APOLYTON EXTRACIVS PACK.

[History Guy]

Sulieman could be a good choice as well. Mohammed perhaps, as he was the one who started the empire, and was one of it's great generals. Mehmet II would probably not be a good choice, though at first I thought of him. After reading about his personal life he appears to have been a total reprobate. Saladin or Sulieman would be much better. What could a special unit be? Dervishes? Remember the Dervish wars of the 1880s and '90s, in which Gen. Gordon and Lord Kitchener both fought the Mahdi, who was something of a kook. Gordon died at Khartoum, but Kitchener wrecked the Dervish Army at Omdurman.

[star mouse]

With regards to the extra civs, I feel we should pay attention to their special abilities. Otherwise we may find the last half dozen civs having special abilities that are not in keeping with their true nature, or we find we have four or five civs with the combination Militaristic/Religious (for example).

The 16 default civs in CIV3 have all 15 combinations of specials between them. If there's another 16 civs, if possible all 15 combinations should occur twice.

[IncreduloDriver]

Regarding using Mohammed for the Arabs:

If you use Mohammed as the leader of the Arabs, I wonder how certain people of a very specific faith may feel when they see a beat-up version of Mohammed on the victory screen? I'm no Muslim, but I don't think it'd be too nice. I think you run into the same problem as with using Jesus for the Hebrews ("Why didn't God's profit beat the pants off these heathens?"). I'm all for using great historical leaders, but perhaps we should keep *divine* historical leaders out of anything destined for mass public consumption. There are a whole slew of other awesome Arab leaders (Peter O'Toole, for instance, my personal favorite) that would make great leaders. And, while the majority of Arabic people and countries may be officially Islamic, there's no need to unfairly stereotype *every* Arab as a Muslim, just as it would be unfair to stereotype *every* American, Canadian, Limey, or Armenian as a Christian. So perhaps religion should take a back seat to more secular history?

[Barkeep49]

Quick suggestion: For Europa Univeralis when the players made a comprehensive change such as this they made a frontend program that allowed for quick customization so that curtain options and not others could be chosen. I don't know if anyone here has those talents, but something that would allow people to choose how to address some of the SE Asia and Inclusion/Exclusion of current Civs might be good.

[History Guy]

Incredulo-- That's very true, as I'm sure the average Muslim would not be pleased with Mohammed appearing on their with a black eye and broken teeth. The same thing with Jesus Christ as well. As for Peter O'Toole as the Arab leader, no way...you must mean Alec Guinness...haar haar...

[annoyed]

I think each civ should be given a special unit and special ability. I think these should change with each period of history.

[Locutus]

All,
Could we please keep the civ-specific discussions in the civ-specific thread (links to these threads can be found in the first post of the XPC poll)? This thread is intended to discuss general issues, these civ-specific things are really disruptive (I don't mind small 'side-discussions' but 90% of the current discussion is not directly on topic). I need some suggestions for the UUs polls but other than that there's no need... The same goes for people practically casting their XPC votes here. If you want to tell the world which civs you feel should be included, please discuss this in my other thread (you don't actually have have to vote if you don't want to)...

But although I'm not for this off-topic discussion, I will say this: Muhammed is most certainly NOT gonna be the Arab leader. This is for the simple reason that this would be a grave insult to Muslims everywhere. It is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Islam to display Muhammed's image (beaten up or otherwise), just as it is forbidden to display God himself in Christianity (and Judaism and Islam). The only way to respectfully have Muhammed in the game as Arab leader is with an empty leader picture but I don't think that's really an option. I must say I'm quite dissappointed by the fact that so many people apparently know and understand so little of the Islam, IIRC the world's largest religion (at least very rapidly becoming the largest)...

LoD,
As I don't have the game I don't have a full overview of how the file system works either. I'll see if I can somehow manage to get a better idea of how editing the game works in general, as this is important for other reasons as well, but it might be a while before I can get my hands on the right information.

ranskaldan,
Actually, I already have something of a database (more accurate: a big text file) with all the civdata on my computer. If people are interested, I'll see if I can post tomorrow or so (don't have it at hand an it may need some fixing up). I'll continuously try to keep it up to date but the threads linked to in the the XPC poll will always be more accurate (although with all this discussion outside the 'designated' threads some important suggestions might have gotten lost).

El hidalgo, tmarcl,
Thanks for those files, they contain some good suggestions. I too am especially fond of composing city lists so I think you, El hidalgo, and I might be in for some interesting discussions (some surprising and interesting things on the Mongol city list, I'll probably have some comments/questions on that at a later time, I'm too busy now - keep an eye on the 'XPC explained: Spanish & Mongols' thread)... BTW, El hidalgo, I like your suggestion for the Junk as well, I'll add that to the list. Question though: what's a 'dhow'? I don't think I ever heard of that... (I'll probably post the polls as soon as I find out what it is)

Stuie,
You bring up a very important issue. I asked (maybe a bit too implicitly?) in my first post if it was appropriate at all to mess with the existing civs but since noone responded to it or seemed to object to it (until now), I assumed noone really had a problem with it. Though it will certainly be possible to (with some more effort) install only part of the mod (i.e. the new civs), it might be a good idea to find out how many people would do this. I'll start a poll soon in which I ask if it's okay with people to mess with the existing civs at all. If enough people have a problem with it, we can decide how to deal with it (leave them alone, make 2 versions, whatever).

Personally I don't see a real problem. I would say that 1) is not really the case, the polls show that many of us (in case of the Zulus more than 80%) feel Firaxis made at least some mistakes. 2) has been proven to be false by the Call to Power series (its mods changed the existing game and initially worried people but eventually all but a handful of people tried and enjoyed the mods after all). Besides, there's always backups, no permanent damage would ever be done... And 3) is not really a problem either: if Firaxis releases conflicting patches (which I don't really expect, patches usually fix problems, not gameplay), we will simply release our own patches/new versions as well... As I see it, the mod will only give you more options, not force you into anything. But I can see how some people might still not be comfortable with changing the existing stuff so I'll start a poll soon.

star mouse,
I couldn't agree more. Though many of the decisions on the civs can be made independently from each other, the CSAs will need to be carefully balanced. We'll figure that out once we know all the civs though (perhaps we should even consider picking certain civs/leaving them out because of the CSAs but we'll see about that later)...

With 2 extra CSA properties (presuming we can add more ourselves) we can have 28 different combinations though, so it's not a necessity to have everything twice, as you suggest.

Barkeep,
That would certainly be an interesting idea but that would IMHO be aiming too high for this mod (but I'm sure someone will make such a editing tool sooner or later). Once you have a tool like that, you don't need modpacks anymore: people would release individual civs on Apolyton (or elsewhere) and every civ could be downloaded and added to people's pool from which they select their possible opponents before starting up civ3. You'd have an infinite number of civs to choose from, once the history and graphics people got going... I think we 'normal' civvers should focus on simply making civs and let the 'nerds' work on the more advanced stuff...

[Locutus]

Originally posted by History Guy
Incredulo-- That's very true, as I'm sure the average Muslim would not be pleased with Mohammed appearing on their with a black eye and broken teeth. The same thing with Jesus Christ as well. As for Peter O'Toole as the Arab leader, no way...you must mean Alec Guinness...haar haar...

Actually, many Christians have statues and paintings and whatmore of Jesus being crucified, that's a hell-of-a-lot more painful and less respectful than giving him a black eye

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver
Regarding using Mohammed for the Arabs:

If you use Mohammed as the leader of the Arabs, I wonder how certain people of a very specific faith may feel when they see a beat-up version of Mohammed on the victory screen? I'm no Muslim, but I don't think it'd be too nice. I think you run into the same problem as with using Jesus for the Hebrews ("Why didn't God's profit beat the pants off these heathens?"). I'm all for using great historical leaders, but perhaps we should keep *divine* historical leaders out of anything destined for mass public consumption. There are a whole slew of other awesome Arab leaders (Peter O'Toole, for instance, my personal favorite) that would make great leaders. And, while the majority of Arabic people and countries may be officially Islamic, there's no need to unfairly stereotype *every* Arab as a Muslim, just as it would be unfair to stereotype *every* American, Canadian, Limey, or Armenian as a Christian. So perhaps religion should take a back seat to more secular history?

Moreover, for Hebrews especially, the historicity of Jesus is widely disputed, so it would be like putting Helen of Troy as the leader of Greeks (nobody knows whether she ever existed, and even if she did, she was not much of a leader)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by History Guy
Sulieman could be a good choice as well. Mohammed perhaps, as he was the one who started the empire, and was one of it's great generals. Mehmet II would probably not be a good choice, though at first I thought of him. After reading about his personal life he appears to have been a total reprobate. Saladin or Sulieman would be much better. What could a special unit be? Dervishes? Remember the Dervish wars of the 1880s and '90s, in which Gen. Gordon and Lord Kitchener both fought the Mahdi, who was something of a kook. Gordon died at Khartoum, but Kitchener wrecked the Dervish Army at Omdurman.

Unless you are talking about some other Sulieman, I think Sulieman (Soleyman/Suleyman) the Magnificent should be the Turk rather than Arab leader. He was a Turk and ruled from Istambul.

[IncreduloDriver]

No more off-topics, but I felt honour-bound to correct this, Locutus.

Originally posted by Locutus
[Islam,] the world's largest religion (at least very rapidly becoming the largest)...

Not by a long shot, buddy. According to my 2000 World Almanac, Islam has about 1 billion adherents, while Catholicism alone has over 1 billion, to say nothing of the 1 billion other Christians. And I don't think it's possible to "very rapidly" double your population by adding 1 billion people. I thought this was quite ironic, considering your sentence at the end of this next quote

I will say this: Muhammed is most certainly NOT gonna be the Arab leader. This is for the simple reason that this would be a grave insult to Muslims everywhere. It is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Islam to display Muhammed's image (beaten up or otherwise), just as it is forbidden to display God himself in Christianity (and Judaism and Islam). The only way to respectfully have Muhammed in the game as Arab leader is with an empty leader picture but I don't think that's really an option. I must say I'm quite dissappointed by the fact that so many people apparently know and understand so little of the Islam [religion]

That's sort of my point, that Muslims wouldn't like it. Yeah, I didn't know that displaying a picture of Muhammed is a terrible sin, and I didn't know that showing God is evil, either. I guess I just won't look up next time I'm in the Sistine Chapel. I'm quite dissappointed by the fact that you didn't check yours

Sorry, I don't want to turn this thread into a personal arguement. You won't hear another off-topic peep out of me, not even in a rebuttal

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Locutus
(...) just as it is forbidden to display God himself in Christianity (...)

Locutus, where did you take your theology classes?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver
Not by a long shot, buddy. According to my 2000 World Almanac, Islam has about 1 billion adherents, while Catholicism alone has over 1 billion, to say nothing of the 1 billion other Christians. And I don't think it's possible to "very rapidly" double your population by adding 1 billion people. I thought this was quite ironic, considering your sentence at the end of this next quote

Actually, according to the Global Evangelization Movement research center there are about 1.9 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet (source: www.beliefnet.com). While Christianity is actually gradually loosing members, especially in Europe, the Muslim population is booming, esp. in 3rd world countries (in fact, many cities in 3rd world countries *will* double their population in the next 2 decades). Islam is actually the fastest growing religion in the world and the number of Muslims in the world will outgrow the number of Christians within the next 2-5 decades. If you consider it took them almost 1500 years to get where they are today, that's very fast.

But these numbers aren't even that important. What matters more is that 20 odd years ago, an ordinary European/American citizen would encounter simply not encounter Islam in everyday life. Today the Islam is a phenomenon that noone can ignore (and that's complete unrelated to the 'war against terror') anymore. Knowing at least something about it is only the 'right' thing to do...

That's sort of my point, that Muslims wouldn't like it. Yeah, I didn't know that displaying a picture of Muhammed is a terrible sin, and I didn't know that showing God is evil, either. I guess I just won't look up next time I'm in the Sistine Chapel. I'm quite dissappointed by the fact that you didn't check yours

What, you don't even know the 10 commandments? Regardless of your own (lack of?) religion, shame on you! In any case, the fact that most Christians have a problem with the 2nd Commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above [...]") doesn't mean that Muslims have the same problem, does it? I'm fully aware of the many violations of this Commandments by Christians but Muslims enforce the rules of their religion very strictly (or at least their interpretation of the rules, which can widely differ: Taliban <-> 'Western' Muslims) and displaying Muhammed is indeed a terrible sin.

Edit: Martinus, I did not take any theology classes as I'm an atheist myself but I *did* take the effort of learning a thing or two about the world's biggest religions, and that includes reading the 10 Commandments....

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lokifalling
Are you including groups like the Cherokee and Choctaw in #4? The so-called "five civilized tribes" of the US southeast were almost as advanced as the Iroquois.

But I can't think of a grouping to include them all. Any ideas?

Well, the Choctaw (and the Chikasaw) are probably descendents of the Moundbuilders, which links them to (I) the Mayan culture.
The Cherokee, on the other hand, came from the north and are closely related to the Iroquois.
The area is very rich in food and these tribes lived from abundant agriculture, gathering (berries and nuts) and hunting. So I'd say their way of life
was somewhat similar to the woodland tribes, albeit less advanced as the Iroquois, but with more variety: (4) with a fair touch of (3). Because of their vastly different backgrounds I don't see them as one group.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Locutus
Edit: Martinus, I did not take any theology classes as I'm an atheist myself but I *did* take the effort of learning a thing or two about the world's biggest religions, and that includes reading the 10 Commandments....

Well, I am atheist as well, but I *did* take effort of learning 10 Commandments too. Last time I checked the 2nd Commandment you seem to be referring to was:
"You shall not speak the Lord's name in vain" (remember stoning from "Life of Brian"? ) None of the remaining 9 involved making images either. Can you be more specific?