Which civilizations can be included without disturbing the excisting ones?

King Richard · April 12, 2001, 21:43

There is a lot of talk about how many civilizations there should be in civ3. Now, the problem with having a huge number of civs, is that many of them followes in time, and therefore has the same cities in their realm. I beleive that the civilization games have included almost as many as possible. But there are still some that can be used. Any suggestions?

King Richard · April 12, 2001, 21:50

By the way: What is Sid Meyer's Alien Crossfire?

SerapisIV · April 12, 2001, 22:08

quote:

Originally posted by King Richard on 04-12-2001 09:50 PM
By the way: What is Sid Meyer's Alien Crossfire?

Alpha Centauri [SMAC] expansion pack.

The Incan Civilization can be included. All the New World civs are N. American.
Also, the Mali civilization in Sub-Saharan Africa

King Richard · April 12, 2001, 22:19

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-12-2001 10:08 PM
Alpha Centauri [SMAC] expansion pack.

The Incan Civilization can be included. All the New World civs are N. American.
Also, the Mali civilization in Sub-Saharan Africa

I quite agree. Also I would include the Maya, the dutch, the portugese, Angkor and perhaps some of the Oceania civilizations.

SerapisIV · April 12, 2001, 22:45

quote:

Originally posted by King Richard on 04-12-2001 10:19 PM
I quite agree. Also I would include the Maya, the dutch, the portugese, Angkor and perhaps some of the Oceania civilizations.

What civs are in Oceania? The Tonga and Fiji aren't exactly Rome

King Richard · April 12, 2001, 22:52

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-12-2001 10:45 PM
What civs are in Oceania? The Tonga and Fiji aren't exactly Rome

The srivijaya and the majapahit... Ok, so they aren't the most famous civs in the world, but they were quite significant in the ocean-going trade in the region.

MrFun · April 13, 2001, 00:05

Actually, historians and anthropologists have been debating on whether or not it really holds true that agriculture ALWAYS preceded civilization. There are some cases where civilization appeared to have risen before agriculture (pre-contact Americas).

SerapisIV · April 13, 2001, 11:19

I don't think the debate was about agriculture, just what extra civs could be inserted. In the Americas, its kind of obvious that the Incans and Toltecs were significant civilizations, look at their ruins (ignoring debates as to who actually built Manchu Piccu). About civilization rising before agriculture, those primative civs aren't ones I want to see in civ. I want some big building or conquering nations. About Oceania, what kind of great leaders would you have?

A question about minor civs, are they just there as small AI opponents to justify barbarians? Or are you able to negotiate with them as you can with the major civs with the diplomacy system?

King Richard · April 13, 2001, 18:21

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-13-2001 11:19 AM
I don't think the debate was about agriculture, just what extra civs could be inserted. In the Americas, its kind of obvious that the Incans and Toltecs were significant civilizations, look at their ruins (ignoring debates as to who actually built Manchu Piccu). About civilization rising before agriculture, those primative civs aren't ones I want to see in civ. I want some big building or conquering nations. About Oceania, what kind of great leaders would you have?

A question about minor civs, are they just there as small AI opponents to justify barbarians? Or are you able to negotiate with them as you can with the major civs with the diplomacy system?

About the Toltecs: This was a significant civilization, but they were the predecessors to the Aztecs. This means that they have some of the same cities, then you cant have both! By the way: The inhabitants of the Aztec empire is called Mexicas (if anybody cares to know...) About Oceania: The reason I suggested these (minor) tribes is that if we are going to have a bunch of additional civs, we need civs that doesn't occupy the same areas at different times, because of the city problem. Considering the civs in civ2, there isn't really that many to choose from.

SerapisIV · April 13, 2001, 22:10

I don't see much trouble in having a couple cities named the same thing, to me its the leader and their playstyle/aggressiveness that make the civ, not what they call their towns. Besides even having a New York built when York was never even a possibility doesn't mean that I don't want my Big Apple.

doctahsmooth · April 13, 2001, 22:19

The Khmer (Angkor) is a good suggestion, as is the Mali. Also, they could break up Native Americains into different Civs, i.e. Inuit, Dakota, etc. (although finding cities would be a giant pain)