Civ of the week: India

[monkspider]

Check it out here

http://www.civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm

[Inverse Icarus]

i think theres a problem here:

Attack Defense Move
Standard knight 4 3 2
Indian War Elephant 4 3 2

[Inverse Icarus]

oh. didnt read. sorry.

The War Elephant is the Indian version of the knight. Though it shares the same attack, defense, and move ratings of the knight, it requires no natural resources to build, whereas knights require both horses and iron. This distinction allows the Indians to easily produce these powerful juggernauts in any city, irrespective of trade networks.

[tniem]

So those that know India history better than I, is religious commercial a proper placement?

Were the traders? I just don't know enough to say much but would like to hear the rationale.

[jsw363]

I was wondering about this myself. I don't know that much about Indian history, but I had never considered them a particularly commercial civ.
It's also interesting that they are religious considering that they are very proud of the fact that they're a secular state.

[TechWins]

I was wondering when they were going to update the Civ of the Week.

I think that the next Civ of the Week will be Romans.

[Akron]

Originally posted by jsw363
It's also interesting that they are religious considering that they are very proud of the fact that they're a secular state.

Actually, it is quite fitting that they are religious. Two of the world's biggest religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, originated in India.

[DarkCloud]

Commercial- facilitates trade between Persia/Europe (and) China

Religious- Hinduism, Buddhism

I suppose that is why they gave them the bonuses.

[PGM]

Originally posted by TechWins
I was wondering when they were going to update the Civ of the Week.

Every friday.

[kolpo]

The attributes fit very well.

They fit already from the period of the Buddistic kings like Asjoka(ruled a region of idnia was then not yet united bur had already Indian culture and civilization) who after that he saw the gruel of a war became very religious(buddism), it was based on his religion that he stoped the wars, stopped eating animals and he did also many projects to improve trade and to make it the traders more easy. Asjoka was viewed by many kings after him as a big example so they where also relgious and quite peacefull what encouraged trade.

Also later in it's Hindustitic period was it still a very religious country and was there lot's of trade with China and other countries near there and later also with europe. Even current India is still very religious the fact that state and relgion are there separated doesn't change the fact that many people there are very religious and often find there spiritual developement more important then there material developement. And even in modern days is india still quite commercial with an economy that has growned fast the last decades.

A civ with well fitting attributes I like it

[Don K Hotay]

I am not so much satisfied with the specials given to India in CIV3. I suppose it makes a little sense to give it the war elephant, considering that India really never had any other noteworthy military aspect in its ancient history (the war elephant was used in a very very limited way, and I guess it became world renowned when hannibal used them against the Romans). In modern times, however, it is notable to mention the Ghurka regiment created by Great Britain, as a truly lethal special elite force (and what have you) to be reckoned with. I've just heard stories, about their tenacity, I really don't know all that much about them. Also about this inherent ability to produce war elephants, does this mean an elephant is not a resource comparable to a horse? Is it something that just sort of naturally occures wherever indians are placed on a CIV3 map...makes no sense!

I guess what I'm trying to get to is that not all civs can be assigned a civ specific unit in a credible way, and I just don't think its a good fit to the game unless it is more expansive. That is, why have just one civ specific unit? In most cases, it will not be available until a certain time, and it is bound to eventually become obsolete. It is a sketchy feature.

And about the attributes of a civ. Do they remain constant for real civilizations? I guess for India, Religion is actually a very good fit for it because indeed Indians are very religious peoples, perhaps the most religious and unfanatical practictioners of it on the earth. But then I see Japan with militaristic, which makes no sense in this modern age (they have almost no military today) or in the preindustrial age. And of course there are other discrepencies. Obviously, all 16 civilisations offered in CIV3 have gone through major changes throughout history, and it just doesn't seem plausible to have two rather random attributes that will define them for the whole game. Its a good thing that this feature can be turned off.

Has nobody else noticed this!

Quixote

[jdd2007]

Japan-almost no military?

for thousands of years japan was EXTREMELY militaristic

i can think of one civ (spartans) that was more warlike

when japan surrendered on the Missouri, it was the first time since ... a while ... that japan had lost a war

today japan is not military oriented, but still has the second biggest 'defense' budget after usa

[Don K Hotay]

Originally posted by jdd2007
......today japan is not military oriented, but still has the second biggest 'defense' budget after usa

I did not know that! I find it hard to believe and will checkup on that after posting this.

I guess I am arguing their militarism from a different perspective. Throughout their history, they have been quite isolationist, and have generally been on the recieving end of Chinese influence. I don't recall Japan ever staging military campaings in Asia (outside of Japan), and thats what I meant when I disagreed with their militaristic attribute. No doubt, there feudal society with samurais and what not were quite , but it wasn't until after they industrialized that the went imperial and launched campaigns in Asia and the Asia Pacific. That stage of their history I consider to be blatant evidence of militirism, as in Germany in the early 20th, or France under Napolean, or the Mongols.

What I was really trying to point out is that these civs change over time time.

Quixote

[Comrade Tribune]

Only Indians can build war elephants?
Sure; there have never been any elephants in Africa.
Hannibal didn´t know that, I suppose.

Gandhi looks ugly, conforming to CivIII leader standard.

[jsw363]

Ironic that they ignore the most famous battle that elephants feature in, no? Hannibal would be pissed...