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]

Re: Of Tribes and Civs

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.