Civilization III mentioned in Strange Horizons article

[Stefu]

Forgive me if this has been posted before, but the article's here. It mostly discusses alternate history, but has this:

The computer game Civilization III, by Firaxis, recapitulates this story of unequal societal potential. Arguably, Civ III is a game of alternate history: it resets all civilizations to the dawn of time, and starts them off on an even keel, with the world in front of them, open to exploitation. However, in Civ III, the Aztecs, Iroquois, and Zulu have strategies that make them lose, almost every time. The game is seemingly fair, but even when the natives are given a fair shake, even when history alters itself, they are unable to match Western prowess. It is really the Germans, English, and Russians who are the most dangerous in this game, just as has proven to be true in "real life."

[statusperfect]

That's bull****...

[Q Classic]

just because a lot of the better players like those countries because that's where they tend to be from or like historically; and just because the writer of this article might just suck...

[Alex]

It is evident that the author could not come with a successful strategy to win the game playing with the Zulus, Aztecs or Iroquois.

But (and this is a relevant "but") he may have faced what Vel calls the "Golden Child" way of playing Civ3: "stay on the path!", meaning that any other strategy apart from military action would be ruinous to those civs. I'm not so sure about this -- I'm one of the few people that still believe in Civ3 replayability -- but it is something to consider.

[ChaotikVisions]

I left a comment for this guy about his article, doubted he would repond but he did actually. You guys can judge him for what hes worth.

My comment

Interesting article, but i'm a Civilization 3 player myself and I really must protest to how you use it. In Civilization 3 every pretty much has an equal chance, it just depends on where they start and who they meet. Europe and the East were given a technological lead because so many more were thinking up things, Native Americans were "stranded" without any other foreign cultures, so like in Civilization 3 this time they fell behind in the "tech race". I've seen the same thing happen to every civilization, its not unique to the native americans in Civilization 3, or the Aztecs/Zulus.

If in real life traders had come to America before gunpowder, or just when it was a fairly new concept, the outcome would have been different. Assuming it had been a steady trade, at least. And also some tribes of Native Americans did develop a written language, but it was mostly too late by then. But really, next time you use Civilization 3 to back up a point don't take out of context, it's offensive to demean cultures based on your private experiences with a video game. Talk to any real Civilization 3 player and he'll probably point out how you're wrong as well, since most of us have experienced being conquered by the Aztecs, or the Iroquois building the SS to Centauri upon occasion.

-Nick

Nick
OK USA
-- Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 10:36:18 (EDT)

And he replied back, with something that IMHO shows that he either has never played Civ3 or has only played a little. Or perhaps, is thinking of Civ2.

Thanks for your comments about the article. I have played a fair amount of Civ 3, and I still think my description of the Native Americans in that game is fair. (I should point out that I tend to play at very high difficulty levels; maybe the Native Americans do better on lower levels.)

In Civ 3, any civilization can win. However, in my experience, the Aztecs and the Iroquois have a much lessened chance of winning, due to a number of factors which are intended to be "realistic" and bring them into line with history.

First, if you play with historical starting locations, the Aztecs and Iroquois start off in an isolated corner of the board, with perhaps the Americans for company. The other civilizations usually get clustered together, and if you're playing a 7-player game, that means that the other tribes get more opportunities for technological exchanges and trade early on in the game, when it's crucial. While I agree with you that cultural isolation was a key factor in the Native Americans' technological inferiority in the real world, this "historical" inferiority is now being grafted on to the alternate world of Civ 3, weakening the Indians in the game based on what "really" happened.

Second, the strategy that the computer uses for the Aztecs and the Iroquois is poor. Yes, they may occasionally win due to fortuitous board placement, but I'll wager that the only time you really have to fear an Aztec conquest is very early in the game (because the Aztecs don't pursue tech) and the only time you have to fear an Iroquois victory is when they have huge amounts of open space to explore at their leisure (since they expand so slowly, and tend to get boxed in.) If you looked at all the computer tribes, and how often they won, I believe from my experience playing the game that the Aztecs and Iroquois would be near the bottom. Their strategy in the game is supposed to mimic their strategy in the real world; once again history intrudes upon a fictional game and they lose.



Fred Bush
Rochester, NY
-- Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 13:32:02 (EDT)

Heh, while i'm sure alot of the things this guy claims we wish would be true, Civ3 only barely mirrors historical stuff.

[Arrian]

I left a comment as well:

As someone who has played many, many hours of CivIII, I had to say that you have no idea what you're talking about when you say "It is really the Germans, English, and Russians who are the most dangerous in this game."

The English are the single weakest Civ in the game. Germany and Russia are mediocre. America is only powerful on large/huge maps where their traits really shine. The Aztecs and Iroquois are quite powerful if you know how to use them. Same with the Zulu, but I prefer the "religious" trait.

What the AI does with a civ isn't really a good benchmark. You say the AI does poorly with the Aztecs, Zulu and Iroquois. I've seen strong Iroquois & Aztecs, but you're right about the AI being bad with the Zulu. I don't think that means a damn thing, however, since the AI is programmed to do the same things with each civ - the only difference is "aggressiveness."

I can tell you that human players have utterly destroyed the game with the Iroquois, Aztecs and Zulu. On Diety. I myself play on Monarch and Emperor, but I've had a lot of success with non-western civs (my favorites being Japan and China).

So, to sum up... sorry, but I think you're completely off-base.

Saying the English, Germans and Russians are powerful civs in CivIII is a pretty clear indication that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

-Arrian

[Jahi]

wow, good thread. funny though how the Iroquois have been right behind me in size and power for the last few games.. and the zulus have been close to my equal as well. mabey i'm just a bad player, i dunno, but in my experience its usualy the Romans who never seem to do well

[zulu9812]

Zulus are always a pain in the butt. Exterminate them early on! Before they exterminate you!

[Lord Merciless]

In my games, English, Germans, and Russians all suck big times.

The AI seems to do well with Religious or Industrial Civs.

[Saint Marcus]

zulus are just annoying, but not a real threath.

[Arrian]

Yeah, that's been my experience too, Marcus. The Zulu are only worrisome for the ancient age when Impi can really be a pain in the ass.

Jahi,

I don't think I've EVER seen a powerful Rome. That may change given the boost to the commercial trait in 1.29. They're unlikely to be a powerhouse, but they will be better.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I also think, it's BS. The mentioned civs may be weak, if the AI handles them. The AI generally can't handle the expansionist trait very well, so the Zulus and Iroquois are really often mediocre, but this concerns also the Russians, Americans and in a bigger amount the English with 2 horrible traits, at least pre-1.29.

But I have seen human players do awful things with the Zulus and Iroquois. Look at Aesons monster games from his Zulu period (that was roughly Jan..Feb). He's the master of the Horseman/Impi/Scout rush. Or his monstrous >60k scoring game at huge/pangea/deity, played as the Iroquois. I think, there are no good and bad civs, only good and bad players.

So this article is utter nonsense .

[Papa Chubby]

Besides, I doubt that the writer has really played the game to any extent. He talks about historically correct starting locations make the native American civilizations weak. Well, they only implemented that function in their newest patch, so unless its a very recent article, he´s full of baloney. Besides the English are almost always crap, and the Astecs are almost always murder.

[Lord_Davinator]

the english I say are the weakest civ.. especially if you sart with correct starting positions... I've played one game in which left on their own in north america they became a match for me... that was on king...

anyways I say the most bothersome buggers are the zulus... I kill em the first chance I get... cause they have defeated me more than once... personally I think the persians are the strongest civ due to the immortal advantage early in the game...

that guy certainly does not know jack **** about the game... I prefer isolated starting locations.... and each time I get one I know I will win.... thats why I play the english or japanese... so much more of a challenge

[notyoueither]

If you looked at all the computer tribes, and how often they won, I believe from my experience playing the game that the Aztecs and Iroquois would be near the bottom

If he's played so much, why is he mentioning other civs always winning?

If he's just running through the game and letting the other civs win to see how they fare, that would be a lot of games to click through to have any significance. Also a massive waste of time.