I can in the game game enjoy the Celts, the Gauls, the Franks, the French...

Advantage?

Let say you want to have Greece and the Byzantine in your game because they are cool. And Persia. And Assyria. and... you reach the 31 civ limits! You can't put them all and have to remove some.

If each era correspond to a specific civ, like Greece in ancient, Byzance in medieval, then instead of 31 civ, you have a limit of 31x4 = 124 civ!

In my mod, with 9 eras up to the apparition of gunpowder (more eras will come later) I could effectively have 31x9 = 279 "sub-civs", each with its own trait, units, leaders, etc.
Of course this is not completly true as some civ could remain unchanged during the few era, but this concept gives a lot more possibilites and variety than the concept of "one civ lasting the whole game, even if historically it was around only a few years".

 

[Axolotl]

I just cannot see more than a million total natives, it that, over the entire 6 million or so square miles.

Read Charles Mann's 1491 for a good summary of just how big pre-Columbian populations were. Spanish records in Mexico and Peru show a native death rate on the order of 90% from European diseases, which would put the population of the Aztec Empire alone at around 25,000,000 when Cortez arrived. French explorers along Cape Cod in 1580 reported that the entire New England coast was so thickly covered with villages that there was no place for Europeans to settle, and same thing in the Mississippi valley. The population of the hemisphere at the time of first contact is now believed by many anthropologists to have been at least 45 million, which was significantly larger than that of Europe.

I guess it's a peeve of mine that American natives continue to get written out of history. The famous Mayan calendar used the concept of zero a couple hundred years before it first showed up in Sanskrit texts. When the Spanish entered Tenochtitlan, it was the first time any of them had ever seen a city that didn't have sewage flowing in the streets. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) traded with the British as equals, and their Great Law probably was a heavy influence on the US Constitution -- their insistence on personal autonomy certainly influenced colonial ideas about individual liberty. At its peak, the Inka empire was one of the largest that had ever existed; the Inkas built vast road networks and lasting cities in completely inhospitable terrain without the aid of pack animals (except for llamas, which are small and not particularly strong) or even mortar. There were cities along the Mississippi and Amazon rivers about which almost nothing is known -- and Amazonian Indians had been enriching the soil of their habitat for centuries, to an extent that large areas of the rainforest can be considered not wilderness but garden. I could go on, but suffice it to say, I have a hard time justifying the presence of fewer American cultures in CivIII.

 

[dominatr]

Read Charles Mann's 1491 for a good summary of just how big pre-Columbian populations were. Spanish records in Mexico and Peru show a native death rate on the order of 90% from European diseases, which would put the population of the Aztec Empire alone at around 25,000,000 when Cortez arrived. French explorers along Cape Cod in 1580 reported that the entire New England coast was so thickly covered with villages that there was no place for Europeans to settle, and same thing in the Mississippi valley. The population of the hemisphere at the time of first contact is now believed by many anthropologists to have been at least 45 million, which was significantly larger than that of Europe.

I guess it's a peeve of mine that American natives continue to get written out of history. The famous Mayan calendar used the concept of zero a couple hundred years before it first showed up in Sanskrit texts. When the Spanish entered Tenochtitlan, it was the first time any of them had ever seen a city that didn't have sewage flowing in the streets. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) traded with the British as equals, and their Great Law probably was a heavy influence on the US Constitution -- their insistence on personal autonomy certainly influenced colonial ideas about individual liberty. At its peak, the Inka empire was one of the largest that had ever existed; the Inkas built vast road networks and lasting cities in completely inhospitable terrain without the aid of pack animals (except for llamas, which are small and not particularly strong) or even mortar. There were cities along the Mississippi and Amazon rivers about which almost nothing is known -- and Amazonian Indians had been enriching the soil of their habitat for centuries, to an extent that large areas of the rainforest can be considered not wilderness but garden. I could go on, but suffice it to say, I have a hard time justifying the presence of fewer American cultures in CivIII.

i too, am mystified by how hidden native americans are from our history books. A lot of them were very spiritual and smart, and it seems the white european cultures were portrayed to be the dominant race. I am very certain that evidence has been found f the might of native america, but hidden by mainstream science to a degree. If we can find dinosaur fossils in north america, there must certainly be a lot of ruins that have been swept under the rug, but my question is, "Why?"

@Steph, i see your point, and i think its a very good idea, and it seems like it would work for a lot of people, but personally, i personally like beginning a game as one Civilization and advace them through time. Hell, half the history we are told is incomplete/hidden, so i enjoy making my own.

 

[Axolotl]

there must certainly be a lot of ruins that have been swept under the rug, but my question is, "Why?"

It's not so much a conspiracy as it is the fact that Indians north of the Rio Grande built mainly out of wood and earth. With no one left to maintain them, wooden structures rotted and earthworks eroded away. There are still huge mounds left at places like Cahokia in Illinois and Poverty Point in Louisiana -- it's estimated that the Cahokia site is the remains of a city of over 20,000 people, which had already been abandoned for over a century by the time Columbus landed.

 

[timerover51]

First, I was looking at is presently the US and Canada, and NOT including the areas to the south. Second, given the heavy anti-European bias of most of the current crop of anthropologists, who for the most part view any European contact or interference with a native group with utter horror, I am highly suspicious of any figures that they give. What I was looking at was the carrying capacity of the area of the US and Canada for groups at that level of agricultural production.

Last, the Indians lost. If you regret that and live anywhere within the current boundaries of the US and Canada, how do you deal with the contradiction?

 

[tom2050]

I seriously doubt there was 15% of the current US population of native americans on the continent at that time. The 'Experts' always use anything to come up with a number that has no real evidence to support or back it up.

These things probably don't get taught truthfully or at all because progressive-type trends include rewriting history (books) to exclude information for political reasons and agendas (<facepalm> some people really have nothing better to do ).

 

[Axolotl]

First, I was looking at is presently the US and Canada, and NOT including the areas to the south. Second, given the heavy anti-European bias of most of the current crop of anthropologists, who for the most part view any European contact or interference with a native group with utter horror, I am highly suspicious of any figures that they give. What I was looking at was the carrying capacity of the area of the US and Canada for groups at that level of agricultural production.

Last, the Indians lost. If you regret that and live anywhere within the current boundaries of the US and Canada, how do you deal with the contradiction?

What kind of an idiot regrets something that happened hundreds of years before they were born? Not whatever kind I am, tell you what. Nobody now living can be held responsible for what happened to the Indians. I don't mourn historical events. I don't mourn what my Anglo-Saxon ancestors did to the Britons, what my Scottish ancestors did to the Irish, what my Irish ancestors did to whoever came before them, what my German ancestors did to everybody, what my Canadian ancestors did to maple trees. What I do mourn is how much human history has simply been lost, unknown.

These things probably don't get taught truthfully or at all because progressive-type trends include rewriting history (books) to exclude information for political reasons and agendas (<facepalm> some people really have nothing better to do ).

Progressive types typically want to see Indians as proto-hippie-environmentalists, spiritual noble savages who lived lightly on the land and left no mark on it after they passed. I don't see how that's any less insulting than viewing them as wild barbarians unfit for civilization. They were human beings, they worked for better lives, they did what they did and they died.

Seriously, y'all, read 1491. It's a good read, and if nothing else treat it as an amazing thought exercise.

 

[Hornets]

I'm back! I've read the "evolution" debate, and as interesting as it is, I think we should drop it off because that's not the topic of the thread.

What I'm going to do with those "vanished" civs (Aztecs or Incas) is giving them the chance to advance past the medieval era, otherwise the game would be unplayable.
I know that is not the most history-accurate decision, but there's has to be a balance between history accuracy and playability. (sorry Wolfshade)


OK. Aztecs are in. Let's continue populating the continent, shall we?

What other american civs do you think should be included in the mod and why?
These are the playable american civs in the game: Iroquois, USA, the Mayans and the Inca empire.

(You can also suggest a civ that is not included in the game, which I would add somehow)

 

[Joe Cool]

Like timerover said, the Five Civilized Nations (you'll probably find units/LH's by searching for "Cherokee" or "Seminole" on these boards) should be in.

I'd include the Sioux because they fit nicely into an unpopulated area of your world map and they figured prominently in the Indian wars.

If you want to be really adventurous you could include the Haida or the Inuits.

As for South/Central America, I would include at least one out of Brazil, Venezuela, and Gran Colombia (this is all assuming you're giving Mexico, Southwest US and part of Central America to the Aztecs and starting the Americans on the Eastern seaboard)

 

[dominatr]

I think Brazil is an excellent choice, since they are pretty big and there are lots of leaderheads and units floating around for them, a lot from Civarmyv1994

 

[Axolotl]

Apologies to all for digression. ANYWAY, in my mod I've given every civ a regional tech, an early religion tech, and a later religious tendency -- which allow different improvements and wonders and even resources. For instance, Britain and Germany start with European Region, Pagan Belief, and eventually become Protestant, while Korea and China start with Asian Region and Daoist Belief and get Buddhism later on. Some civs have unique options, e.g. Shinto for Japan and Zoroastrianism for Persia. All of these branches add flavor to the core tech tree and give each nation a different playing style without (I hope) screwing up the balance too much.

I'm also weighting the units differently -- for instance, there's a skirmisher class of units (typically javelineer-types) that are not as strong as base infantry, but have two movement points. The militaries of Haudenosaunee and Lakota are going to consist almost entirely of skirmishers, making them ideally suited for hit and run attacks and preventing the expansion of rival civs, but not great at waging wars of conquest themselves. Some seafaring civs, such as Carthage and Scandinavia, are going to be able to build amphibious assault units much earlier than other civs.

 

[dominatr]

do you give flavors as religions? that would work preatty well, so the AI operates based on the civs beliefs

 

[Hornets]

Those ideas are great! Thanks!

making them ideally suited for hit and run attacks and preventing the expansion of rival civs, but not great at waging wars of conquest themselves.

That's exaclty what I'm trying to do here. Give each civ a different game style.

 

[dominatr]

Those ideas are great! Thanks!




That's exaclty what I'm trying to do here. Give each civ a different game style.

i just want to let you know, not to go too far, let the preferences of the player still have some influence on the game, be careful so the player still feels like they are in power

 

[Wolfshade]

That's exaclty what I'm trying to do here. Give each civ a different game style.

And it's cool!

(sorry Wolfshade)

Wod'yaminsorre? It's YOUR mod, so it's your choice what to accept and what to exclude. So there's no reason to be sorry.