What do we know about the Iroquois?

[Gangerolf]

Have there been any words on what their leader, UU, capital, abilities etc will be?

My suggestion:

Unique unit: War Canoe
Abilities: Militaristic and Commercial

Don't know about the other things... Was Pocahontas Iroquois? Excuse my ignorance.

[civcop]

What the heck is a war canoe? A canoe with a .50 caliber machinegun mounted on the bow? Besides, a UU that is only good in water, and very early in the game to boot, would not be of great use. War canoes vs. triemes and caravelles?

Hiawatha has already been seen on screen shots and is the most logical choice as their leader. I would guess them to be militristic and either oriented toward commerce or expansion. They had what was known as the "Great Pursuit" wherein the Iroquois chased down members of tribes outside their nation as far as Illinois. Those they caught they essentially enslaved, or at least forced into their confederation. This displaced the Shawnee in Ohio. They were also known to practice cannibalism (ugh!). I'm guessing they will be the Civ 3 version of the Vikings or Mongols.

As for their UU, I'd guess some type of glorified warrior. The Mohawk were known as fierce fighters, so perhaps a Mohawk Warrior similar to the Jaguar Warrior of the Aztecs. A mounted warrior might apply too. I've no idea what they get in the modern age as a UU. A casino?

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by civcop
What the heck is a war canoe? A canoe with a .50 caliber machinegun mounted on the bow?

Hiawatha has already been seen on screen shots and is the most logical choice as their leader. I would guess them to be militristic and either oriented toward commerce or expansion. They had what was known as the "Great Pursuit" wherein the Iroquois chased down members of tribes outside their nation as far as Illinois. Those they caught they essentially enslaved, or at least forced into their confederation. This displaced the Shawnee in Ohio. They were also known to practice cannibalism (ugh!). I'm guessing they will be the Civ 3 version of the Vikings or Mongols.

As for their UU, I'd guess some type of glorified warrior. The Mohawk were known as fierce fighters, so perhaps a Mohawk Warrior similar to the Jaguar Warrior of the Aztecs. A mounted warrior might apply too. I've no idea what they get in the modern age as a UU. A casino?

lol at war canoe



probobly not mounted, as far east as they were

i think they'll have some kind of a brave, but more advanced than the JW

i believe threy are militaristic and expansionistic

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by civcop
As for their UU, I'd guess some type of glorified warrior. The Mohawk were known as fierce fighters, so perhaps a Mohawk Warrior similar to the Jaguar Warrior of the Aztecs. A mounted warrior might apply too. I've no idea what they get in the modern age as a UU. A casino?

Why would a mounted warrior apply? Iroquois weren't Plains Indians.

There is no "Modern Age UU"; each civ only gets 1 UU.

Hiawatha's the leader (100%). Go to the civ3 website to find out their abilities, you lazy bum.

It's on a chart along with all of the other civs.

[Adrien]

I hope they make 'em carabinières!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Don't know about the other things... Was Pocahontas Iroquois? Excuse my ignorance.

Pocahontas was Algonquian. The Algonquian nation was one of the main rivals of the Iroquois.

The Iroquois UU will probably be a little more advanced than a simple warrior, possibly a gun-fighter or musketeer of some kind.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I'd suggest a partisan-type UU. A primary factory separating them (militarily) from the euros in reality was their superior mobility in the forests and hills. Some type of warrior with "treats all terrain as road" would mimic this.

[Gangerolf]

What the heck is a war canoe?

I don't know. Think I saw it in a civ2 scenario. I thought that a brave/warrior UU would be too similar to the Impi and the Jaguar warrior.

Go to the civ3 website to find out their abilities, you lazy bum.

OK they're expansionist and religious. Not exactly what I guessed...

[civcop]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Pocahontas was Algonquian. The Algonquian nation was one of the main rivals of the Iroquois.

The Iroquois UU will probably be a little more advanced than a simple warrior, possibly a gun-fighter or musketeer of some kind.

My only complaint with having a gun fighter/musketeer as their UU is that they were only supplied with guns by the Dutch, who did so because it served their trading interests (they basically used the Iroquois as muscle to move others, namely the French, out of their way). The Iroquois were feared fighters prior to the introduction of muskets. If they'd come up with some original and influential tactic involving fighting with guns, it would make more sense to me to have that as their UU. If you want to be entirely historically accurate, the UU should be a female Iroquois, since they held all the power

Maybe they could build a wonder called "Feminism"

[JellyDonut]

One of the Iroquois cities is Salamanca, which could very probably be their capital.

Originally posted by civcop
If you want to be entirely historically accurate, the UU should be a female Iroquois, since they held all the power

Maybe they could build a wonder called "Feminism"

Good idea! With spies gone, there are no female units unless Firaxis found some female Great Leaders...

[jdd2007]

One of the Iroquois cities is Salamanca

i dont know where u got this from. salamanca is a city in spain...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by jdd2007

i dont know where u got this from. salamanca is a city in spain...

And you are living in the US?
We are talking about Salamanca, New York.

[jdd2007]

ahhhh... i see. i feel so stupid now...

[Mars]

I hope their UU isn't mounted because there were no horses on the americas until the european settlers brought them over.

[Boris Godunov]

...that they are probably the silliest Civilization to be included in Civ3. This is one of my biggest gripes about it so far.

How many primitive societies with ancient special units are we going to get? Hmm... 1) Babylon, 2) Persia, 3) Egypt, 4) Aztecs, 5) Greeks, 6) Rome, and now 7) Iroquois. That's almost HALF the civs with ancient special units.

Who on EARTH picked the Iroquois? WHY???? They didn't build CITIES. Isn't that one of the major parts of Civilization? Building cities?

I don't understand how they could put in the Iroquois (when there is already a native american culture, the Aztecs) and then completely ignore any Muslim empire. HELLO??? The Ottoman Empire, which lasted for over 1000 years and was the scourge of Europe? The Caliphate? Not only have these cultures had far more impact on the world than the Iroquois, they would produce a nifty medieval unit to the pack.

This is the most baffling aspect of Civ 3 I've come across. I would REALLY like to see an explanantion from one of our good Firaxian friends.

Cheers.

[Gangerolf]

I think the Iroquois were picked because:
- they're "exotic" and "different"
- North America needed more civs
- they're a better pick than the Sioux

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

They didn't build CITIES. Isn't that one of the major parts of Civilization? Building cities?

Cheers.

I think we'll see some odd Iroquois city names in Civ3...
I remember the Sioux in Civ2 had cities like Little Bighorn and Wounded Knee, which in real life were'nt cities but battle fields, if I'm not wrong.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
...that they are probably the silliest Civilization to be included in Civ3. This is one of my biggest gripes about it so far.

Apparently you haven't read much about them, and you missed all the info in the earlier Iroquois threads.

How many primitive societies with ancient special units are we going to get? Hmm... 1) Babylon, 2) Persia, 3) Egypt, 4) Aztecs, 5) Greeks, 6) Rome, and now 7) Iroquois. That's almost HALF the civs with ancient special units.

Why would the Iroquois get a primitive special unit??

Who on EARTH picked the Iroquois? WHY???? They didn't build CITIES. Isn't that one of the major parts of Civilization? Building cities?

With only 25,000 citizens max divided over 5-6 tribes, it was a bit hard to built a lot of cities . Nonetheless the Iroquois controlled a large empire (but mostly hunting grounds) for several centuries, and battled succesfully against the French and the British. If they hadn't made the mistake of siding with the British against the Americans, they could have grown enough to build plenty of large cities, and the Iroquois nation might have existed independently even today.

They are in the game because of their uniqueness (early democracy/confederacy and related social techs), geographic location (competitor to the Americans) and the fact that they were the only native tribe of significance that withstood imperialism, in fact they profited from it.

More obvious tribes to drop are IMHO the Zulus (for the Ethiopians) and the Persians (for the Arabs).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Apparently you haven't read much about them, and you missed all the info in the earlier Iroquois threads.



Why would the Iroquois get a primitive special unit??



With only 25,000 citizens max divided over 5-6 tribes, it was a bit hard to built a lot of cities . Nonetheless the Iroquois controlled a large empire (but mostly hunting grounds) for several centuries, and battled succesfully against the French and the British. If they hadn't made the mistake of siding with the British against the Americans, they could have grown enough to build plenty of large cities, and the Iroquois nation might have existed independently even today.

They are in the game because of their uniqueness (early democracy/confederacy and related social techs), geographic location (competitor to the Americans) and the fact that they were the only native tribe of significance that withstood imperialism, in fact they profited from it.

More obvious tribes to drop are IMHO the Zulus (for the Ethiopians) and the Persians (for the Arabs).

First, I am well acquainted with the Iroquois and other Native American tribes. My intention was not to disparage their culture (read, not civilization, as it wasn't one), but rather to say their inclusion was silly, not them!

While all you say is historically accurate (except the "only native tribe of significance that withstood imperialism" part, as they didn't. Where oh where are they now?), it doesn't wash in terms of the game. There are many more interesting and, yes, more important and influential civs that should have been included before the Iroquois, the prime example being the Ottoman Turks/Arabs. Persia was at least a civilization, had at one point the largest empire ever, and at least built some major cities.

The very fact that the Iroquis were so small (25,000) should tell you something right there.

And I don't really buy the "competing with Americans" explanation, as in any game played on a non-world map, this will be irrelevant. And if they're so concerned about each civ having competition, what about the Aztecs in South America or the Zulus in Africa?

Cheers.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Ribannah
With only 25,000 citizens max divided over 5-6 tribes, it was a bit hard to built a lot of cities . Nonetheless the Iroquois controlled a large empire (but mostly hunting grounds) for several centuries, and battled succesfully against the French and the British. If they hadn't made the mistake of siding with the British against the Americans, they could have grown enough to build plenty of large cities, and the Iroquois nation might have existed independently even today.

Fantastic achievements. They should be dropped in favour of the Incas IMO.

[orange]

I'd make the Iroqois Commercial Militrastic...they did a whole lot of trading with the Euros when they came...but they were always at war with someone, and as mentioned, fought against the Americans during the revolution.

[Inverse Icarus]

i concur on the incas over iroquois.

the Aztecs have all of south America to themselves now, and it's 6x larger.

[Roland Ehnström]

I agree that the Incas, Arabs, Ethiopians, Mongols, Vikings or a generic "Native American" civ would have been a better choice than the Iroquois. All the other 15 civs included make good sence to me.

Peace!
-- Roland

[Kc7mxo]

While I don't see anything wrong with putting a civlization in that didn't have cities, armies, wonders, exploration, or who are even remembered by anyone . . . . .

uh. wait a minute. i do see something wrong with this.

yeesh. i liked the sioux better, but i can't believe they put these guys in over the inca. or the spanish. or that west african nation whose name escapes me just now.

it was the one whose king went on a pilgrimage to mecca and spent so much gold in egypt that the value of gold was utterly debased for decades afterwards.

[KrazyHorse]

Hell no, I'd choose the Iroquois over the Sioux hands down (level of cultural "achievement" was higher for the Iroquois), but any additional Meso-American civ would have been better.

[Sarxis]

War Canoe... lol

No offense, but it does sound funny.

[Ribannah]

As has been said before, diversity (including geographical) is apparently important to Firaxis, and I agree.

Nothing is gained by having both the Aztecs and the Incas in the game, as they were basically part of the same civilization. I prefer the Mayas over both anyway, as they lasted much longer and made about all the discoveries in that region - then gave them to the Aztecs and Incas for free.
The problem with having the Incas or the Mayans in the game is, however, that they would have a difficult time because of the terrain as it is now. It was much more favourable before the climate changed.

Boris, the Iroquois are now in about the same territory as where they started, except that some other people live there, too. They lost their vast additional hunting grounds to the Americans, not to the imperial powers.

[Boris Godunov]

As has been said before, diversity (including geographical) is apparently important to Firaxis, and I agree.

And as I said, geographical diversity is meaningless in all games not played on the Earth map, which will be most.

Nothing is gained by having both the Aztecs and the Incas in the game, as they were basically part of the same civilization.

Say WHAT????

Completely untrue. The Aztec and Incan civilizations were vastly different. They only shared a somewhat similar genetic background. This is like saying the French, Germans and English are all basically the same. NOT!

Boris, the Iroquois are now in about the same territory as where they started, except that some other people live there, too. They lost their vast additional hunting grounds to the Americans, not to the imperial powers.

And America wasn't an Imperial power? We yanks did everything the European empires did. Just because we were more local doesn't make it different. I think the Iroquois around today would not agree that all they lost was their hunting grounds. They lost their land, their culture, their way of life. That's called be conquered. And it wouldn't have made one jot of difference who they sided with. America pushed aside all the Native Americans eventually. Treaties didn't mean much to us!

Again, I value the Iroquois culture and in no way disparage the Iroquois people. But to include them as a city-building, imperialistic civ is not only ludicrous, it's an insult to them. Such notions were foreign to their very culture.

The civs in the game should be ones of significant impact on history, which is something the Iroquois can't really be said to have. At least not over the Turks, the Mongols, the Spanish, the Poles, the Slavs, the Incas, the Mayans...etc., ad infinitum.

[Kc7mxo]

And America wasn't an Imperial power? We yanks did everything the European empires did. Just because we were more local doesn't make it different. I think the Iroquois around today would not agree that all they lost was their hunting grounds. They lost their land, their culture, their way of life. That's called be conquered. And it wouldn't have made one jot of difference who they sided with. America pushed aside all the Native Americans eventually. Treaties didn't mean much to us!

wat uz talkin bout? wez da nize gis ere. dez r unfownd akuzachuns!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


wat uz talkin bout? wez da nize gis ere. dez r unfownd akuzachuns!

Huked en foniks wercked fir me!



Oh, and that African civ you are referring to was Mali, wasn't it? Not sure, though.