What civs are missing from Civ3?
- Thread starter sween32
- Start date
Ok, ok.. You got me there.. Kinda 
I'd say Mexico is central America rather than North America, but that's neither here nor there Basically that region and south is looking a little sparse
Hmmm.. Is there a collective term for the tribes down around the Amazon river?
I'd say Mexico is central America rather than North America, but that's neither here nor there Basically that region and south is looking a little sparse Hmmm.. Is there a collective term for the tribes down around the Amazon river?
Kal-el
Deity
My understanding is that we will be able to play against 31 other civs, making it 32 total civs at one time. Is this incorrect? If we can play with 32 civs we can add 8 more civs to play against rather that 7.
One thing that has to be taken into consideration when determing which civs to be added is the tech rate. The more civs you have in a given region that faster those civs are going to burn through the tech tree, what with trading and everything. I think this is one of th reasons that Firaxis overloaded EurAsia with civs and left other regions like Africa and the Americas so sparsely populated.
I am working on the theory that all civs will be played at the same time. I am also working on the presumption that the game will be played on a world map. If it is not then the tech rate issue is irrelevant.
My choices come from no ethnic or national affiliation but are based simply game balance given the above presumptions.
The American Civs:
--------------
Inca:
I think we have all agreed that they are a significant civilization that should be added. I am not going to write a long argument in their support as that has been covered.
From a tech race standpoint the Inca should be fairly isolated for a time, while they struggle with the rough terrain of the Andes and the inhospitable jungles of the Amazon. Once they do make contact with the Aztec and possibly the Maya they will still face difficulties in expanding in South America.
Mayan:
The Mayan are a questionable choice due to the extreme proximity geographically to the Aztecs. But in their support they were one of the few advanced civilizations in the Americas and will give some competition for the Aztecs for the scarce resources of the Central American region.
Sioux:Sioux or Dakota,confederation of Native North American tribes, the dominant group of the Hokan-Siouan linguistic stock, which is divided into several separate branches. The Sioux, or Dakota, consisted of seven tribes in three major divisions: Wahpekute, Mdewakantonwan, Wahpetonwan, Sisitonwan (who together formed the Santee or Eastern division, sometimes referred to as the Dakota), the Ihanktonwan, or Yankton, and the Ihanktonwana, or Yanktonai (who form the Middle division, sometimes referred to as the Nakota), and the Titonwan, or Teton (who form the Western division, sometimes referred to as the Lakota). The Tetons, originally a single band, divided into seven sub-bands after the move to the plains, these seven including the Hunkpapa, Sihasapa (or Blackfoot), and Oglala. -- infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0845378.html
Adding the Sioux will allow the Iroquois UU to be given to the proper civilization. The Iroquois were not known for their mounted warriors whereas the Sioux were renowned horsemen of the Great Plains region of North America. The Iroquois can be given a new UU, the Brave, which could be a conversion of the Scout unit with a Tomahawk rather than a waterskin.
An aside on the Americans:
I am probably a bit more patriotic than the next guy, I get all choked up for the National Anthem, and some times get teary eyed for America the Beautiful, but having the Americans in the Game really ruins the feel of it all AFAIC. IMO This civ should not be in the game. As such I have added the Sioux as an additional North American civ to take their place.
This configuration would put 4 or 5 civs in the Americas depending on whether the Mayans are included.
The African Civs:
---------------------
Songhai/Mali:
Mali vs Songhai
"The Mali region has been the seat of extensive empires and kingdoms, notably those of Ghana (4th11th cent.), Mali, and Gao. The medieval empire of Mali was a powerful state and one of the world's chief gold suppliers; it attained its peak in the early 14th cent. under Mansa (Emperor) Musa (reigned c.13121337), who made a famous pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324 laden with gold and slaves to proclaim Mali's prosperity and power. During his rule Muslim scholarship reached new heights in Mali, and such cities as Timbuktu and Djenné (Jenne) became important centers of trade, learning, and culture.
The Mali empire was followed by the Songhai empire of Gao, which rose to great power in the late 15th cent. In 1590 the empire, already weakened by internal divisions, was shattered by a Moroccan army. The Moroccans, however, could not effectively dominate the vast region, which broke up into petty states. By the late 18th cent., the area was in a semianarchic condition and was subject to incursions by the Tuareg and Fulani.
The 19th cent. witnessed a great resurgence of Islam. The Tukolor empire of al-Hajj Umar (17941864) and the empire of Samori Touré (187098) emerged as Muslim states opposing French invasion of the region. By 1898 the French conquest was virtually complete; Mali, called French Sudan, became part of the Federation of French West Africa. A nationalist movement, spearheaded by trade unions and student groups, blossomed during the period between the two world wars. The Sudanese Union, a militantly anticolonial party, became the leading political force. Its leader, Modibo Keita, was a descendant of the Mali emperors." -- infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0859453.html
I chose the Songhai simply because they expanded the size of the Mali territory and had the largest empire in West Africa. However, the Songhai empire was shorter lived than the Mali empire.
Abyssinians/Ethiopians:
Abyssinia is just the ancient name for Ethiopia
Cu****ic language speakers are believed to have been the original inhabitants of Ethiopia. They were driven out of the region by the Cu****es in the 2d millennium B.C. The Cu****es founded a new civilization which probably traded with the Egyptians, according to ancient Egyptian texts. The Egyptian name for Ethiopians was Habashat, which is the probable origin of the name Abyssinia.
According to tradition, the Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba is supposed to have borne. However, the first kingdom for which there is documentary evidence is that of Aksum (Axum), a kingdom which probably emerged in the 2d cent. A.D., thus making Ethiopia the oldest independent country in Africa and one of the most ancient in the world. Immigrants (mainly traders) from S Arabia who had been settling in N Ethiopia since about 500 B.C. influenced the economy and culture of Ethiopia. Aksum controlled much of the Red Sea coast and had links with the Mediterranean world.
Under King Ezana, Aksum was converted (4th cent.) to Christianity by Frumentius of Tyre. Closely tied to the Egyptian Coptic Church, the established Ethiopian church accepted Monophysitism following the Council of Chalcedon (451). In the 6th cent., Jewish influence penetrated Aksum, and some Ethiopians were converted to Judaism.
With the rise of Islam in the 7th cent. Aksum declined, mainly because its land contacts with the Byzantine Empire were severed and its control of the Red Sea trade routes was ended. Thereafter, the focus of Aksum was directed inward toward the center of the Ethiopian Plateau (mainly the regions of Amhara and Shoa), and it was largely cut off from the outside world. Aksum soon lost its cohesion, and Ethiopia lapsed into a period of competition among small political units.
In 153031, Ahmad Gran, a Muslim Somali leader, conquered much of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian emperor Lebna Dengel (reigned 150840) appealed to Portugal for help against the Somalis (a Portuguese embassy had reached the Ethiopian court in 1520). The Somali war exhausted Ethiopia, ending a period of cultural revival and exposing the empire to incursions by the Oromo. For the next two centuries the Ethiopian kingdom, centered at Gondar near Lake Tana, was beset by ruinous civil wars among princes (especially those of Tigray and Amhara), was menaced by the Oromo, and was again isolated from the outside world. --infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858046.html
I went with Abyssinian to fit in with the other Ancient Cultures.
This would put 4 civs in northen Africa fighting over a lot of desert and separated from South Africa and the Zulu by a jungle and then some more Desert. If the earth map is prepared properly (something that I need to work on more with my own map) the Zulu should find their expansion curbed by the rough terrain and the added competition to the north.
The European Civs:
-----------------------
Poland:
My choice for an additional European civ is the Polish. Given my above presumptions certain worthy civs like the Portuguese and the Dutch and numerous others were less than optimal. As has been noted before, Europe is crowded already and PTW is going to make it even more so. Where to put the Celts, Ireland? Or the Continent? The Continent is where they started but they are more easily associated with Ireland. Either place is pretty tight, but they are going to be in the game so we accept that and move on. That doesnt mean that we should follow in Firaxis footsteps here and try and cram in other civs into tight locations.
Of all the areas of Europe that could support another Civilization, Western Europe seems, to me, the best choice. The decision then came down to Poland or Austro-Hungary. With the Greeks and the Ottoman Turks in South West Europe I went with Poland, which will also serve to give Russia a bit more competition. With the Addition of Mongolia to North Eastern Asia, the Russians shouldnt have life quite so easy anymore.
The Asian Civs:
Tibet:
Most people think of Tibet as a peaceful little country but theirs is a history of warfare. Over the centuries the Yarlung Zangbo valley was the focus of ancient trade routes from India, China, and central Asia. Tibet emerged from an obscure history to flourish in the 7th cent. A.D. as an independent kingdom with its capital at Lhasa. The Chinese first established relations with Tibet during the T'ang dynasty (618906), and there were frequent wars of conquest. --infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861546.html
I picked them to fill up the Central Asian Region in order to give more competition to China, Mongolia, India and Persia and the Thai.
Thai/Siam:
Like other countries of Southeast Asia, Thailand in prehistoric times was peopled through successive migrations from central Asia into territory already inhabited by the Negrito peoples. Although a few Thai groups (ethnically related to the Shan of Myanmar and the Lao of Laos) migrated to the northern hill country of Thailand, the main body of Thais remained in Yunnan, China, where by A.D. 650 they had organized the independent kingdom of Nanchao. By 1000, however, the Chinese had overrun Nanchao and made it a tributary state. With the destruction of the kingdom of Nanchao by the Mongols under Kublai Khan in 1253, the slow infiltration of Thailand from the north turned into a mass migration. By that time the Khmer Empire was well established in the Chao Phraya valley and on the Korat plateau.
The Thais captured the Khmer town of Sukhothai, in N central Thailand, and a new Thai nation, with its capital at Sukhothai, soon developed. During this period (c.12601350), King Rama Kamheng, whose 40-year reign began c.1275, borrowed from the Khmers of Cambodia the alphabet that the Thais still use. He extended Sukhothai power southward to the sea and down the Malay Peninsula, and contact was made with India. After the death of Rama Kamheng, Sukhothai declined and was absorbed by Rama Tibodi, prince of Utong, who established (c.1350) a new capital at Ayutthaya. The kings of Ayutthaya consolidated their power in S Siam and the Malay Peninsula, then launched a long series of indecisive wars against the Lao state of Chiang Mai and against Cambodia, which did not end until the 19th cent. The 16th cent. saw the beginnings of warfare with the Burmese; in 1568 the Burmese captured Ayutthaya and dominated the country until c.1583, when King Naresuan (15551605) drove them from Siam. He captured Tanintharyi and Tavoy in S Myanmar and the major port of Mergui.--infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861512.html
Oceanic Civs:
----------------
This area is so vast and difficult to define. There are three main ethnic groups Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian spread out over approximately 25,000 islands. Among all those Islands only a few tribes were able to build actual empires of any considerable size, the Maori on New Zealand, The Tonganese, and the Hawaiians created the largest empires, though small by EurAsian standards. The Maori, Tonganese, and the Hawaiians are all Polynesian, hence the choice Polynesia over the other two ethnicities. My other choice would be to just go with the Hawaiians and Queen Kamehameha I.
That makes 9 additional civs, minus the Americans for an elite eight.
One thing that has to be taken into consideration when determing which civs to be added is the tech rate. The more civs you have in a given region that faster those civs are going to burn through the tech tree, what with trading and everything. I think this is one of th reasons that Firaxis overloaded EurAsia with civs and left other regions like Africa and the Americas so sparsely populated.
I am working on the theory that all civs will be played at the same time. I am also working on the presumption that the game will be played on a world map. If it is not then the tech rate issue is irrelevant.
My choices come from no ethnic or national affiliation but are based simply game balance given the above presumptions.
The American Civs:
--------------
Inca:
I think we have all agreed that they are a significant civilization that should be added. I am not going to write a long argument in their support as that has been covered.
From a tech race standpoint the Inca should be fairly isolated for a time, while they struggle with the rough terrain of the Andes and the inhospitable jungles of the Amazon. Once they do make contact with the Aztec and possibly the Maya they will still face difficulties in expanding in South America.
Mayan:
The Mayan are a questionable choice due to the extreme proximity geographically to the Aztecs. But in their support they were one of the few advanced civilizations in the Americas and will give some competition for the Aztecs for the scarce resources of the Central American region.
Sioux:Sioux or Dakota,confederation of Native North American tribes, the dominant group of the Hokan-Siouan linguistic stock, which is divided into several separate branches. The Sioux, or Dakota, consisted of seven tribes in three major divisions: Wahpekute, Mdewakantonwan, Wahpetonwan, Sisitonwan (who together formed the Santee or Eastern division, sometimes referred to as the Dakota), the Ihanktonwan, or Yankton, and the Ihanktonwana, or Yanktonai (who form the Middle division, sometimes referred to as the Nakota), and the Titonwan, or Teton (who form the Western division, sometimes referred to as the Lakota). The Tetons, originally a single band, divided into seven sub-bands after the move to the plains, these seven including the Hunkpapa, Sihasapa (or Blackfoot), and Oglala. -- infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0845378.html
Adding the Sioux will allow the Iroquois UU to be given to the proper civilization. The Iroquois were not known for their mounted warriors whereas the Sioux were renowned horsemen of the Great Plains region of North America. The Iroquois can be given a new UU, the Brave, which could be a conversion of the Scout unit with a Tomahawk rather than a waterskin.
An aside on the Americans:
I am probably a bit more patriotic than the next guy, I get all choked up for the National Anthem, and some times get teary eyed for America the Beautiful, but having the Americans in the Game really ruins the feel of it all AFAIC. IMO This civ should not be in the game. As such I have added the Sioux as an additional North American civ to take their place.
This configuration would put 4 or 5 civs in the Americas depending on whether the Mayans are included.
The African Civs:
---------------------
Songhai/Mali:
Mali vs Songhai
"The Mali region has been the seat of extensive empires and kingdoms, notably those of Ghana (4th11th cent.), Mali, and Gao. The medieval empire of Mali was a powerful state and one of the world's chief gold suppliers; it attained its peak in the early 14th cent. under Mansa (Emperor) Musa (reigned c.13121337), who made a famous pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324 laden with gold and slaves to proclaim Mali's prosperity and power. During his rule Muslim scholarship reached new heights in Mali, and such cities as Timbuktu and Djenné (Jenne) became important centers of trade, learning, and culture.
The Mali empire was followed by the Songhai empire of Gao, which rose to great power in the late 15th cent. In 1590 the empire, already weakened by internal divisions, was shattered by a Moroccan army. The Moroccans, however, could not effectively dominate the vast region, which broke up into petty states. By the late 18th cent., the area was in a semianarchic condition and was subject to incursions by the Tuareg and Fulani.
The 19th cent. witnessed a great resurgence of Islam. The Tukolor empire of al-Hajj Umar (17941864) and the empire of Samori Touré (187098) emerged as Muslim states opposing French invasion of the region. By 1898 the French conquest was virtually complete; Mali, called French Sudan, became part of the Federation of French West Africa. A nationalist movement, spearheaded by trade unions and student groups, blossomed during the period between the two world wars. The Sudanese Union, a militantly anticolonial party, became the leading political force. Its leader, Modibo Keita, was a descendant of the Mali emperors." -- infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0859453.html
I chose the Songhai simply because they expanded the size of the Mali territory and had the largest empire in West Africa. However, the Songhai empire was shorter lived than the Mali empire.
Abyssinians/Ethiopians:
Abyssinia is just the ancient name for Ethiopia
Cu****ic language speakers are believed to have been the original inhabitants of Ethiopia. They were driven out of the region by the Cu****es in the 2d millennium B.C. The Cu****es founded a new civilization which probably traded with the Egyptians, according to ancient Egyptian texts. The Egyptian name for Ethiopians was Habashat, which is the probable origin of the name Abyssinia.
According to tradition, the Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba is supposed to have borne. However, the first kingdom for which there is documentary evidence is that of Aksum (Axum), a kingdom which probably emerged in the 2d cent. A.D., thus making Ethiopia the oldest independent country in Africa and one of the most ancient in the world. Immigrants (mainly traders) from S Arabia who had been settling in N Ethiopia since about 500 B.C. influenced the economy and culture of Ethiopia. Aksum controlled much of the Red Sea coast and had links with the Mediterranean world.
Under King Ezana, Aksum was converted (4th cent.) to Christianity by Frumentius of Tyre. Closely tied to the Egyptian Coptic Church, the established Ethiopian church accepted Monophysitism following the Council of Chalcedon (451). In the 6th cent., Jewish influence penetrated Aksum, and some Ethiopians were converted to Judaism.
With the rise of Islam in the 7th cent. Aksum declined, mainly because its land contacts with the Byzantine Empire were severed and its control of the Red Sea trade routes was ended. Thereafter, the focus of Aksum was directed inward toward the center of the Ethiopian Plateau (mainly the regions of Amhara and Shoa), and it was largely cut off from the outside world. Aksum soon lost its cohesion, and Ethiopia lapsed into a period of competition among small political units.
In 153031, Ahmad Gran, a Muslim Somali leader, conquered much of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian emperor Lebna Dengel (reigned 150840) appealed to Portugal for help against the Somalis (a Portuguese embassy had reached the Ethiopian court in 1520). The Somali war exhausted Ethiopia, ending a period of cultural revival and exposing the empire to incursions by the Oromo. For the next two centuries the Ethiopian kingdom, centered at Gondar near Lake Tana, was beset by ruinous civil wars among princes (especially those of Tigray and Amhara), was menaced by the Oromo, and was again isolated from the outside world. --infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858046.html
I went with Abyssinian to fit in with the other Ancient Cultures.
This would put 4 civs in northen Africa fighting over a lot of desert and separated from South Africa and the Zulu by a jungle and then some more Desert. If the earth map is prepared properly (something that I need to work on more with my own map) the Zulu should find their expansion curbed by the rough terrain and the added competition to the north.
The European Civs:
-----------------------
Poland:
My choice for an additional European civ is the Polish. Given my above presumptions certain worthy civs like the Portuguese and the Dutch and numerous others were less than optimal. As has been noted before, Europe is crowded already and PTW is going to make it even more so. Where to put the Celts, Ireland? Or the Continent? The Continent is where they started but they are more easily associated with Ireland. Either place is pretty tight, but they are going to be in the game so we accept that and move on. That doesnt mean that we should follow in Firaxis footsteps here and try and cram in other civs into tight locations.
Of all the areas of Europe that could support another Civilization, Western Europe seems, to me, the best choice. The decision then came down to Poland or Austro-Hungary. With the Greeks and the Ottoman Turks in South West Europe I went with Poland, which will also serve to give Russia a bit more competition. With the Addition of Mongolia to North Eastern Asia, the Russians shouldnt have life quite so easy anymore.
The Asian Civs:
Tibet:
Most people think of Tibet as a peaceful little country but theirs is a history of warfare. Over the centuries the Yarlung Zangbo valley was the focus of ancient trade routes from India, China, and central Asia. Tibet emerged from an obscure history to flourish in the 7th cent. A.D. as an independent kingdom with its capital at Lhasa. The Chinese first established relations with Tibet during the T'ang dynasty (618906), and there were frequent wars of conquest. --infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861546.html
I picked them to fill up the Central Asian Region in order to give more competition to China, Mongolia, India and Persia and the Thai.
Thai/Siam:
Like other countries of Southeast Asia, Thailand in prehistoric times was peopled through successive migrations from central Asia into territory already inhabited by the Negrito peoples. Although a few Thai groups (ethnically related to the Shan of Myanmar and the Lao of Laos) migrated to the northern hill country of Thailand, the main body of Thais remained in Yunnan, China, where by A.D. 650 they had organized the independent kingdom of Nanchao. By 1000, however, the Chinese had overrun Nanchao and made it a tributary state. With the destruction of the kingdom of Nanchao by the Mongols under Kublai Khan in 1253, the slow infiltration of Thailand from the north turned into a mass migration. By that time the Khmer Empire was well established in the Chao Phraya valley and on the Korat plateau.
The Thais captured the Khmer town of Sukhothai, in N central Thailand, and a new Thai nation, with its capital at Sukhothai, soon developed. During this period (c.12601350), King Rama Kamheng, whose 40-year reign began c.1275, borrowed from the Khmers of Cambodia the alphabet that the Thais still use. He extended Sukhothai power southward to the sea and down the Malay Peninsula, and contact was made with India. After the death of Rama Kamheng, Sukhothai declined and was absorbed by Rama Tibodi, prince of Utong, who established (c.1350) a new capital at Ayutthaya. The kings of Ayutthaya consolidated their power in S Siam and the Malay Peninsula, then launched a long series of indecisive wars against the Lao state of Chiang Mai and against Cambodia, which did not end until the 19th cent. The 16th cent. saw the beginnings of warfare with the Burmese; in 1568 the Burmese captured Ayutthaya and dominated the country until c.1583, when King Naresuan (15551605) drove them from Siam. He captured Tanintharyi and Tavoy in S Myanmar and the major port of Mergui.--infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861512.html
Oceanic Civs:
----------------
This area is so vast and difficult to define. There are three main ethnic groups Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian spread out over approximately 25,000 islands. Among all those Islands only a few tribes were able to build actual empires of any considerable size, the Maori on New Zealand, The Tonganese, and the Hawaiians created the largest empires, though small by EurAsian standards. The Maori, Tonganese, and the Hawaiians are all Polynesian, hence the choice Polynesia over the other two ethnicities. My other choice would be to just go with the Hawaiians and Queen Kamehameha I.
That makes 9 additional civs, minus the Americans for an elite eight.
wow. that's uh, some pretty in-depth stuff you got there. i like your idea for the souix and iroqouis. i wouldn't mind having tibet (it would be cool cause i could actually use the children in poser to make a young dali lama) but what would be their uu? that's one of the more important things that has to be thought about, next to the greatness of the civ.
it was my understanding that the box that you choose your civ from can hold 32 options, and 1 is taken up by the Random button. so, that makes 31 civs.
I'll read your post in more depth later, i have to get back to work.
Just to give you a run-down, the only 3 civs that have been consistant is Inca, Ethiopia, Songhai/Mali. The Dutch and Polynesian have been very popular too.
it was my understanding that the box that you choose your civ from can hold 32 options, and 1 is taken up by the Random button. so, that makes 31 civs.
I'll read your post in more depth later, i have to get back to work.
Just to give you a run-down, the only 3 civs that have been consistant is Inca, Ethiopia, Songhai/Mali. The Dutch and Polynesian have been very popular too.
Kal-el
Deity
Yeah, I am trying to figure out what to give the Tibetans for their UU. Its a tough one. I am thinking something along the lines of a warrior monk, but would love to get some other ideas.
Senoj
Prince
Personally, I would like to see the following civs;
Vikings:- Surely a dominant force in the Middle Ages.
Australians/Aboriginees:- Would fill up an empty space.
Carthaginians:- A great trading nation of the late ancient period.
Spain/Portugal:- I'm surprised they never made it into the original!
Maya/Inca:- Not enough South American Civs.
Nigeria:- Fill up a massive space.
Some Civ for S America?:- Fill up a continent. Brazilians? How about the Amazonian Head Hunters? A minor tribe with great strength fighting off hoards of Spaniards from S America.
Some Civ to fill up Central Asia?
I agree strongly with the Sioux but I think America has to stay!
Personally I think the Babylonians are pointless. You could replace them with a more significant civ like the Ottomans.
I usually use Marla's World Map and I like it Populated! And as real as possible.
Civs I think should go; (Or be moved and changed)
Babylon
Iroquis
I hope you consider my points.
Senoj
PS: Feel free to comment.
Vikings:- Surely a dominant force in the Middle Ages.
Australians/Aboriginees:- Would fill up an empty space.
Carthaginians:- A great trading nation of the late ancient period.
Spain/Portugal:- I'm surprised they never made it into the original!
Maya/Inca:- Not enough South American Civs.
Nigeria:- Fill up a massive space.
Some Civ for S America?:- Fill up a continent. Brazilians? How about the Amazonian Head Hunters? A minor tribe with great strength fighting off hoards of Spaniards from S America.
Some Civ to fill up Central Asia?
I agree strongly with the Sioux but I think America has to stay!
Personally I think the Babylonians are pointless. You could replace them with a more significant civ like the Ottomans.
I usually use Marla's World Map and I like it Populated! And as real as possible.
Civs I think should go; (Or be moved and changed)
Babylon
Iroquis
I hope you consider my points.
Senoj
PS: Feel free to comment.
Senoj, some of the civs you named are going to be in the expansion: Vikings, Carthaginians, Ottomans.
As for filling up spaces, that's the whole point of this thread. To eliminate empty spaces and have a solid 7 civs to make so we don't waste our time making UU's and leaderheads for civs nopbody wants to play.
Babylon is not pointless, they are the dominant force for ancient times if used correctly (although I never play as them).
There is no doubt that we are living in America's golden age, and that it is a civilization who has revolutionized the world, thus they deserve to be in the game and listing among the top civilizations ever. Of course it's hard to believe. I bet the Romans never thought Rome would fall from great times. Once America is done with it's turn in the world-power cycle, it'll be on that great civilizations list. But I do agree with Kal-el about it ruining the feel.
As for filling up spaces, that's the whole point of this thread. To eliminate empty spaces and have a solid 7 civs to make so we don't waste our time making UU's and leaderheads for civs nopbody wants to play.
Babylon is not pointless, they are the dominant force for ancient times if used correctly (although I never play as them).
There is no doubt that we are living in America's golden age, and that it is a civilization who has revolutionized the world, thus they deserve to be in the game and listing among the top civilizations ever. Of course it's hard to believe. I bet the Romans never thought Rome would fall from great times. Once America is done with it's turn in the world-power cycle, it'll be on that great civilizations list. But I do agree with Kal-el about it ruining the feel.
Kal-el
Deity
Be careful about just filling up space. The civs you choose will affect your tech rate and can lead to historical anomalies. I think the reason that Firaxis chose to put so few civs in the Americas was to increase the chances that the Eurasian civs would be more technologically developed when the two cultures met. The same can be said for the Zulu being so isolated in South Africa.
If Polynesia starts out in Hawaii they will struggle to develop but should eventually be able to populate much of the South Pacific. However they will be far behind the rest of the world, and when another civilization makes contact with them they should be easily conquered. What fun is that you ask? I think it would be a lot of fun to try and play as the Polynesians and actually manage to win. If you play against them it adds a bit more of a challenge in populating the South Pacific. I am thinking the Polynesian UU should be an outrigger canoe.
If Polynesia starts out in Hawaii they will struggle to develop but should eventually be able to populate much of the South Pacific. However they will be far behind the rest of the world, and when another civilization makes contact with them they should be easily conquered. What fun is that you ask? I think it would be a lot of fun to try and play as the Polynesians and actually manage to win. If you play against them it adds a bit more of a challenge in populating the South Pacific. I am thinking the Polynesian UU should be an outrigger canoe.
Quite a few of them will be in PtW...
I agree with changing America to another more 'native' American civilization. Though I'd personally prefer to see them either as Inuits, Pueblos or Mississippians
South America IMO does need an extra civilzation, problem is that there really wasn't any other civilizations (that left a mark) down there before European colonization.
North America as already discussed could be 'improved' by Inuits, Pueblos, Mississippians or Sioux.
I'd also say that none of the America civilzations were really expansionstic. By the time of European colonization there was still a lot of room to settle in.
As for Europe, while I'd like to see the Dutch in it, my mind (as well as heart heheh) still says the Scots, with the likes of Adam Smith and pennicilin you can't say the Scots haven't added to the world.
Asia... Hmm... Pakistan perhaps? Or Mesopatamia even (granted it wa a region that included Babylon, Assyria and Akkad).
Oceania.. I'm still sticking with Polynesia and Aborginie
So my personal eight I'd like to see.
Scottish
Inuits
Pakistan
Mesopatamia
Polynesia
Aboriginie
Ethiopian
Inca
With America changed to either Sioux, Pueblos or Missi(can't be bothered typing the rest out... again)
Looking at the RL world map we can roughly see where the existing and PtW civilzations would be (white = Civ3, black = PtW)
I agree with changing America to another more 'native' American civilization. Though I'd personally prefer to see them either as Inuits, Pueblos or Mississippians
South America IMO does need an extra civilzation, problem is that there really wasn't any other civilizations (that left a mark) down there before European colonization.
North America as already discussed could be 'improved' by Inuits, Pueblos, Mississippians or Sioux.
I'd also say that none of the America civilzations were really expansionstic. By the time of European colonization there was still a lot of room to settle in.
As for Europe, while I'd like to see the Dutch in it, my mind (as well as heart heheh) still says the Scots, with the likes of Adam Smith and pennicilin you can't say the Scots haven't added to the world.
Asia... Hmm... Pakistan perhaps? Or Mesopatamia even (granted it wa a region that included Babylon, Assyria and Akkad).
Oceania.. I'm still sticking with Polynesia and Aborginie
So my personal eight I'd like to see.
Scottish
Inuits
Pakistan
Mesopatamia
Polynesia
Aboriginie
Ethiopian
Inca
With America changed to either Sioux, Pueblos or Missi(can't be bothered typing the rest out... again)
Looking at the RL world map we can roughly see where the existing and PtW civilzations would be (white = Civ3, black = PtW)
Attachments
Senoj
Prince
Oh really? I don't know much about the upcoming expansion pack. Sorry. However I would still like to see the Cartaginians, Maya/Inca and possibly the Aussies. To Ka-El I'm not completely familiar with the Tech Rate. I usually just leave it alone and let it be.
Senoj
Prince
I'm not to sure about Scotland. Wouldn't that crowd up Britain. I guess if you did have them it may encourage the English to send settlers to places by sea and it may cause friendly/agressive relations between the two which is more acurate historicaly. Hmmm not to sure if it suits my map but maybe other peoples'.
Carthagians, Ottoman, Arabian, Mongol, Viking, Korean, Celts and someone else are in the expansion pack.
As for Australian, I hate to say it (and I say this about the US as well) but strictly speaking they aren't a civilization, they are a colony that gained independence from the British empire. Aborginies however are a civ
(the above is just my personal opinion and isn't a flame about the US or Aus)Again, Inca and Ethiopia are consistant! Thank god! I'm already way too deep in making their leaderheads to stop now!
You're right, the Scots do deserve to be in it. Hell, I've made Robert the Bruce, and they'll be on my personal game. But, I'm not ready to commit to them for being on the elite list of civs that were left out. After all, they were Celts who defeated the Picts and eventually became the Scots. And the Celts are in PtW.
You're right, the Scots do deserve to be in it. Hell, I've made Robert the Bruce, and they'll be on my personal game. But, I'm not ready to commit to them for being on the elite list of civs that were left out. After all, they were Celts who defeated the Picts and eventually became the Scots. And the Celts are in PtW.
Oh yeah, without a doubt it would overcrowd Britain, and for that matter Europe. It's just one of these problems about city sizes and radius that exists in Civ. But not talking about practicality, then IMO they should be in.. Practical though... Probably not... And plus there is no guarantee that we will be able to use 32 civs in a single game. I think the limit is still 16 in Civ3 (someone correct me here)
Senoj
Prince
Kal-el
Deity
what I mean by the tech rate is, that the more civs you have contact with the more opportunities there are to trade or purchase tech. This allows you to move more quickly through the tech tree. If, on the other hand you are an isolated civ like the polynesians or a relatively isolated civ like the american civs you have fewer opportunities to trade techs meaning you will have to spend the time yourself, slowing down your progression through the tree.
So in the game the Eurasians have more opportunities to trade techs allowing them to advance more quickly. That is why I advise against trying to fill spaces without thinking about the game implications.
So in the game the Eurasians have more opportunities to trade techs allowing them to advance more quickly. That is why I advise against trying to fill spaces without thinking about the game implications.
Senoj
Prince
It would make sense Shockwave. You can't have 32 civs in a game! That would be too crowded.
Senoj
Prince
Now that I think about it that makes sense Kal-el. Thanx. Do you agree that scotland would crowd up Britain/Europe?
Similar threads
