What civs are missing from Civ3?

[Antiochus VII]

Inca

1 Expansionist - the empire ran on conquest socially in terms of the noble classes, with position and glory won on the battlefield. (note I'm not calling this militaristic) The empire was also covered by a network of storehouses (GRANARIES, from pottery, the expansionist tech) and a social welfare net that represents the infrastructure behind GROWTH improvements.

2 Industrious - Marvellous architecture at high altitude, elaborate road network, and a system of agriculture for the region that supported a very high population for the time. Much more impressive in scale than for Tibet which people for some reason want to make industrious.

WHY scientific? - they lacked writing and the society in no way matched for example Maya learning or sophistication in abstract knowledge (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Inca fan but I don't see this trait at all. Please don't drop them in that slot to fill out numbers)

If one of these choices had to go (by popular acclaim) I'd put in Religious

 

[Kal-el]

In order to help consolidate the discussion on the Inca and the Ethiopians please direct any and all comments to the following threads started by Sween32.

Inca

or

Ethiopia

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, I believe the Americans should be included. They don't fit in ancient times, but the Zulus, Aztecs, Babylonians, etc don't fit in modern times either.

Besides, we may be essentially European, but virtually all Europeans are essentially Germans. The English were Germans on a different island. The Franks were Germanic, and they formed the basis for France. Eliminate the civs that were an offshoot of another and you don't have many left.

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by Antiochus VII
Inca
WHY scientific? - they lacked writing and the society in no way matched for example Maya learning or sophistication in abstract knowledge (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Inca fan but I don't see this trait at all. Please don't drop them in that slot to fill out numbers)

Because they may not have had a written language and a lacking society, but they were still very mathematical. their roads and bulidings were made in very much mathematical detail. they even made designs that were only noticable by aerial on the highest of mountains. that's not very normal for an isolated civilization. also, they really didn't need a written language. they had their own version of the pony express: messengers that repeated the message verbally. these people would run for hundreds of miles until their message was delivered. although their actual society was not that great, they were very sociable people and their way of life did not recquire writing.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Well, I believe the Americans should be included. They don't fit in ancient times, but the Zulus, Aztecs, Babylonians, etc don't fit in modern times either.

Besides, we may be essentially European, but virtually all Europeans are essentially Germans. The English were Germans on a different island. The Franks were Germanic, and they formed the basis for France. Eliminate the civs that were an offshoot of another and you don't have many left.

i agree with you 100%

 

[thestonesfan]

But I do understand Kal-El's standpoint, as he is trying to make as realistic a scenario as possible. Oddly enough, the real world doesn't translate into the civ3 world very well. But who wants the Germans to win every time?

It would be nice if something like our Revolutionary War could be implemented, that is, having a colony successfully gain independence and start a new civ. Civ4 stuff, hopefully.

But in the meantime, I think the Americans have earned a spot.

 

[ChaoticWanderer]

i am working on the civs of the mayans and phoenicians. i think leader heads for those 2 would be very helpful.

and of course the incans

 

[Antiochus VII]

Just a last Inca question on this thread but are we talking about the Incas or the Incas, Chimu, Huari, Tiahuanaco, etc when we're choosing attributes? The Nazca lines I assume are being referred to certainly predate the Inca considerably.

 

[thestonesfan]

The Carthaginians would essentially be Phoenicians, but you probably knew that.

 

[Harrier]

Heres my list of civs.

Mayan
Incan

Polynesian
Aborigine

Songhai
Abyssinian

Tibetan
Thai

Grouped in approximate placements

 

[History Guy]

Standing by for any Civilopedia assignments!

 

[sween32]

History Guy, I already have one for the Inca and Israel.

Tibet or Ethiopia would be nice!

 

[History Guy]

OK. I'll try for Ethiopia and Tibet. I have two questions, however: 1) Who is the Tibetan leader to be? I would not say the Dalai Lama, as I'm not sure if it would be fitting to have a 'Defeat Screen', with the Dalai sort of falling around, black eyes, puffy lips, lack of teeth, etc. 2) Are the Gurkhas the special unit?

 

[sween32]

I'm planning on making the leader Dalai just because it'll be cool to have a kid leader

Don't worry, I'll make the defeat tame. I don't want to make him beaten up, anyways. He'll just be very dissapointed... maybe in time out with his nose in the corner

The Gurkhas? I don't know anything about Tibetan history. I was going to use the Cataphract. Apparently that was their major force.

 

[History Guy]

The Cataphract? That was a Byzantine horseman! The Gurkha is a swordsman, and though they are mainly used now by the British Army, they are throughly Tibetan in origin, being able to toss small metal devices that remove the head, etc. They are good with a rifle as well. Very feared.

Perhaps for defeated Dalai you culd give him a sad face, and have him behind bars with white and black striped prison PJs.

 

[Shockwave]

Uhm, the Gurkha were Nepalese not Tibetan

As for cataphracts, nearly every eastern civilization had cataphracts at some time, it was just a style of armour and horse barding rather than a unit (Don't go by what Age of Kings say)

 

[Shockwave]

For the Tibetan UU, you could have a "Tibetan Monk" Notice how the vast majority of the UU's come from the same period as the leader?

Tibetan Monk 0/4/1
Required Advance: Monotheism
Required Resource: None

 

[Isak]

I know I'm just being grumpy, but...

Why have Dalai Lama as the Leader of Tibet ? Why not have a leader who represented the country in it's golden age - actually the guy who most likely started the golden age of Tibet, by uniting the country and leading it to great conquests.

I am talking about Songtsen Gampo/Sron-btsan-gampo, the first of the three Dharma kings.

No offense, but I really think making Dalai Lama the leader would be a mistake worse than the Joan of Arc/Gandhi incidents

 

[Veera Anlai]

"Songtsen Gampo/Sron-btsan-gampo" Who?
I mean, there are some leaders that people have suggested whose names only ring a bell... But I've *never* heard of these people in my entire life.

When choosing a leader, you don't choose the person who was the best leader of that civilization. You choose someone who is *recognizable,* unique, and who represents that country. Firaxis did an exceptionable job at this, with perhaps the exception of Japan and Germany.

 

[Isak]

It's the same person, just different ways of spelling it - the first version is the English one, and the second is (supposedly) the Tibetan way to pronounce it.

I understand the need to make leaders recognizable, but I also don't see anything wrong in trying to educate people - that was part of Sid Meier's intention, at least with the original Civilization game. If all we wanted was recognizability, uniqueness and representative value, Elvis would have been perfect choice for the American leader, but fortunately that is not the case.

I know that most people don't know about anyone from Tibet other that Dalai Lama, and peace be with that - I'm sure once people start suggesting Polynesian leaders, I'm going to go "Who?" myself a number of times.

Frankly I also think that the Firaxis' choice of leader for the German civ was one of their best decisions in this area - There really is no one representing the grandeur of the German nation like Bismarck. I can think of choices that would have been more obvious and recognizable, but none as good.

I guess I just want to advocate stepping away from the obvious choice once in a while - in the case of Gandhi and Dalai Lama, I really don't think they hold a place as leaders of a Civ in a strategic wargame such as Civ3 - I think the end result is a bit "corny".
Heck, I would love to see Sween's animations of the young Dalai Lama, and would probably ROTFL at them myself.
But do I want to play a zillion sessions of Civ3 with him asking me to "move my troops out of his territory or else..?" - I don't really think so.

I know I'm in a minority on this issue, but I wanted to state my case anyway, so I can go "I told you so" in a few months

Oh and if you want to know about Songtsen Gampo, try this link

 

[Veera Anlai]

Polynesia! Now that's a bit of lore I have some knowledge about ^_^

Probably the best leader of the Polynesian culture was King Kamehameha the First. With his army, and a bit of borrowed technology from some European mutineers, he conquered the many separate chiefdoms of the Hawaiian islands and united them into a single monarchy. His dynasty lasted for six generations until Queen Liliuokalani.

Queen Liliuokalani is the most recognizable of Polynesian leaders... Although even she isn't well known. She was the last ruler of the Hawaiian Monarchy before the United States annexed the territory and deposed her. Although she tried valiantly to strengthen the Monarchy before she was deposed, the American settlers arrested her under the charge of treason of some sort. The only reason she is recognizable is because most modern High School History books include her in the chapter about Manifest Destiny. The way that the United States decimated the Hawaiian Monarchy is a great example of the philosophy.
I'm very near finishing an animated leaderhead of Queen Lili.

In other parts of Polynesia, specifically Tahiti, Queen Pomare IV was a popular leader. She had a 50-year (!!!) long reign. For the first thirty years of her reign, she worked to increase the power of the monarchy and unify the islands. Pomare accomplished a lot during this first thirty years, which I can't recall offhand... However, towards the end of her reign, she gave in to pressure from the French and from her people, allowing Tahiti to become a French protectorate. The next 20 years of her reign were lived mostly as a figurehead.

Sorry about getting off topic a bit... I'm a big fan of the Pacific Islands