Why are the Inca so Powerful?

[CELTICEMPIRE]

So I just recently came back to Civ III after not playing much for quite some time and found the game to be much more challenging than I had remembered. That's fine, the Civilization series is boring if you build every wonder and fight spearmen with Tanks. But the thing that annoyed me was the Inca. They would appear in almost every map and they would dominate the game early on. While I was playing as the Egyptians and still pumping out settlers, I was notified that the Inca had started construction of the Hanging Gardens, and this was before 2000 BC! I checked the score and I had around 120, most of my rivals were under 200, but the Inca were at 300! I've taken on larger, more technologically advanced foes before, but I have no idea how to counter the Inca. Why are they so powerful?

Btw, these games were played on Monarch difficulty played mostly on small Pangaea maps.

 

[Lanzelot]

The Inca are agricultural, and the AI is not as bad at playing agricultural civs as it is at playing the other civs... So with an agricultural civ, a decent start position, access to fresh water and a luxury or two, the AI can build a strong empire once in a while, even on Monarch level.

 

[justanick]

AGRI is by very little doubt the most useful attribut of a civilisation. It is allows to settle much faster and allows city to get decent sizes much faster.

EXP is another attribut that works very strong in the ancient age, but in the ancient age only. If the Inca get a second settler from a hut early followed by some valuable techs, than they will be a formidable power at the end of the ancient age. From then on their relative power will decline unless they utilize their advantage via war or so.

 

[Theov]

haha funny, I'm fighting them as we speak

They were my best opponent this game, they had an early expansion because of the AGI trait, like Justanick said, this makes the AI grow faster than the rest. Especially early on.
They had a capital on a river and some more fresh water nearby *that they poorly used by the way...*

Anywyay. The AGI trait makes growth go faster - and pop is power.
The EXP trait gives them Chaqui scouts so maybe they popped some huts soon, and they didn't run into barbarians... so all in all - this could be why they are powerful.

On a sidenote; if you run into the ameri-indian civs all the time, maybe turn off 'culturally linked locations'. This seems to put the american civs in the game...

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Last year I played a Monarch game with the Inca and they were very aggressive in the late Ancient/Early Medieval Age. But I was the Scandinavians on Archipelago and bribed the Byzantines (who had the Statue of Zeus) to declare war on them (we all started on the same landmass). By the late middle ages they were reduced to a handful of cities and they were spared from my berserks only because their land had few valuable resources.

The Inca are agricultural, and the AI is not as bad at playing agricultural civs as it is at playing the other civs... So with an agricultural civ, a decent start position, access to fresh water and a luxury or two, the AI can build a strong empire once in a while, even on Monarch level.

I have noticed how Agricultural Civs (especially the Dutch and the Iroquois) are often my most powerful opponents.

EXP is another attribut that works very strong in the ancient age, but in the ancient age only. If the Inca get a second settler from a hut early followed by some valuable techs, than they will be a formidable power at the end of the ancient age. From then on their relative power will decline unless they utilize their advantage via war or so.

So, if I play into the Middle Ages they should be less of a superpower?

haha funny, I'm fighting them as we speak

They were my best opponent this game, they had an early expansion because of the AGI trait, like Justanick said, this makes the AI grow faster than the rest. Especially early on.
They had a capital on a river and some more fresh water nearby *that they poorly used by the way...*

Anywyay. The AGI trait makes growth go faster - and pop is power.
The EXP trait gives them Chaqui scouts so maybe they popped some huts soon, and they didn't run into barbarians... so all in all - this could be why they are powerful.

Yeah, it seems that the Inca were made for Pangaea maps.

On a sidenote; if you run into the ameri-indian civs all the time, maybe turn off 'culturally linked locations'. This seems to put the american civs in the game...

I've noticed that as well. I always thought that "culturally linked locations" only meant that civilizations of the same cultural groups would spawn near each other.

 

[justanick]

I've noticed that as well. I always thought that "culturally linked locations" only meant that civilizations of the same cultural groups would spawn near each other.

And it was meant like this, but it was implemented wrong. So that is a bug, not a feature.

So, if I play into the Middle Ages they should be less of a superpower?

Approximatly yes. Their relative power may or may not grow for some time but latest when their cities reach size 12 they cannot grow any more and ther rivals will close the gap in population per city. The higher amount of cities and land will not be compensated by this. Also the Inka may yet have some advantage in techs and buildings and military. I will take some time for that gap to close aswell.

 

[timerover51]

Yeah, it seems that the Inca were made for Pangaea maps.

The fastest way to defang an expansionist, non-Seafaring civilization is put them on a large Archipelago map, and you play a Sea-Faring civilization.

I've noticed that as well. I always thought that "culturally linked locations" only meant that civilizations of the same cultural groups would spawn near each other.

I discovered that a while ago. If you check the "culturally linked starting locations" you always have the Maya, Inca, and Aztecs in the game.

 

[Roundman]

I thought of this thread as I was crushing the Inca today. I started on a continent with the Inca, Dutch, and Iroquois. Fortunately for me, the other three powers balanced each other, and the Inca were bereft of strategic resources. They were the second civ to fall in my game.

The agricultural civs are tough, though I find that the Sumerians and the Dutch tend to be tougher AI opponents than the Inca. Generally, if I lose a space race or a culture game, it's to the Sumerians.

 

[Rickard1977]

Its interesting anyhow how often when chosing random civs the aztecs, the incas, and the iroquis appear. Its so one can think that the programmers favour indian civs. The three nations expand very fast and are difficult to fight even at lower levels.

 

[Theov]

Its interesting anyhow how often when chosing random civs the aztecs, the incas, and the iroquis appear. Its so one can think that the programmers favour indian civs. The three nations expand very fast and are difficult to fight even at lower levels.

thanks for paying attention, but that was explained a few posts above

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Its interesting anyhow how often when chosing random civs the aztecs, the incas, and the iroquis appear. Its so one can think that the programmers favour indian civs. The three nations expand very fast and are difficult to fight even at lower levels.

That is the case in C3C but in Vanilla (which I played for years) it was the Romans who appeared in almost every game. Now they seem to appear only on the larger map sizes.

 

[Theov]

Its interesting anyhow how often when chosing random civs the aztecs, the incas, and the iroquis appear. Its so one can think that the programmers favour indian civs. The three nations expand very fast and are difficult to fight even at lower levels.

That is the case in C3C but in Vanilla (which I played for years) it was the Romans who appeared in almost every game. Now they seem to appear only on the larger map sizes.

Again:
When you turn 'culturally linked locations' ON before starting a game, you will have the Ameri-Indian civs in the game

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I'm thinking that when I move on to the Standard map size in Monarch I should do a 5 Billion Arid Pangea map as the Inca.

Again:
When you turn 'culturally linked locations' ON before starting a game, you will have the Ameri-Indian civs in the game

I know that. I was just saying that I remember it being different in Vanilla.

 

[tjs282]

When you turn 'culturally linked locations' ON before starting a game, you will have the Ameri-Indian civs in the game

Sorry, but not true as stated.

For ABLES-SG last year, Acronym chose the Germans as our Civ, a Standard-Continents map and let the game pick all our opponents, with cultural linkage. The map we got contained 2 large Continents, and a few smaller islands which weren't big/ productive enough to qualify as starting locations themselves. Our Continent also spawned the English and the Vikings (i.e. it became 'Europe'); the other, larger Continent spawned the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Indians (i.e. 'Asia'). No Americans anywhere!

So it might be more true to say that, with Cultural-linkage=ON, the game will tend to assign sufficient Culture-groups to fill the map. And I would imagine that each individual landmass is somehow linked to a single cultural-identity.

If I'm right, then in Conquests, where there are at least 5 Civs in each Culture-group (Middle-Eastern=6, European=9), even a Tiny/Small Arch-Map might get 3-4 cultural groups on it (one Culture per Island, 4-6 Civs in total), but a Small Pan-map might only have 1 (i.e. all European or Middle-Eastern) or 2 groups (5+1=6 Civs) at most; a Standard Continents map would usually get 2, and rarely 3 groups (one Culture per Continent); and even a Huge Cont/Pan-map might only need 3 groups to fill it (9+6+1=16 Civs).

Conversely, culture-clustering wouldn't be so noticeable in Vanilla, because most Culture-groups contained only 3 Civs (European = 4). So on Standard-Cont/Pan maps, with culture-linked starts turned on, you would still get at least 3 of the 5 culture-groups represented, even if Europe was one of them (minimum 4+3+1=8 Civs); a Large Map would need to use at least 4 groups (4+3+3+2=12 Civs); and a Huge map would always use all 5 groups (4+3+3+3+3=16 Civs).

The reported tendency for the American-Civs to show up 'every time' when cultural-linkage is on, regardless of map-size/land-form, might simply be the outcome of (mostly American?) CFCers preferentially playing the American Civs...

 

[timerover51]

Sorry, but not true as stated.

For ABLES-SG last year, Acronym chose the Germans as our Civ, a Standard-Continents map and let the game pick all our opponents, with cultural linkage. The map we got contained 2 large Continents, and a few smaller islands which weren't big/ productive enough to qualify as starting locations themselves. Our Continent also spawned the English and the Vikings (i.e. it became 'Europe'); the other, larger Continent spawned the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Indians (i.e. 'Asia'). No Americans anywhere!

So it might be more true to say that, with Cultural-linkage=ON, the game will tend to assign sufficient Culture-groups to fill the map. And I would imagine that each individual landmass is somehow linked to a single cultural-identity.

If I'm right, then in Conquests, where there are at least 5 Civs in each Culture-group (Middle-Eastern=6, European=9), even a Tiny/Small Arch-Map might get 3-4 cultural groups on it (one Culture per Island, 4-6 Civs in total), but a Small Pan-map might only have 1 (i.e. all European or Middle-Eastern) or 2 groups (5+1=6 Civs) at most; a Standard Continents map would usually get 2, and rarely 3 groups (one Culture per Continent); and even a Huge Cont/Pan-map might only need 3 groups to fill it (9+6+1=16 Civs).

Conversely, culture-clustering wouldn't be so noticeable in Vanilla, because most Culture-groups contained only 3 Civs (European = 4). So on Standard-Cont/Pan maps, with culture-linked starts turned on, you would still get at least 3 of the 5 culture-groups represented, even if Europe was one of them (minimum 4+3+1=8 Civs); a Large Map would need to use at least 4 groups (4+3+3+2=12 Civs); and a Huge map would always use all 5 groups (4+3+3+3+3=16 Civs).

The reported tendency for the American-Civs to show up 'every time' when cultural-linkage is on, regardless of map-size/land-form, might simply be the outcome of (mostly American?) CFCers preferentially playing the American Civs...

I would have to do some testing, but I have never had a game when I had "culturally linked locations" on which did not have all three Native American civilizations on it.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Sorry, but not true as stated.

For ABLES-SG last year, Acronym chose the Germans as our Civ, a Standard-Continents map and let the game pick all our opponents, with cultural linkage. The map we got contained 2 large Continents, and a few smaller islands which weren't big/ productive enough to qualify as starting locations themselves. Our Continent also spawned the English and the Vikings (i.e. it became 'Europe'); the other, larger Continent spawned the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Indians (i.e. 'Asia'). No Americans anywhere!

So it might be more true to say that, with Cultural-linkage=ON, the game will tend to assign sufficient Culture-groups to fill the map. And I would imagine that each individual landmass is somehow linked to a single cultural-identity.

I won a game as the Portuguese a while back with culturally linked locations. The Germans were the other European Civ and the Chinese also made an appearance. The other 4 were the American Civs. All I've noticed is that it usually puts the Civs of similar cultures relatively close to each other.

If I'm right, then in Conquests, where there are at least 5 Civs in each Culture-group (Middle-Eastern=6, European=9), even a Tiny/Small Arch-Map might get 3-4 cultural groups on it (one Culture per Island, 4-6 Civs in total), but a Small Pan-map might only have 1 (i.e. all European or Middle-Eastern) or 2 groups (5+1=6 Civs) at most; a Standard Continents map would usually get 2, and rarely 3 groups (one Culture per Continent); and even a Huge Cont/Pan-map might only need 3 groups to fill it (9+6+1=16 Civs).

Conversely, culture-clustering wouldn't be so noticeable in Vanilla, because most Culture-groups contained only 3 Civs (European = 4). So on Standard-Cont/Pan maps, with culture-linked starts turned on, you would still get at least 3 of the 5 culture-groups represented, even if Europe was one of them (minimum 4+3+1=8 Civs); a Large Map would need to use at least 4 groups (4+3+3+2=12 Civs); and a Huge map would always use all 5 groups (4+3+3+3+3=16 Civs).

The reported tendency for the American-Civs to show up 'every time' when cultural-linkage is on, regardless of map-size/land-form, might simply be the outcome of (mostly American?) CFCers preferentially playing the American Civs...

I'm an American who plays the American Civs about the same as other cultural groups. I don't really notice that correlation. I've played as Portugal and Egypt and had all four American Civs with few or no Civs from my own culture. My first win on Monarch was as the Iroquois and there were no other American Civs, but that is a very rare occurrence.

 

[Lanzelot]

Acronym chose the Germans as our Civ

This may be the point here. I think the bug is, if you select "culturally linked start locations" and then choose "Random" as your civ, you will end up getting the American civs.

In fact, I just tried it 5 times and got:
1. Maya (Iroquois, Inca, China, Aztecs and Babylon were the opponents)
2. Carthago (Inca, Maya, America, Aztecs, Iroquois, Portugal and Rome as opponents)
3. Babylon (Inca, Celts, America, Arabia, Iroquois, Aztecs and Dutch)
4. Inca (America, Maya, Aztecs, Iroquois, India, Carthago, Zulu, England)
5. Germany (Maya, America, Iroquois, Aztecs, Inca, Japan, Russia)

So in each game I had at least 4 of the 5 American civs, sometimes even all 5...

 

[timerover51]

The reported tendency for the American-Civs to show up 'every time' when cultural-linkage is on, regardless of map-size/land-form, might simply be the outcome of (mostly American?) CFCers preferentially playing the American Civs...

I am an American. Every once in a while, I will play the Americans, normally on Vanilla or Play the World. I also play the English a fair amount, but when playing Conquests, I typically play either the Byzantines or the Dutch (my father's grandparents emigrated to the U.S. from The Netherlands in 1897, my mother's side of the family came over in the 1850s from the Amsterdam region), as I like ocean maps with lots of water, and either Continents or Archipelago. I prefer Sea-Faring civilizations. I have played the incas to test their starting location in the Test of Time scenario for Play the World. I have never played the Iroquois, the Mayans, or the Aztecs. I have no interest in playing the Aztecs, and not a lot for the Maya. I have been playing the game since 2003, when the Mac version was released. I have tested the Portuguese, played the Spanish some (I like the one turn of anarchy with a government change), and tried the Greeks, again mainly in Vanilla and Play the World.

 

[tjs282]

@Timerover and CelticEmpire:
I apologise for any offence caused by my suggesting bias on the part of American players specifically -- as opposed to Civ3 players in general. That said (and on topic), there are many threads on CFC recommending

• the Aztecs and Iroquois, for their Agricultural growth and an early (and potentially very powerful) UU
• the Inca or the Americans, for their Agricultural growth or their Industrious Workers, respectively, and the increased Expansionist probability of popping techs from Huts
• the Mayans, for their frankly godlike REx-potential (both Agricultural growth and Industrious Workers)

...so it would not be surprising if those Civs (and hence also their culturally-linked partners, by proxy) were chosen more often than many of the others. Buuuut...

This may be the point here. I think the bug is, if you select "culturally linked start locations" and then choose "Random" as your civ, you will end up getting the American civs.

In fact, I just tried it 5 times and got:
1. Maya (Iroquois, Inca, China, Aztecs and Babylon were the opponents)
2. Carthago (Inca, Maya, America, Aztecs, Iroquois, Portugal and Rome as opponents)
3. Babylon (Inca, Celts, America, Arabia, Iroquois, Aztecs and Dutch)
4. Inca (America, Maya, Aztecs, Iroquois, India, Carthago, Zulu, England)
5. Germany (Maya, America, Iroquois, Aztecs, Inca, Japan, Russia)

So in each game I had at least 4 of the 5 American civs, sometimes even all 5...

OK, that's interesting. And also interesting is that there seems to be a lack of consistent Cultural-linkage among the non-American Civs (unlike in our SG).

Spoiler :

Game 1 has 6 Civs listed (implying a Small map?), Games 2, 3 and 5 all have 8 Civs (= Standard), but Game 4 has 9 Civs (=Large, with 3/11 AICivs set to 'None'? Or was that a typo?). And among the non-American Civs, there are only cultural-pairs (5 in total), occurring in only 4 out of those 5 games (Game2: Carthage+Rome; Game3: Babs+Arabs, Celts+Dutch; Game4: India+Zulu; Game5: German+Russian). But on Continents maps, there are usually only 2-3 (rarely 4) Civ-spawning landmasses at Standard size, and 3-4 (rarely 5) at Large: on a culture-linked 2-Continent (plus some islands) map, I would therefore expect all the Civs on a single Continent to be from the same Culture-group, with the occasional 'singleton' on their own little island.

So I'm curious: obviously that was in C3C, but what map-size(s) and -settings did you use? Were these all Standard-size 70% Continents maps (as in ABLES-SG), or Randomized? And would it be possible to provide a breakdown of which Civ(s) ended up on which landmass(es)?

If all Continents maps

1. Did the American Civs always end up on the same landmass (as might be reasonably expected, if cultural-linkage is working) -- hence why some games had 4 and others had 5 of them (depending on landmass-size)?
   • (And does that also mean that the Americans almost always got the biggest landmass in the game?)
2. Was the second continent a cultural mixture? Or (e.g. in Game3, the only Standard/Large map that has only 4 American Civs) did each of the other culture-groups always get a small continent/large island to themselves?

I also found this post, which suggests that if you don't deliberately re-click 'All Random' under the 'Opponents' section each time you start a new game, you will end up getting the same (group of) opponents as you did in the previous game, as if you'd just hit the 'Quick-start' option (that was C3C patch 1.15 though...). So did you?

If you did, and still ended up with the American Civs each time, then you've convinced me, yes, there must a bug here, because the Devs shuuurely wouldn't have programmed deliberately for these outcomes -- would they...?

One last question: Does anyone know if this (bug) applies to Vanilla/PtW as well?

 

[Lanzelot]

I can answer some of your questions, but not all of them, because I just started the game, checked my opponents in F10 and then quit again. I do not have enough time to play 5 games far enough to find out, which civ was sitting on which landmass... (Would probably take a few hours the way I usually play...)

Anyway, I tried different settings: Small, Standard and Large (as you already found out ) as well as Pangaea, Continents and Archipelago. So I am not sure whether your assumption

there seems to be a lack of consistent Cultural-linkage among the non-American Civs

is correct. I don't remember all the details, but I think game #2 was a Pangaea, and here we have the non-American civs also "culturally linked": Karthago, Rome and Portugal are from the same culture group, aren't they? Game 4 (with so many different groups) may have been an Archipelago.

I also found this post, which suggests that if you don't deliberately re-click 'All Random' under the 'Opponents' section each time you start a new game, you will end up getting the same (group of) opponents as you did in the previous game, as if you'd just hit the 'Quick-start' option (that was C3C patch 1.15 though...). So did you?

In fact I did. I remember this vividly, because I noticed that whenever I changed the map size for a new game, the "NONE" in some of the opponent boxes had been changed to exactly the civs of the previous game. And as I was too lazy to reset them all to NONE manually, I just clicked that button...