Guns, Germs, and Steel. Off Topic? Newbie.

Be Quicker · October 5, 2001, 10:47

Hi,

I've been lurking(?) for two weeks here in anticipation of Civ III. The forums are great. I have now joined here, specifically because the count for the expansion pack is running wild, and also because I feel a growing itch to actively contribute in general.

What I would like to ask regarding all these disucssions on civilizations (which should be included, what is a cililization etc., what about the Iriquois, of which I BTW never heard before visiting civII.com from pgn), is if any of you have read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarret Diamond? I think it is very relevant for discussions on the early stages of the game and for understanding the eventual outcome and clash between for example Europe and The America's.

P.S. I know this is not at all relevant for Gameplay.

Fiera · October 5, 2001, 11:14

This book has been brought to discussion in these forums quite a few times. Furthermore, there is an alternate civ game being developed that got his name from the book. Go to the Alternate Civs forums, you'll see that "Guns, Germs and Steel" has its own forum.

Oerdin · October 14, 2001, 16:47

Guns, Germs, & Stell was a great book; a truly phenomanal read. However, I think this book gos a long way towards explaining why the Iroquis shouldn't be included in Civ3. Better to have the Inca then the Iroquis.

Ribannah · October 14, 2001, 17:16

Ehhm, guys? That's "Iroquois", not "Iriquois" or "Iroquis".
Take into account the fact that the Siberian hunters had a long way to travel before they found the fertile river valleys. But from then on (agriculture around 900 AD) things went decently fast IMHO.
Fortunately, the Iroquois are allowed to start with agri tech in 4000 BC just like the other tribes in Civ3

.
It's a great title for a game though.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

Be Quicker · October 15, 2001, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
Ehhm, guys? That's "Iroquois", not "Iriquois" or "Iroquis".
Take into account the fact that the Siberian hunters had a long way to travel before they found the fertile river valleys. But from then on (agriculture around 900 AD) things went decently fast IMHO.
Fortunately, the Iroquois are allowed to start with agri tech in 4000 BC just like the other tribes in Civ3

.
It's a great title for a game though.

Sorry about the spelling. At least we all know what we're talking about. It might make for a brilliant book, a great game title, but it also maybe makes a too complicated bases for discussions on which Civ should or shouldn't be included.

That said though, my interpretation of your Iroquois remark, is that they IYHO have been doing very well given the circumstances. But I find that a slippery slope in terms of arguing. Taking into acount the circumstances it might be possible to "prove" that the Egyptians actually were doing pretty lousy given their circumstances (never really had a big empire actually etc.), or conversely that the inhabititants of easter island outperformed every other civilization relative to their possibilities (i.e. such big statues on such a tiny group of islands with almost zero people). So I think that any relativistic measure of civilization is inherently faulty as well as counter-intuitive and therefore should not be used. We should rather stick with absolute measures and in those ... see other threads. Anyway thanks for responding. And I do hope that the Iroquois will be fun to play in Civ III.