Discussion in 'Civ3 - User-created Maps' started by TETurkhan, Aug 9, 2002.
Awesome, thanks for the history, Reno.
if te is adding non-euro civs, then which civs could he add?
probably the olmecs.
could be he'll add a western tribe to complement the iroquois, quite possibly an inuit or other polar tribe, polynesians, maybe even (as the map will be larger), maori tribes in new zealand, a tribe or two in southern africa to challenge the zulu, maybe a reworking of the middle east to include babylon/sumeria/assyria, hatusha (the hittites), the parsans (ancient persia), medea, or even the scythians...
there's quite a few possibilities for new tribes, it all depends on what TETurkahn wants to do (it IS his most-excellent mod, after all)
well, to make the american tribes be less primitive, TET will probably put the olmecs. since egyptian mummies have traces of cocane in their skin, they probably had contact with the olmecs ,because cocane is first found in the jungles of what is now Mexico, and just forgot about them.
How about Mali for western Africa to challeng the Songhai and perhaps Great Zimbabwe or the Tutsi to fill the empty space now filled with dinosaurs. I agree that the Olmecs are a good choice. How about a plains tribe like the Cheyenne/Lakota (e.g. Sioux complex of Tribes). Maybe the Hawaii could be added and/or the Aborigines (sorry I forgot their true name) in Austrailia/New Guniea.
"Freed" as in half its pre-war territory annexed to Belurussia and a Soviet-style government installed in Warsawa.
Thanks! I dindint get a 10 in history for nothing!
Olmecs? I don't know... I'd rather see more North American tribes first. The Iroquois ALWAYS get way too powerful and I'm tired of seeing the Aztecs in Illinois and Washington. The Kwakiutl would be a good Pacific Northwest Tribe. Apache, Hopi, Mississipi, Seminole, Inuit -- any of these would make great civs to add since they cover a lot of the current empty area and would reduce the huge amount of land available to the Iroquois and Aztecs. (See, this brings up one of my biggest concerns in TET's mod -- the absurd price of settlers. If anything, settlers should be cheap and just cost a lot of population. I know he did it because the AI always builds settlers, but it's just such a cumbersome way to curb that problem. I'd much rather have razing cities and then settling the land be a viable option rather than having to always capture cities.</rant>)
This would also help towards solving the problem of the American civs being in the stone age by the time they are "discovered" by Europeans, since they would have more civs researching, more tech to trade, you get the idea.
Tet, I don't know how much you're still working on the mod other than making the installer, but I was wondering if you tweaked the resources at all? With the incredibly high prices you require for later units (so that they need to be rush-bought), I think there needs to be more of an international reliance on trade. What I mean is more resources that are required to build things, more happiness resources, etc. That way, economic warefare is much more effective, as large embargoes can both empty the banks of enemy civs, as well as prevent certain civs from building all sorts of units. More resources required for certain units makes trade and diplomacy much more important, too.
Really? In my ToT games, the Iroqouis are always an Industrial Age superpower occupying the entire eastern USA and Canada by the time I reach the Americas in any kind of strength. Playing either a European or Far Eastern civ, I usually get at least one galley to North America in the late Ancient/ early Middle Age, but it isn't until the late Middle/ early Industrial Age that I am able to colonize them at all. And by then, the Iroquois are usually in 3rd or 4th place and ready to kick my expeditionary force off the continent at a moment's notice. I personally think it would be more "accurate" if by the time the Europeans arrived in the Americas in strength, the Amerindians were only advanced to the late Ancient/ early Middle Age. The real problem with Civ when discussing the Americas is that their is no way to replicate things like the fact that the Native Americans couldn't make their own guns, but the Europeans sold ready-made ones to them. In Civ terms, it would mean that the Iroquois could only build archers, or longbows, or something along those lines, but when they came into contact with the Europeans they could buy musketmen. I suppose a way to implement it would be to create a Native American Rifleman unit that requires an Ancient or early Middle Age tech (well before the Gunpowder tech required by Old World civs) but which also requires a Trade Goods resource found only in Europe. The result is a gunpowder unit that could be built by relatively technologically backwards American civs who have contact and trade with the Europeans.
The problem there of course is that it would detract from the epic game, since half the fun (for some people) is watching history play out in a totally random and unrealistic way.
So while I would like to see more civs in the Americas (having the Iroquois, Aztecs, Maya, Inca, Sioux, and Inuit sounds good to me) I don't think the reason for it should be to speed the tech rate in the Americas. If anything, I think it needs to slow down.
for the north american new civ, TET can make the Mesa Verde people, i forgot their name, but i still remember they live in Mesa Verde. it atleast stops the aztecs from going to North america to a certain extent.
This is just a game.
You folks need to read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel if you want to get a good understanding of why it was the Europeans who invaded the Americas, and not the other way around.
In history, some 90% of the population of the New World was killed off by European guns and diseases. If you wanted to recreate this with Civ III, I'm pretty sure it would make for some lousy gameplay.
60% or some other high number of the aztecs were killed by small pox.
Jared Diamond says 90% of New World peoples. He reckons there were 20 million people in the New World before the Conquest (maybe that's just North America; I'm going from memory here).
He cites, for example, very early reports of European explorers visiting areas like the Mississippi delta region who reported large numbers of natives; but then explorers passing through a generation later reported the areas almost uninhabited.
For a population with no exposure to Old World diseases, with no immunities at all, it didn't take much to spark an epidemic. What an unimaginable holocaust it was.
Fact: there are no native New World epidemic human diseases, except maybe (just maybe, no one is sure), syphillis.
Sypilis is a std, it was in Greece too.
Now that we are taking about diseases, In The C3C editor you can include the black death, any way to have various black deaths that will only affect some pre selected parts of the world?
redneck, that's why "accurate" was in quotes. I even said later on (or I think I did... it was late when i posted last night) that having an accurate "Race to the New World" would really spoil the gameplay. The only point I was trying to make was that yes, there should be more civs in the Americas, but no, it shouldn't be for the implicit purpose of speeding the tech rate in the Western Hemisphere.
I don't think it is possible to limit where in the world the plague strikes. AFAIK, once set in the editor, it strikes randomly throughout the world. Same with volcanoes, too, you can't set which ones erupt when. Would be nice if you could set those parameters, though... have the Black Death hit Europe and China like it really did, or set Vesuvius to erupt like a timebomb against the Romans. And about syphilus, it was found in the Old World too. I heard that Columbus' crew actually had several cases of syphilus aboard and brought it to the Caribbean with them. But that it probably entirely wrong.
I suppose it isn't politicilly correct, but an "accurate" way to represent the people of the New World and the Old World, and their relationship to each other, would be to make the New World (and Australia and New Guinea) simply teeming with barbarians. The Asians and Europeans would have to kill them all off to conquer the new lands.
As I mentioned, Jared Diamond makes a very good case for why things worked out this way. Guns, Germs and Steel is a great book which I can recommend to every Civ player.
But making the plague hit Europe will weakeng them even more
it woud make playing as European civs harder but would make the game historically acurate...
maybe with the LM terrain, Europe could have a high production terrain.
Separate names with a comma.