Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[Fitz]

I'd like to point out that most of your counter arguments did occur to me:

Originally posted by Fitz
Although given that the game runs from Ancient to Modern times, a counter argument could just as easily be made for any of the most ancient civs (babs, greeks, romans & egyptians). *shrug*

However, I look at it this way: Those ancient civs, if given a chance, might have survived long enough to evolve into something else. Even the ancient german barbarians eventually became germany, the gauls france, etc etc. If you see the Romans get wiped out by the Germans in the late ancient era, all of sudden your game is starting to match reality.

However, the equivelent in the Americas would be the English & French (where are the spanish??) invading the Iriquoi and eliminating them in the industrial era. I just can't see the Americans fitting into the span of history concept without some unique (and currently non-existant) splitting of civs built into the game. This is primarily because of the strange circumstances under which they came into existance.

Now, that's a personal thing, not a *game design flaw*. I just get jarred every time I see Lincoln's face popup, thats all.

[Arrian]

Lincoln is a bit hard on the eyes, it's true.

-Arrian

[God-Emperor]

I think the Iroquois and change them to the Austrians or Austro-Hungarians. Because they were once a world empire!

[DTRY]

I also vote for American, in Civilization aspect, America is a British colony. Maybe it should be replaced with the Sioux, real native American. If Firaxis can create game mechanics that allow colonies to riot and become independent country, America is out of the game.

[gachnar]

Originally posted by DTRY
Maybe it should be replaced with the Sioux, real native American.

Okay now, I'm no expert, but why is a group of loosely connected semi-nomadic, warlike tribes more "real" than the Iroqois?

Because they made it into a bunch of movies?

The Cherokee or Hopi, or any of the tribes around the Pacific Northwest were closer to advanced civilizations.

[N. Machiavelli]

Bloody hell, not this again.

[Jethro83]

Stop with the "Americans aren't old enough to be in civ3!" and "Iroquois are too insignificant to be in Civ3!". Both peoples had a profound impact on the world and its history (yes, even the Iroquois)

Anyway, as a lot of people on this thread are saying, nobody should be replaced, only added. Gramphos has shown us that civs can indeed be added (using his Civ3Multitool). Firaxis hasn't completely restricted it to 16 civs. They did leave room for 16 more. When Firaxis release their XP, the should include about 4 other civs, and make an editor which will allow you to create civs to fill the other 12 spots yourself.

I think it is far too early to be thinking about replacing civs as such.

[Ribannah]

Same sentiment here.
Why are so many people so eager to dismiss what they don't know, instead of showing a healthy curiosity?

[Trevman]

The Iroquois and Zulus are not civilizations. They are only large tribes that just barely managed to get out of the stone age. They don't have cities, militaries, or the scientific, philosophical, and social advances that define a civilization. What have they done? Nothing. To compare them with the Romans or even the Aztecs is a joke.


On a side note: The Spanish need to be in the game.

[Wittlich]

If you have to get rid of a civilization to make room for another, then I say replace the Iroquois with the Spanish. Spain is one of the first colonization powers and as such, should be included. Since we have the "American" civilization, we really don't need the Iroquois since their culture has been assimilated into the American culture/history. Besides, the Iroquois (and any other North American tribe) are referred to as "Native Americans" so we don't need two different civs that are geographically the same.

[Mr. President]

Iroquois, Zulu, and Aztec. Lasting impact on world culture: zero. Better would be Carthaginians/Phoenicians, and Spaniards. I can't think of a third right now.

[efejta]

The Aztecs do not fit in that example. Although their impact on western history is not profound, they were an empire in Native America.

I think it is funny that the US' palace isn't European. Perhaps the US and Iriquios are the same.

[siredgar]

If I had to choose, I'd take out the following civs:

1. Aztecs
2. Sioux
3. Babylonians
4. Zulu
5. Romans
6. Persians

Then, I'd replace them with:

1. Spanish
2. Italians
3. Portuguese
4. Koreans
5. Dutch
6. Mongols

But that's only because I like to play civs that still exist today, not because I think any are worthier than the others.

Anyhow, everyone knows that the Sioux and the Zulu aren't really up-to-par, no matter how admirable some of their achievements may be.

[siredgar]

HA! And I'm right! I just voted and looked at the results-- Iroquois and Zulu NO DOUBT.

Btw, I said Sioux didn't I? Guess I'm still stuck in Civ2, hehe.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Fitz
Americans of course. The concept of putting in a civ that has existed for only 200 years (a bit more if you want to count the colonial period) struck me as odd right from the get go.

400 years. The first surviving colony should be the starting point.

Its the Constitution that is a little over 200 years old.