What civs are missing from Civ3?

[Antiochus VII]

Just my ideas, but versus the current poll(?)

Inca - (Scientific, Industrious)
instead Expansionist, Industrious as the Inca Empire was based on a continuous policy of expansion that rewarded first of all the noble elite (by position , i.e. regional posts - or 'acclaim' as acquired through war). They had no system of writing though by the 16th century and were very tradition-bound in many societal respects. But the superb organization of storehouses and social welfare lends itself well to an "Expansionist" civ (see Granary for example) I think, i.e. GROWTH. Industrious is great though, an example being their superb road system through difficult terrrain (and other government infrastructures).

Ethiopia - (Commercial, Religious) = right on.

Polynesians - (Commercial, Expansionist) = sounds good but no real idea myself. It fits the other maritime civs though (England, Carthage?)

Israel - (Scientific, Religious)
rather Commercial, Religious even though it fits the "stereotype". I can't think of any reason to include them as scientific whereas there is the long tradition in commerce, however outside imposed it might have been. A total aside here but I think I've even heard a theory that the jewish religion actually incorporated a very large section of the Carthaginian/Phoenecian people (post fall of Carthage) that lead to the mercantile image early on. (why am I nervous with this post whereas I could say anything I wanted to about the Incas?) Late addition here: Now that I think about it, WHICH Israel are we considering here? The kingdom from around 900 B.C., or 100 B.C., modern Israel, or the whole time period? I might tag each with a different trait, and scientific/religious would probably be okay for the modern one. MAYBE the 900 B.C one too now that I consider it more. Okay, I'm undecided - this is one where even a little change in my attitude changes my verdict.

Poland - (Militaristic, Industrious)
REAL problem here as militaristic is perfect but industrious is not - and I don't really have the other half. The Poles never have developed all their territory (relying on the Cossacks even to defend their outlying territories c.1600) and have often exhibited a romantic leaning (see unsuccessful rebellions versus Russia) but I can't give an ideal alternative even in my own mind. My best guess would be Militaristic, Religious given their traditional strong Catholicism. But Industrious is certainly the LAST one I would give them.

Tibet - (Religious, Militaristic) = right on

Aborigine - (Religious, Expansionist) - sounds fine, zero knowledge here though.

 

[€ønqui$tadør]

i second Poland (leader: john sobieski) and Tibet (leader: current Dalai lama)!!

but perhaps tibet should be religious/industrious though. yes, they did carve a medieval empire that today covers 24% of modern china's territory (including Qinghai province and large parts of Sichuan province), but i doubt militaristic is appropriate.

 

[Antiochus VII]

I can see €ønqui$tadør's point on Tibet not being militaristic AS IT IS TODAY AND RECENTLY, but the problem I see with choosing civ attributes is WHEN you choose them for. The Tibet of 800 - near the peak of its influence POLITICALLY - is where I chose its MIL/REL attributes from. I think those attributes hold up over more of its history, and early history especially, than any others.

This may be why there are too many 'militaristic' civ ideas as people look specifically at an imperial or aggressive era for each nation, and virtually ALL the civs could have the tag then. I try and use it only when there is a particular attitude or aptitude toward warfare that existed over a long period, and in particular when a nation achieved a great deal more militarily than its numbers (population) would lead one to expect. Perfect examples would be the Mongols and Poland and I think Tibet as well.

P.S. On the "militaristic problem" does anyone favor changing China to Scientific/Industrious as I have? Or substituting for the rider? I get the impression the first edition of Civ 3 tried to fuse China with the Mongols when they put out those attributes and that unit.

 

[Shockwave]

Inca > Industrious, Religious. Build Often: Culture, Workers, Happiness
Has to be industrious/religous, just look at the Nazca lines, the fact the civilization was built on the andes, they were a religous civilization no doubt about it. They built a lot of shrines and temples.

Ethiopia > Commercial, Expansionist. Build Often: Artillery land units (need for UU if a bombard javilneer), growth, happiness)
TBH. I don't know a lot about the Ethopian/Abyssinian culture so I'll leave this to the experts.

Polynesia > Industrious, Expansionist. Build Often: Naval Units, Explore, Growth
We need to get them exploring so expanionist is a no brainer. I'd say industrious as they were a very monumental people (Look at Easter Island and how they crafted and transported the heads).

Israel/Judea > Commercial, Militaristic. Build Often: Culture, Wealth, Trade
Assuming Judeans, it was a region that included many tribes and some of the remains of the Phoenicians. Again not very confident about my personal knowledge.

Poland > Militaristic, Industrious
As above.. Not good on the Polish history so I'll agree with what looks 'right'.

Tibet > Religious, Scientific. Build Often: Defensive Land Units, happiness, culture
I have to go for the modern image of Tibet as a country under siege (kinda), to me they never made as big a splash as they could have and there military conquest was extremely short lived, they spent most of the time defending themselves from the Chinese and Mongols.

Aboriginie > Religous, Industrious. Build Often: Offensive Land unit, deffensive land unit, growth
Probably the trickest of the lot, I'd have to say just go with Religous and no others, but for game play balance we need one more. Expanionsitc would be the only other choice (I'm 50/50 with Exp/Ind), but the only reason I swing away from Expansionsitc is that they didn't really colonise the whole of there continent despite the amount of time they had to.

Overall, it's a very, very difficult choice and I'm certainly not the best person to make any decisions

 

[Kal-el]

If you told the Aborigine to never build science they would still research but they would never build libraries and universities, etc.

To be accurate, the aborigine should have no traits (therefore no bonuses) and be flagged to build nothing. As I said before they still use stone tools and don't build structures. They are not warlike and seem to perfectly coexist with nature.

While I agree that the Austronesian area of the world map is under represented, when it comes to influential world civilizations (or even influential in any way) the Aborigine are not in the top 31. If you are looking to "fill" that area, it would be better, I think, to just allow the Polynesians the ability to settle the area, and also possibly adding in another SouthEast Asian civ, such as Siam/Thailand.

If the Polynesian Outrigger is not allowed to cross oceans, but is allowed to cross seas safely and is given a decent move rate the Polynesians will be able to get off Hawaii and move to the other Islands in the South Pacific while still being unable to sail to the Americas. They will eventually move to Australia out of necessity.

The Siamese/Thai will be forced to move south because everything to the north and west will be taken by the Indians, Tibetans and Chinese. As they push south into Indonesia they will hit New Guinea and Australia.

We have to keep in mind that when the Europeans got to Australia the land was ripe for colonization. So it is not unrealistic to have the continent empty except for a few barbarians.

I suppose I should just be happy that 5 out of the 7 are civs that I plan on adding to my mod.

 

[sween32]

Damn, everybody has COMPLETELY different opinions on the bonuses... this is going to be tough.

How about 1 by 1.

The Inca. What's bonuses should they have and why?

 

[sween32]

sorry for the double post. CFC lost it for a minute.

 

[Senoj]

For the Inca- I would say Industrial and Religious I agree totaly with Shockwave.

 

[Kal-el]

Sween32,

I know you put together the elite 7, but I just posted a poll to try and get some more feedback.

I hope you don't think I am being a pain in the @$$ here on this. I just figure we have time to figure this out and don't need to nail down all 7 right away.

here is the link if anybody wants to vote. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30380

 

[sween32]

Kal-el, you're absolutely correct. I'm already working on 2 that are shoe-ins to win any poll, and we also need time to find a better organized way of figuring out the bonuses.

Besides, the Aborigines shouldn't be on an elite list of civilizations.

 

[sween32]

I have a feeling it's going to come very close to what we just did, but with a few exceptions. I don't think the Poles and Aberigines will make it this time, although the Poles dominated this debate.

 

[Kal-el]

It will be interesting.

As far as determing the stats for each civ, it may be best to open new threads for each. That way the discussion can be more focussed. I will leave that up to you though,

 

[sween32]

Either that or they can be discussed in the leaderhead preview thread, along with the uu. Kill THREE birds with one stone.

 

[Senoj]

I don't mind if they are missed out. How about the Songhai? A major Civ 1466-1600 Along with the Etheopians. Sween32, are you still going to make the Aboriginee leaderhead afterwards if they don't make it?

 

[Kal-el]

That too, but that would require you to have the preview done before the discussion can begin. You could always attach the leaderhead preview to the first post after the discussion gets started.

Title the thread "Polish Civ: LeaderHead Preview and Discussion"
Then in the first post you can indicate that a preview is forthcoming but in the meantime this thread should be used for discussion and debate over the ins and outs of the upcoming Polish Civilization.

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by Senoj
Sween32, are you still going to make the Aboriginee leaderhead afterwards if they don't make it?

Sure, it should be easy enough. It'll come AFTER all the others are made, though.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by Shockwave
Inca > Industrious, Religious. Build Often: Culture, Workers, Happiness
Has to be industrious/religous, just look at the Nazca lines, the fact the civilization was built on the andes, they were a religous civilization no doubt about it. They built a lot of shrines and temples.

The Inca didnt build the Nazca lines...just FYI. And, as people have stated, EVERYONE at some time or other built plenty of temples and shrines. You could argue that all nations/cultures, at one point or another, incorporated all the traits. The key, IMO, is to look at their golden age, and see which two of the traits are most prevalent. IMO, the Incas golden age would be just before Spanish invaded...and while religion played a key element in their society, I think Industrious and Commercial actually work better.

 

[sween32]

Thank you D. Shaffer. That's what I have been trying to say the whole time. Everybody qualifies for Religious. I stick to Industrious and Scientific instead of Commercial, however.

 

[Senoj]

That's fine by me Sween32!!

 

[Jewell Man]

Been following this thread for some time and decided to put in my 2 cents as I gotta say this is probably the most interesting thread on the site currently. Great original question sween32.

Anyway.. my thoughts.

Inca: (Scientific/Industrious)
Scientific: for their time and place, definitely. Industrious: look at where they built their civilization. Definitely.

Ethiopia: (Commercial/Religious)
Seems to fit well with what I have read of their civilization. They were also called the Abyssinians at one time were they not?

Polynesia: (Commercial/Expansionist):
Commercial? don't know for sure but I think trade-based society makes sense for a sea-faring one. Expansionist: Consiering the dispersal area of their culture I would have to agree.

Israel: (Commercial/Religious)
Commercial: Consdier that Israel fell on an ancient crossroads between asia and northern africa. Outsider-imposed stereotypes aside, commercial just seems obvious both historically, and geographically. Also, the Phoenicians (a great trade power) and Hebrews were very closely related. Religious: I think it's pretty obvious. Sorry - I have to totally disagree with the scientific trait. None of the arguments I've heard sound convincing and if they do apply, do so only in the last couple of decades which is not adequate to define a whole civilization.

Poland: (Militaristic/Religious)
Militaristic: Poland was a very important power in Eastern europe at one time and that power was backed up with a fine military. The Polish regiments were among some of Napoleon's best. Their horse army was Europe's best and largest. Religious: Every Pole I've known (at least in my little corner of the world) is staunchly Catholic as is the current Pope.

Tibetan: (Militaristic/Religious)
Militaristic: During the period in time that I think makes the most playable civ, Tibetans were not the meek and peaceful people we've all come to know and love. They were empire-builders themselves at one time. Religious: Not sure if they were always so religiously inclined but it's the one aspect that stands out the most when you think of them today and so why not.

Aborigines: Really have no opinion on these guys. I really do see them as being a "playable" civ. Aren't they somewhat related to other Oceanic peoples like the Polynesians though?

In my own game, I added the Huns. Made them Militaristic and Expansionist and NOT able to build settlers. Hee hee... They can only expand through conquest.