Notes on Agriculture.

[Mojotronica]

In Conquests I think that most of the New World Civs are Agricultural, which sort of fits our conception of them as "one with the land." It really fits the Incas, who were masterful at turning marginal land into useful space.

But in historical terms it leads to large populations for those Civs, which rings false historically. Compared to Europe and Asia the population of the New World was tiny. In effect, making them Agricultural allows them to dominate in population. It would make a lot more sense to make population juggernauts like India and China Agricultural, and avoid assinging the trait to any Civ who's population was historically low.

Fortunately these traits are editable, so if you want to set up a game where New World populations tend to be smaller you can give them other characteristics.

 

[genghis_khev]

I think its 'cos these civs were geared primarily for aggriculture (most less developed civs are). Also we (i.e. the rest of the world & the original settlers) only have a limited view of their culture.

For example the Romans found the Celts to be barbaric, completely missing out on massively artistic and cultural (i.e. religious) parts of the society. Such things where only "discovered" by archeologists finding very ornate and finely carved jewelry and other artifacts from that era.

I would agree that it would better suit TRW if these civs were not Agg. but I have no idea what they should be changed to.

 

[dmanakho]

Civilization 3 should not be a mirror of real history, otherwise it would lose all the fun.
Where else you would see Zulus and Mayas dominate the world with nukes and mighty americans to be stuck on a tiny islands defended by spears.
Most of the time playing Civ not european but american-indian african and ancient (Babylon, Egypt etc.) AI civs and cultures dominate the world because they have stronge characteristics and played for AI they tend to dominate.

 

[genghis_khev]

I agree that Civ3 should not mirror real history or playing some like the Hittites would be rather pointless!!

I do like some of the alternate "histories" the game generates as well. Although I wonder what it would be like to live in a brutal, oppressive Celtic Communist state? I know communism doesn't have to be brutal but with me at the helm... Well it ain't pretty!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Incans and Mayans "one with the land"? Whatever I think of when I hear of those peoples, it's not "oneness with the land" ... try human sacrifice and feats of engineering.

Anyway, the trait distribution is pretty messed up overall. Who cares if the American civs are unaccountably agricultural among that entire mess?

 

[Evie]

Modmakers who are out to set things straight ;-)

Oh, btw - it was the Aztecs who were really big on human sacrifices. The Incans, IIRC, didn't practice it much (if at all), and it was only the later era Mayans, heavily influnenced by Olmec culture, who went big on human sacrifices (which is not to say they didn't do it at all before, just that they weren't all that big on it - it was quite mostly an Aztec thing).

I'm with Mojotronica though - a shift to Asia of the Agricultural trait would be very indicated. China should have it, India should have it, Japan has a better claim to it than most (They aren't even in the top 50 for land space but make top-10 for population...)

 

[Choicest One]

I agree with Mojotronica. As an example, if you look at the Age of Empires series of games (please don't kill me for mentioning it TBS-purists!) whenever China is placed as a nation, they get population/agricultural bonuses to reflect the fact they have a higher population when compared to other empires.

Although, I do not think agricultural is such a bad trait for indigenous American races (such as Mayans, Inca, etc) SO LONG as they start in terrain similar to real life (i.e. mostly jungle and swamp for Mayans, mountains for Incans) which isn't very productive for food to start off with anyhow... their agricultural trait would as a consequence be partially nullified.

 

[t3h_m013]

also all the new world civs are agricultural which a) gives you cheap aqueducts etc. and b) better irrigated desert squares.
the new worlds civs were mainly based in deep jungle. apart from bits of mexico i think.
ive never heard of an aztec etc. aqueduct.

edit: having said that. i think that civ shouldnt mirror the real world in actual civs. more in periods, i.e. industrial revolution, cold war (sometimes happens) and i think there should be a deevolution period where some of the bigger civs start brewaking up (e.g. post soviet union type thing.)

 

[Sukenis]

I will not go into details (and be a flamer), but many of you REALLY need to do some research before you post.

While the New World civs did not have large populated empires, they did have cities of massive size. If I am remembering correctly Teotihuacán was one of the top 5 cities in population in the world at its time. Considering the fact that is was built on a lake in a desert, Tenochtitlan was a pretty big city as well (3 to 4 times the size of London). It was much larger than Paris as well. Aqueducts and fountains pumped water tot he center of the city. The wealthier had piping into their homes. I can keep going, but I doubt anyone here wants a Mesoamerican history lesson.

edited

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

It probably comes down to a simple 'the developers didn't want to change any more of the existing civ traits than necessary'.

 

[Choicest One]

I will not go into details (and be a flamer), but many of you REALLY need to do some research before you post.

While the New World civs did not have large populated empires, they did have cities of massive size. If I am remembering correctly Teotihuacán was one of the top 5 cities in population in the world at its time. Considering the fact that is was built on a lake in a desert, Tenochtitlan was a pretty big city as well (3 to 4 times the size of London). It was much larger than Paris as well. Aqueducts and fountains pumped water tot he center of the city. The wealthier had piping into their homes. I can keep going, but I doubt anyone here wants a Mesoamerican history lesson.

edited

I've always got confused about this but is Tenoctitlan and Teotihuacan the same thing (just different spellings)? We're talking about the Aztec capital where Mexico City stands today right?

And yes I agree with Sukenis - which is why I believe the agricultural trait is good BUT the terrain they were building in was a different matter.

 

[Merepatra]

It probably comes down to a simple 'the developers didn't want to change any more of the existing civ traits than necessary'.

Give that man a prize

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Give that man a prize

Do i get to choose?

 

[Sukenis]

I've always got confused about this but is Tenoctitlan and Teotihuacan the same thing (just different spellings)? We're talking about the Aztec capital where Mexico City stands today right?

Tenochtitlan (or more properly, Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco) is the Aztec capital on which Mexico City was built. Teotihuacan was nearby geographically, but existed around the time of Christ. One reason that the names sound so similar is that they're both from the Aztec language of Nahuatl- Teotihuacan means 'place of the gods,' which is what the Aztecs called the monumental ruined city when they finally arrived in the central highlands of Mexico. The reason it's still called Teotihuacan is that scholars don't know much about the culture or people that inhabited it, including what they called themselves or their city.

and it was only the later era Mayans, heavily influnenced by Olmec culture, who went big on human sacrifices (which is not to say they didn't do it at all before, just that they weren't all that big on it - it was quite mostly an Aztec thing).

You must be confusing the Olmecs with the Toltecs. The Olmecs are the oldest civilization found so far in Mesoamerica (older than the Maya). The Toltecs were the first of the Nahua immigrants, who later migrated to the Yucatan and influenced some of the later Maya culture, most notably around Chichen Itza.

I said I wouldn't give a history lesson, but I was on a roll. Sorry.

 

[t3h_m013]

I will not go into details (and be a flamer), but many of you REALLY need to do some research before you post.
Aqueducts and fountains pumped water tot he center of the city. The wealthier had piping into their homes. I can keep going, but I doubt anyone here wants a Mesoamerican history lesson.

edited

i = pwned, sorry. i do need to do some research, was more a "off the top of my head thing"

 

[Evie]

Thanks Sukenis, I've always had a problem keeping these two names straight, them being rather similar names. Yes, I did mean the Toltecs.

Tenochitlan I'll grant you was one of the most populous cities of the world in its time, dwarfing most if not all European cities (then again, IIRC the major japanesse and chinesse town staked the same claims at roughly the same time).
Teotihuacan, with us knowing so little about the city how do we know how populated it was?

 

[Nakar]

Teotihuacan, with us knowing so little about the city how do we know how populated it was?

We don't, exactly, but based on sheer scale (number of dwellings, amount of garbage recovered, depopulation of villages in the surrounding area suggesting immigration, skeletons) the number is at least 100-300 thousand at peak. The 250,000 estimate is the most popular current figure. Besides, have you ever SEEN Teotihuacan? It's HUGE! Look it up sometime. The gigantic, well-planned avenues, the various economic districts, the pyramids... it takes a large, complex society to manage all that. There's circumstantial evidence in abundance.

 

[Sukenis]

(then again, IIRC the major japanesse and chinesse town staked the same claims at roughly the same time).

Ok, I'm pretty sure Beijing was the most populous city in the world at that time, but I cannot find any information about Japan's populations (cities) at that time. What was the most populous city in Japan in the 1500s (ish) and what was the actual population? Tokyo is the most populous city now, but the information I have found says it was founded in 1457. I would assume Kyoto (being the capital) would be the most populous city then, but can find any figures.

There's circumstantial evidence in abundance.

Ya, what he said.

Edited

 

[t3h_m013]

i thought mexico city was the biggest, followed by either rio or san paolo

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

In the year 2000 Tokyo had a population of about 26,000,000. Mexico City's 'official estimate' was 18,100,000 in 2000. But I have heard estimates that the population could actually be as high as 50,000,000 if you include all the homeless in the city, which the city apparently doesn't count as residents.