but if the incas and mayans had gotten navigation and gunpowder first we'd be saying the opposite, and that's the whole point of this game "what if..."
history's written by the winners. I like the way you have centre in quotation marks...
What happend to all the American civs in PTW?
- Thread starter Yoda Power
- Start date
but if the incas and mayans had gotten navigation and gunpowder first we'd be saying the opposite, and that's the whole point of this game "what if..."
history's written by the winners. I like the way you have centre in quotation marks...
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
That is the biased view of the Europeans.
Through the eyes of the rest of the world, except some former colonies like America, there is just one Europe instead of a manifold of little states that can hardly be distinguished from each other, thereby filling a single slot.
Maybe we should include 3 different Scandinavian nations aswell?
All this talk is nonsense. They ONLY included 24 civs so far. They have to rationalize, if they are to include 8 more in an Expansion in the future, we might see Incan and Mayan. Some african civs and maybe some more asian. Mabe even a european civ (even though they are so many).
All this talk is nonsense. They ONLY included 24 civs so far. They have to rationalize, if they are to include 8 more in an Expansion in the future, we might see Incan and Mayan. Some african civs and maybe some more asian. Mabe even a european civ (even though they are so many).
BS. When Europe was in chaos, from 300 till 1500, world of Islam was flourishing.
It was not until the arrival of Timur Lenk which destroyed the middle-eastern based
wonderful civilizations. Now, how many 500 - 1500 Islam civs does C3 have?
How many European 500 - 1500 ones? (UU's, etc?)
earendil 1
The Halfelven
I agree with cgannon. The americas were no major place of influence and power in the world, they were just a backward people. Their nations were very difficult for them to maintain, because they didnt have enough loyalty from the citizens to have a large empire. And if youre going to include them, why not the Sumerians, Huns, Indonesians, Isrealites, Portugese, Assyrians, Macedonians, Poles, Normans, Thai, and Vietnamese? But I guess maybe the Incans should be counted as a civ, but before they add them they should consider some others. Why dont they include the Sumerians-that was the first civilization
earendil 1
The Halfelven
i think that the Incans should be counted before the Mayans
earendil 1
The Halfelven
Sorry Grey Fox but the three Scandinavian countries are hardly seperate. Also Finland was created in the Treaty of Versaiiles.
china444
Ain't no thang
I think there should be more African Civs. The Mali empire, almost as great as the roman empire, should be included instead of the koreans.
Or even the Eskimos. ( do not flame me for this)
Traits- Religous, Expansionist
UU- Alpine Trooper!!!
replaces knight
5-2-2 + extra movement on tundra.
Cool
Or even the Eskimos. ( do not flame me for this)
Traits- Religous, Expansionist
UU- Alpine Trooper!!!
replaces knight
5-2-2 + extra movement on tundra.
Cool
china444
Ain't no thang
Civs that should be I ngame
Incans Mayans Mali Portugal Indonesia
Aborigine Dutch Swiss ireland Chile Vietnam
Bangladesh Siberia Lithuania Poland.
Incans Mayans Mali Portugal Indonesia
Aborigine Dutch Swiss ireland Chile Vietnam
Bangladesh Siberia Lithuania Poland.
Parmenion
Warlord
What makes a Civ a civilisation?
In my mind it is the fact that they have a city or cities.
Thus, the Mayans, Incas, Hebrews, Nubians, Koreans etc.. should be included, whilst the Inuits, Huns, Apache etc.. should not.
The reason the Iroquois are included is not to simply make up the numbers of American civs, but because Salamanca was a huge city at it's height, and the Iroquois nation covered most of the Eastern seaboard of the US and Canada - very big indeed.
And as for the American civ that definitely should be included, what about the Olmecs? They were there first and lasted longer than both the Mayan and Aztec civilisations.
I don't know for sure, but are the cities listed for the Aztecs accurate? I was led to believe that Tenochtitlan was their one and only city, with a few villages around it.
In my mind it is the fact that they have a city or cities.
Thus, the Mayans, Incas, Hebrews, Nubians, Koreans etc.. should be included, whilst the Inuits, Huns, Apache etc.. should not.
The reason the Iroquois are included is not to simply make up the numbers of American civs, but because Salamanca was a huge city at it's height, and the Iroquois nation covered most of the Eastern seaboard of the US and Canada - very big indeed.
And as for the American civ that definitely should be included, what about the Olmecs? They were there first and lasted longer than both the Mayan and Aztec civilisations.
I don't know for sure, but are the cities listed for the Aztecs accurate? I was led to believe that Tenochtitlan was their one and only city, with a few villages around it.
sebanaj
Prince
For future versions they could include cities making revolution, founding a new country in game, etc.
Another thing would be the named barbarians like "huns, assyrians, etc" actually occupying a city, and founding their own civilization, also with data characteristics, the assyrians would be militaristic and expansionistic for example with 100% of aggressive behaviour in the case their barbarians occupy a neighbouring city. Too many civs disappeared and were formed in this way. The Assyrians took over from the Kassites who invaded them by using the iron weapons the Kassites introduced.
But maybe it would need a more advanced game, and computer, to handle 100 civilizations at least. That way would be realistic, and you would start with the ancient civs from the 3500 aC, Sumer, Egypt. And the rest would be nomad barbs with an identity roaming the lands of europe.
Another inclusion should be language classification.
Alphabet also should come after Writing, and should allow a faster science, and also Literature spreading to common people.
Maybe there should be social differences also, commonners, priests, slaves, etc for the ancient.
Another thing would be the named barbarians like "huns, assyrians, etc" actually occupying a city, and founding their own civilization, also with data characteristics, the assyrians would be militaristic and expansionistic for example with 100% of aggressive behaviour in the case their barbarians occupy a neighbouring city. Too many civs disappeared and were formed in this way. The Assyrians took over from the Kassites who invaded them by using the iron weapons the Kassites introduced.
But maybe it would need a more advanced game, and computer, to handle 100 civilizations at least. That way would be realistic, and you would start with the ancient civs from the 3500 aC, Sumer, Egypt. And the rest would be nomad barbs with an identity roaming the lands of europe.
Another inclusion should be language classification.
Alphabet also should come after Writing, and should allow a faster science, and also Literature spreading to common people.
Maybe there should be social differences also, commonners, priests, slaves, etc for the ancient.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
Ah, yes, the Alpine Trooper from the little-known Swiss Inuit tribe. LOLOriginally posted by china444
Or even the Eskimos. ( do not flame me for this)
Traits- Religous, Expansionist
UU- Alpine Trooper!!!
replaces knight
5-2-2 + extra movement on tundra.
Cool
Not a flame, China, just a couple of minutes over low heat.
Actually, I believe there's an Eskimo civ posted in the Creation forum. The UU is a Battle Kayak or something like that.
Emperor550
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 26
Things I think a civ needs to be in the game:
Had to have or still have great control of a region or the world. It could be an overseas empire or a contigous empire.
Had to have a relatively strong and unique unit.
Had to have a strong and relatively unique culture.
So Canada, it is a large country and has one of the worlds largest military but could never been really called a dominant world power. I'm not really huge on my Canadian history, but I dont think it ever really had a real unique unit. For its first few centuries its units were French and Enlgish. Today there military units are'nt much different from most modernernized countries.
I definatly think there should be atleast one more African civ. This is debated, but most people believe African areas above the Sahara are more Caucasian than African anyways. So you cant really say Egypt is a completely African civ. There are a lot better civilizations that developed in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Zulus. Even if they did the same thing they did with the Iroquis and combined the great African Trading Empires it would be better than the current situation.
Ditto for South America. I think the Incans or Aztecs should definatly be in the game. Maybe the Incans should have a trait that makes roads more effective for them.
Just my $.02
Had to have or still have great control of a region or the world. It could be an overseas empire or a contigous empire.
Had to have a relatively strong and unique unit.
Had to have a strong and relatively unique culture.
So Canada, it is a large country and has one of the worlds largest military but could never been really called a dominant world power. I'm not really huge on my Canadian history, but I dont think it ever really had a real unique unit. For its first few centuries its units were French and Enlgish. Today there military units are'nt much different from most modernernized countries.
I definatly think there should be atleast one more African civ. This is debated, but most people believe African areas above the Sahara are more Caucasian than African anyways. So you cant really say Egypt is a completely African civ. There are a lot better civilizations that developed in Sub-Saharan Africa than the Zulus. Even if they did the same thing they did with the Iroquis and combined the great African Trading Empires it would be better than the current situation.
Ditto for South America. I think the Incans or Aztecs should definatly be in the game. Maybe the Incans should have a trait that makes roads more effective for them.
Just my $.02
china444
Ain't no thang
*cough*flame*cough*by*will*cough*bill 
The definition of a civ is a gorup of cities, a centralized government, workers who can do specialized jobs, and a well known people.(this def. is straight out of my S.S. book)
The definition of a civ is a gorup of cities, a centralized government, workers who can do specialized jobs, and a well known people.(this def. is straight out of my S.S. book)
Emperor550
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 26
Originally posted by china444
*cough*flame*cough*by*will*cough*bill
The definition of a civ is a gorup of cities, a centralized government, workers who can do specialized jobs, and a well known people.(this def. is straight out of my S.S. book)
I meant things needed for a civ to be included in Civ 3. Just my thoughts.
DiamondzAndGunz
Lurking
Dictionary.com defines "Civilization" as:
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
But that's all besides the point. We could sit here and argue about the definition of "civ" all day...
Err, anyway, methinks we're getting at least a bit off topic. There definately are some civilizations out there that should have been included, but weren't. But that's what the "Add" button on the Civilization section of the rules editor is for! Go forth and add the civs that you think should be in the game! As mentioned earlier (IIRC) some of these civs have already been created, along with UU's and leaderheads. With a couple more expansions, hopefully we'll have all the civs that are "should" to be in the game.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
But that's all besides the point. We could sit here and argue about the definition of "civ" all day...
Err, anyway, methinks we're getting at least a bit off topic. There definately are some civilizations out there that should have been included, but weren't. But that's what the "Add" button on the Civilization section of the rules editor is for! Go forth and add the civs that you think should be in the game! As mentioned earlier (IIRC) some of these civs have already been created, along with UU's and leaderheads. With a couple more expansions, hopefully we'll have all the civs that are "should" to be in the game.
Atahualpa leader head!!! And add them, like so many of us 
