Iroquois aren't important enough to be in Civ3

[civman2000]

CtP is clearly a bit too far in that direction. But having, say 21 civs like civ2, or maybe 32 or something would be nice...after all, there are only 5-10 civs I've seen complaints about not being there...

[Beren]

Yes, but the problem is that when you put those civs in it, then the same complaints will occur about different civs.
Suppose you add these civs:
Spain, Turkey, Arabia, Phoenicia, Carthage, Mayas, Holland, Vikings, Celts
Then, for instance, the Swedish will complain that they were once a major country too. (Which by the way is true.) And if you add them, another country will 'revolt.'

[Dauphin]

I would think a good idea would be that civs are continually added to a database, and then you select from the database the civs you want in your games.

The database would have no pre-determined number limit, and would only, not have, civs that gamers have not yet created. If people created all the civs you mention, and then some, you keep all happy.

The complaints would be over which ones were created for starters, but avid mods would be able to create for the shortfall.

[civman2000]

great idea

[Jethro83]

:Hmmm:.... the endless flame war continues.



Whether or not the Iroquois are too unimportant to be in Civ 3 really doesn't matter. The fact is that Firaxis needed someone who could represent the greatest Native American power in North America. Not that history really matters in such decisions, but obviously the Iroquois are such people.

Getting so tired of seeing all of this "This civ shouldn't be in it because they're not important enough/too young, etc." and "That civ is too important to be excluded/better than this/that civ, etc.". I'm sure that there are legions of people who agree with such sentiment.

If you don't like the civs you can choose from, its a simple matter of using Civ3Edit to change them, or using Gramphos' Civ3Multitool to add them if you're like me and think that no included civ really deserves to be replaced/chopped out.

Please resist the urge to be continuing these flame wars, as there is no need for them. I know that the perfect solution to my problem with such flamings is IGNORE THEM, but with every second thread having at least one shot in the many flame wars, they are far too in-your-face to be able to ignore. I've tried, but I find it impossible to avoid.

The only way this problem can be stopped is if people stop contributing to it. Kick the habit and leave the flame wars to the sad individuals who start them. Don't let them extend to every thread in the forum. There are people who are trying to speak out their mind in intelligent, informative and sometimes humourous ways, and that is what Apolyon should encourage.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I know that the perfect solution to my problem with such flamings is IGNORE THEM, but with every second thread having at least one shot in the many flame wars, they are far too in-your-face to be able to ignore. I've tried, but I find it impossible to avoid.

I find nothing wrong with threads discussing whether or not a certain civ was a good choice for the top 16 or whatever as such. It is often a good opportunity for people to learn about civilizations they knew little about - and even for those of us who know a lot, as there are always surprises and new insights to consider.

There are only a few posters who spoil it for the rest of us by taking every disagreement as a personal insult (or do even worse, with pre-emptive strikes).
The rest of us may be ignorant, stupid, uninformed etcetera in their eyes, but we are here because we are interested, and we try to inform each other and try to do so in a friendly and respectful way.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Ribannah




I find nothing wrong with threads discussing whether or not a certain civ was a good choice for the top 16 or whatever as such. It is often a good opportunity for people to learn about civilizations they knew little about - and even for those of us who know a lot, as there are always surprises and new insights to consider.

There are only a few posters who spoil it for the rest of us by taking every disagreement as a personal insult (or do even worse, with pre-emptive strikes).
The rest of us may be ignorant, stupid, uninformed etcetera in their eyes, but we are here because we are interested, and we try to inform each other and try to do so in a friendly and respectful way.

Yeah. I guess you're right. The unintelligible, ignorant types with mere nano-second attention spans really do ruin what could be a constructive learning experience for people who are interested in learning something. I guess a stronger effort needs to be made to ignore these ignorant types. If they don't get any reply, then they will probably get bored and leave. They are only doing it to get everyone's attention, and so aren't unlike bullies. And like bullies, they'll get bored of us when we don't give them the response they want from us.

[dunk]

I like reading these discussions to a point. It's interesting to see what people have to say about why this or that civ should be in the game.

But, I want em all. I don't see why there has to be a cap on the number of choices (currently 16). We should be able to add in as many as we'd like easily.

I think every civ is "good enough" to be in the game. It would be fun to be a different civ each time and never have the same game two times in a row.

[Dauphin]

I find these discussions interesting based on what they tell you about posters' (wider) views, not what they tell you about the subject. Basically I find peoples' thought processes on why *the Iroquois aren't important enough to be in Civ3* far more interesting and revealing than the subject matter.

*Topical example.

[Alanus]

The leaders of the Iroquois in the default game are definitively not Iroquois ! (Red Cloud, Sitting Bull)

[Whoha]

Ok Markos, close this one as well, or you are showing favoritism to the Americans and we absolutely can not have that

oh and its a game, what does importance have to do with anything, and how do you quantify being important enough? Having accomplished something, or surviving for a long time?

[Spiffor]

I think it's pretty subjective. I don't think there is any worthy criteria to tell if a Civ must be in or not... It's an affair of taste.
As far as I understand, the "America isn't old enough to be in Civ" thread went about one thing America barely has, while other Civs have plenty : history.
Even if the formal Civ was there for a little time (Incans lasted 2 centuries according to SirEdgar), their culture and their link to the territory is rooted very deeply. Germany, although unified in 1870, recognizes itself in the German groups which come back to ancient times. Although France is technically speaking 1000 years old (which is pretty young), its historical roots go back to the ancient times as well (the children are taught that the Gaul-Celts were the ancestors of the French).
Although the Iroquois federation didn't last long, their traditions last on more than a millenium, same for the Zulu. So, I think they're good for being considered old enough.

But the true formula behind Civ choices at Firaxis is : you take the Civs of your customers, you take present or past great powers, you take some ancient and quasi mythical Civs, and above all, you take FAMOUS Civs, so that the player won't be confused (hence, no Khmers / Nubians)

[KrazyHorse]

Haven't we already seen this?

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Haven't we already seen this?

Yes we have. Who the hell resurrected this topic anyway?

[Dauphin]

Alanus.