Of Tribes and Civs

[MysticWind]

1. How many civs can you have at once in a single game, including the ones from all of the Civ III expansions?
2. Did any civs from Civ I and II get cut from Civ III?
3. Is there a maximum number of Civs that can ever be added on? I mean, Civilization is not Europa Universalis. Does anyone think that there are any more civilizations of note that should be added?
4. Why are the Iroquois the only North American tribal people added? Were they superior to all of the other American tribes, and the one most like a "country?"

[Krill]

The omly answer I could answer truthfully is this one:
1) 31 civs is the maximum. If you want a mod to do this I can post one for you, because i don't know if/where there is one on the net.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by MysticWind
1. How many civs can you have at once in a single game, including the ones from all of the Civ III expansions?
2. Did any civs from Civ I and II get cut from Civ III?
3. Is there a maximum number of Civs that can ever be added on? I mean, Civilization is not Europa Universalis. Does anyone think that there are any more civilizations of note that should be added?
4. Why are the Iroquois the only North American tribal people added? Were they superior to all of the other American tribes, and the one most like a "country?"

#1 - you can have 31 civs.
#2 - never looked.
#3 - 31 + barbs is all it can handle. You can replace any with ones you create.
#4 - don't know why, but there were the so called 5 civilized tribes.

[smellymummy]

2- i think most of the civs that got cut from civ2 have made it back with the expansion packs. carthage is one of these.

3- israel is one civ of note, based from several good arguments i've read. more native north american civs should make it in there too though

[Barinthus]

Sioux was in Civ 2 I believe and it's not in Civ 3...

[Plotinus]

The Creation section has threads about which civilisations should have been included... Personally I think that the most obvious omissions are African civilisations such as the Abyssinians, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, all of which were a lot more civilised than the Zulus. I think they just put the Zulus in so that when they attack, as they always do, you can say "Zulus! Fahsands of 'em!" which is admittedly fun.

[LzPrst]

"Zulus! Fahsands of 'em!"

I remember the old days of civ 1. the zulus and the russians were the most aggressive civs in the game, they were horrible (the russians were led by stalin then) we used to pick the romans or babylonians just so one of our most hated enemies didnt get in. they were evil... and they had no reservations concerning use of nukes.

[Mad Bomber]

1) The game supports 32 slots. One is taken up with the barbarians leaving 31 slots for Civ's.

2) Origionally the Mongols, Carths, Sioux, Spanish, and Vikings were in Civ 2 but did not make the transition to Civ 3, the Sioux (replaced by the Iroqouis) are the only Civ 2 tribe not currently available in C3C.

3) See #1
4) The Sioux were replaced by the Iroqouis, although Firaxis has not indicated why (at least to my knowledge) the best explanation is that the Iroqouis were the only native americans to create a government, and were at one point the most populous nation in North America (mid 1700's).

Plotonius:

For an African nation I always liked the Nubians. They were the only other civ in Africa or Europe to build pyramids (although much, much, smaller in size.)

[LzPrst]

oh yes the question.
4. the iroquis were the only "real" civilization in north america. though actually I think the cherokee were pretty advanced too... though that may have been due to european influence. well except for those two the rest were just a band of ragtag tribes. thats not true, I take it back, but what I mean was that they didnt have a real organization. they were mostly independent tribes sometimes in cooperation with eachother extending (often very temporary) leadership to certain people, spurred only by the existence of a common enemy that sought to destroy their way of life. if not for the white man I dont think any of the north american indians would have been as united or advanced as they were, with the possible exception of the above mentioned...
they were semi or totally nomadic. they didnt settle in cities, they merely had minor tribes. IMO nomads cant be conidered civs, sorry...
though theres a valid point concerning some african civs that were left out. Mali and ethiopia etc...

[LzPrst]

hey!!! I was answering nr 4!
but you're post is better
but my point about the other tribes being nomadic stands. the iroquis had 5 tribes united with a council and stretched a fairly large area of permanent settlements. though I dont recall them being too big on the horseriding... I'm gonna look that up.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by LzPrst


I remember the old days of civ 1. the zulus and the russians were the most aggressive civs in the game

The Russians?? No way. The Mongols were by far the worst. There was nothing worse than realising that that grey thing was *not* Indian, as you had been hoping. It's funny that the different AI civs seemed to have far more distinctive characters in those days than they do now, even though there were no traits or UUs back then, just different playing styles.

[Makahlua]

I'd say it's a 3-way tie between Mongols, Russia and Zulu. I'm still haunted by those poor musketmen that died bravely to Zulu tanks in my first Civ 1 game Not that Genghis or Stailin were any better, especially if my peaceful researchers were leagues ahead.

Them: "We demand the secrets of (insert age behind tech here)!"

Maki: "I demand my (enter l33t higher level attack unit here) to school j00, f00lz! (optionally in some games: "And would you like nuclear weapons with that??")"

Ahhh, the good ol' days.

[LzPrst]

for some reason the mongols were never as big a threat to us as the other two... but in those days, when we were kids, we played the entire game in despotism. no point in changing the government if everybody got unhappy and you had to pay for every unit. improvements? bah! who needs em? wonders and soldiers thats what its all about. this sometimes had the unfortunate result that we met large civs on other continents who would beat the cr*p out of us
those were the good ol' days.

like most gamers go for the first-person shoot-em-up type stuff like Doom and Wolfenstein!

this is the reason that the gaming world was better in those days. now its all about getting the money from stupid people and ignoring the true gamers. we should make a gamers union...

[Willem]

Originally posted by LzPrst

they were semi or totally nomadic. they didnt settle in cities, they merely had minor tribes. IMO nomads cant be conidered civs, sorry...

You're overlooking the West Coast tribes, like the Haida. They had permanent settlements and a highly developed culture. I'm not positive about their governmental structures, but on all other counts at least they could considered a "proper" civ.

[Willem]

Originally posted by LzPrst
though I dont recall them being too big on the horseriding... I'm gonna look that up.

Of course they weren't big on horseriding. Horses didn't exist in North America until the Europeans brought them over. Plus the Iroquois were living in primarily forested lands, horses were adopted mainly by the plains indians.

[Chrush]

Concerning North American Tribes:

I heard the Seminoles were one of the most advanced North American tribes. Besides there was a hardly known civilization settling around the Mesa Verde region, which could easily compete with old Latin American Civilizations as the Mayas.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by LzPrst
oh yes the question.
4. the iroquis were the only "real" civilization in north america. though actually I think the cherokee were pretty advanced too...

There were other advanced tribes in North-America at other times. I would have liked to see the Anasazi, for instance. The Sioux, on the other hand, did little more than flee onto the plains at gun-point by the then almighty Iroquois and consequently lose battle after battle to the white settlers.

The Cherokee are an Iroquoian people that split off and went south, so it's basically the same culture.

After the Iroquois set the example with their confederacy, other similar (now mostly forgotten) unions were formed, also by non-Iroquoian tribes (including the white man, their's is still around ).

Further south, the Hopi and other pueblo tribes, descendents of the Anasazi, were pretty civilized as well.

And there was the large city (by North-American standards) of Cahokia, too.

So there were a few possibilities to add a second native civ in North-America.

though theres a valid point concerning some african civs that were left out. Mali and ethiopia etc...

Absolutely true!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by LzPrst
hey!!! I was answering nr 4!
but you're post is better
but my point about the other tribes being nomadic stands. the iroquis had 5 tribes united with a council and stretched a fairly large area of permanent settlements. though I dont recall them being too big on the horseriding... I'm gonna look that up.

Hehe. I've asked to make sure (they ARE on the internet, like everybody) but no, even while at the time of their Golden Age the horse was already getting common, because of their environment they did not really ride horses then. The 'Mounted Warrior' as a UU is laughable.
A good UU for the Iroquois would be a Musketman that treats all squares as roads.

[vmxa1]

Ribannah good to see you post again. I agree with you that there are a number of tribes that could be used, the problem is they are not well known, even in America. Civ requires that they have a reasonable level of recognition. That cuts it way down.
Apache, Sioux and Cherokee a some of those that are fairly well known.

Many of the north eastern tribes are not well known at all.

[Mad Bomber]

Ribannah:

The Cherokee were a distinct and seperate nation from the Iroqouis. The Cherokees largest area of influence extended from North Carolina south to Florida and west to Arkansas and Colorado. Their ancient history also contains a legend (The Legend of the Keetoowah) that they had originated from island(s) off of the coast of South America. THeir capitol, Kituhwa, was located near present day Bryson, N.C. The Cherokee were eventually pushed off their lands by European nations (Spanish, French, English, Americans)

As for the Iroqouis the last UU they should have is a musketman. Better would be an Archer or Longbowman based UU.

for additional info check out:

Cherokee History

[Ribannah]

The musket was the weapon that started their Golden Age. At that time they had more muskets than any of the European powers had in the area.

Yes, the Cherokee formed a different nation. That's what I said. But that was after they split off from the Iroquois (before the League was formed). Language and customs remained similar.

The 'history' you are refering to is fake, deformed by an attempt to incorporate the beginning of mankind according to the Bible.

vmxa1: "Ribannah good to see you post again. I agree with you that there are a number of tribes that could be used, the problem is they are not well known, even in America. Civ requires that they have a reasonable level of recognition. That cuts it way down.
Apache, Sioux and Cherokee a some of those that are fairly well known.

Many of the north eastern tribes are not well known at all."

Yes, the USA have made an excellent job of hiding the history (and part of the present) of their patch of the world, as well as history in general. They are masters at it, still continue to do so today. This is very, very sad. By destroying their history, they are destroying their future.

[Caesar2760]

I am disappointed in the lack of a Polynesian civ. Come on! The Polynesians are the first people to travel the open sea, they settle all the way across the most massive ocean on the planet, without any access to bronze or iron! They form highly organized tribal kingdoms, one or two of which (Tonga and Hawai'i) are large, powerful, and cultural enough to deserve civness in and of themselves! Put in Polynesia! (Besides, everyone loves Seafaring...)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


For an African nation I always liked the Nubians. They were the only other civ in Africa or Europe to build pyramids (although much, much, smaller in size.)

Although the kingdom that built those pyramids was situated in Nubia, it's better known as the Kingdom of Kush, or the Kushites.

Nubia or the Kingdoms of the Nubians are more properly the Christian entities that arose after the fall of Kush. In about 600 a.d., Syrian/Byzantine monks brought Christianity to Nubia, and Christian kingdoms were founded in the area of southern Egypt and northern Sudan, where Meroitic culture had been replaced with Nubian.

[Antrine]

quote by Ribannah

Yes, the USA have made an excellent job of hiding the history (and part of the present) of their patch of the world, as well as history in general. They are masters at it, still continue to do so today. This is very, very sad. By destroying their history, they are destroying their future.

We learned our bad habits from the Roman Empire... Too much latin in higher english schools and religious ones.

[LzPrst]

A good UU for the Iroquois would be a Musketman that treats all squares as roads.

I'd love to see an early guerrilla-like unit treat all terrain as road, fair attack and defence, possibly with bombard value, requires saltpeter. or just a big nasty huron with a tomahawk!

[LzPrst]

what about a unit animation that involves a tomahawk, a musket, a bow, and an ushiro mawashi-geri, thats a UU that I'd like to see
btw did anyone see the brotherhood of wolves? french film. thats the kind of iroquis I'd like to see.

[vmxa1]

I doubt any US companies are going to go for using tomahawks or anything involving native americans. It is just asking for grief.