The Iroquois Debate: Lets clean up the mess we've created.

[Pembleton]

How about a I don't care what civs are in the game option.

[Melios]

Originally posted by orange
Melios - If there were 32 Civs, I would agree with you. However, since there are only 16, wouldn't you rather have a Civ with more impact on world history, science, and culture than the Iroquois?

I don't care.

I could create any omitted civ with the included tools. Like the Spanish. In fact, I will create an Akkadian, Assyrian, and Sumerian custom civ.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Pembleton
How about a I don't care what civs are in the game option.

Because not many people who don't care what civs are in visit this forum.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by JellyDonut

Because not many people who don't care what civs are in visit this forum.

I don't agree. Just because you don't care what civs are in doesn't mean you aren't interested in their abilities, their unique units, etc. Most of the threads are analyzing the uniqueness of the civs, which is better, game balance, etc. To me you could just put Bangladesh in instead of England while keeping the units and abilities the same and it wouldn't make any difference to me. But analyzing their uniqueness *is* interesting.

[orange]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
Judging by what I've seen only the Aztecs build down there and only when they are desperate for space. The Incas lived in mountains, very unconventional. I doubt that a regular civ could handle it without all kinds of bonuses.

So? The Egyptians start out on the nile, with nowhere to go but along the nile. But I don't want to get into a world map debate. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, the Inca were a greater civilization than the Iroquois. Also, think about the Spanish, Arabs, and other civs that weren't included. Wouldn't you agree that they deserve a place above the Iroquois?

[Dr. Nick]

Look at the arabs, in less than 400 years they had conquered the MidEast and Southern Medit and all of Spain save for a little piece at the top. They brought to these lands technology and surpassed the europeans in all fields in their own homelands.

And they aren't in. Damn Firaxis!

[orange]

So why'd you vote for the first or third choice?

[monkspider]

Well done on the organization of this topic orange. Though, I must respectfully disagree with you. I tend to fall into the camp that sees the Arabs living on in Civ 3 through the various Fertile Valley Civs and Egypt. Also I can definitely see how or why one might want the Mongols or Spanish in the game and I'm sure fair cases could be made for those civs. But I personally stand by the Iroquois. We must remember that the Iroquois represent all north american indian tribes in this game, so they are no longer just one isolated little tribe up in New York and Canada. So although the Native Americans in our version of history were defeated, perhaps the equivalent in Civ III will fare better? Rewrite history, no? There is really no disputing the cutural diversity the native americans bring to the game. There is really Civ remotely similar to them in Europe or Asia or anywhere else in the world. I feel that the Iroquois are far more diverse from the rest of the world than the Spaniards are from, say the French or English. Not to belittle Spanish Culture in any way, mind you. And though Spain may have accomplished more than the Native American peoples in terms of conquest and so forth, again, perhaps in another world the Native Americans landed in Spain and enslaved them. Civ III is to rewrite history, not merely offer superificial variations of it. I hope to see the Spanish well represented in an expansion pack or a mod in the near future, but for now I am more than happy to see the Iroquois in the game and plan on them being one of the civs I use the most.

[Sun Zi 36]

I feel that having the Aztecs already satisfies the need for cultural diversity in the game. There are more cultures that are as unique as the north American indians but had much more influence in history. For example the Javanese or the Mongols.

[Ribannah]

The game, however, is not called "History". It is called "Civilization".

[orange]

monkspider and Ribannah - then why don't we see the Aboriginies in the game? That would certainly add to cultural diversity, and it would also put a civ in Australia. Why do we not see them in the game? They're impact on world history is so minimal, that they are much less worthy than other civs, like the Spanish or Arabs, to be included in the game. I have no problem with having the Iroquois in the game, but to me they would be an expansion pack civ, not something found in the 16 civs of the game, when the Spanish are not included.

[orange]

14:14 with two abstaining Close one

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The game, however, is not called "History". It is called "Civilization".

So therefore it should include proper civilizations such the Spanish or the Incas, not the Iroquois, who are worthy of being noted in a history of the world, but who do not qualify as a "civilization."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Clowns excepted, I think there is general agreement that four civs are sorely missing from Civ3: Spanish (or Iberians if you wish -- to me Portugal and Spain are pretty much the same), Muslims (Arabs + Turks), Vikings and Mongols.


I wonder why nobody has yet mentioned the UNESCO's World Heritage List. I know it's not a very big thing but even with all its shortcomings it should tell something about the cultural richness of some countries. Discount natural sites and take a few minutes to count how many countries can boast of having more entries in that list than Spain. Not many indeed.

Link: http://www.unesco.org/whc/heritage.htm

First, I voted the Iroquois should not be in, but I don't believe it was PC reasons either. Computer programmers aren't known for being interested in what is PC or not, and the entire concept of Civilization as a game isn't totally PC anyway.

Second, to JayBee, while I agree about the Spanish and Arab/Turks (especially the Arab/Turks--their omission is my biggest sore point about Civ3), but I don't agree about the Vikings or Mongols. I do not consider them civilizations, I consider them primitive cultures. Perhaps advanced primitive, but still primitive. I think the Barbarians cover them fine. It would be cool if Firaxis would have different types of Barbarians (Vikings, Goths, Mongols, Huns, etc.). But that's a small quibble.

As I posted in the other board, my ideal 16 civs would supplant the French with the Spanish (I think between the English, Germans and Spanish, Western Europe would be more than covered), the Iroquois with the Incas, the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Malis.

Cheers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
Hmmm...not quite as close, if I know my Geography.

Paris and London are much closer than Berlin and Paris...but at least there is a sea between them.

New York State and D.C. are not far away, about what 100 miles of each other? At full growth, the two cities may overlap

Salamanca, the Iroquois "capital" in the game, is about 330 miles from Washington D.C.

In the other civ games, the Berlin-Paris thing wasn't an issue because you couldn't have the French and Germans in the same game, due to their using the same color. But from my understanding, this won't be an issue in Civ3, correct? If you can play all 16 civs at once, there has to be 16 unique color sets.

But in Civ I and II, you would have the Germans/French beginning very close to Rome. So this is a moot point, I think.

Cheers.