Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[Miznia]

Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

For instance, if you think the Mongols and Dutch belong in the list of 16, then you have to pick at least two civs who should get kicked out to make room for it.

Don't think too hard.

Edit: In other words, how close is the present list of 16 to what it SHOULD be?

[dunk]

Why should I have to kick someone out?

Any more civs should only be added in, not replace current ones.

[Cyclotron]

Well, one consideration is that Firaxis will probably want to balance all the different cultural groups.

Besides that, the only civ I think needs to bite it is the Iriquois. I understand that Firaxis wants to be all-inclusive, but this can be done better with the Incas/Mayans/Olmecs, etc. The Souix and Iriquois are better suited as barbarian villages due to their impact on history.

[Miznia]

I'm talking hypothetically. I'm not encouraging Firaxis to kick out the Iroquois and include an animated Atahuallpa head in a patch, or anything like that...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Miznia
I'm not encouraging Firaxis to kick out the Iroquois and include an animated Atahuallpa head in a patch, or anything like that...

No, but I am.

[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.

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*

[Cyclotron]

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.

A post of mine from another forum, paraphrased:

The thing is, in terms of Civilization 3 the game, the Americans are more worthy of being in than say, the Romans.

Why? The Roman civ started (real life here) around the early ancient age, and expired by the late ancient age. Meanwhile, the Americans got their start in the late mideival age, and are still around in the modern age. That means that the Romans were around for less than one age, and the Americans were around for more than 2 ages.

Besides, there are many more units incongruous with the Romans than the Americans. There were no American warriors, bowmen, spear, sword, pike, horse, chariot, longbow... but the list of units the romans historically did not have is much longer.

[Jack_www]

Americans and British could be considered one civ. They are bascily one civ, all though the two countries are different now, in the colonial period there were much more simular to each other than they are now.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, one consideration is that Firaxis will probably want to balance all the different cultural groups.

Besides that, the only civ I think needs to bite it is the Iriquois. I understand that Firaxis wants to be all-inclusive, but this can be done better with the Incas/Mayans/Olmecs, etc. The Souix and Iriquois are better suited as barbarian villages due to their impact on history.

In what way have the Incas, Mayans or Olmecs had more impact on history than the Suoix or Iriquois?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Americans and British could be considered one civ. They are bascily one civ, all though the two countries are different now, in the colonial period there were much more simular to each other than they are now.

In no way could you call me British.

[bigvic]

Within the scope of the game, the Americans are just a part of it. Unfortunately, civ 3 did not come up with some kind of civil war mechanic to simulate the birth of America, nor many other civs. Unless and until some such mechanic is developed, we just have to deal w/ thse issues. A real scenario editor that allowed placement of civs, victory conditions, etc., would be nice.

[SpencerH]

Zulus and Germans would be gone if I controlled the switch. I also wonder about India. Norsemen and Spanish or Ottoman would be in.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Based on the arguement that the Americans dont belong, then neither do any of the modern nations. The start of the game should consist of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persians, Assyrians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Celts, and a few others not currently included (sorry my ancient history is kinda rusty). All the other nations would be spawned off after revolutions. Or just start with one civ, and you try to break some cities off to form new civs. Interesting concept but half the fun of Civ games are playing the civ of choice.


BTW, havent these type polls about who deserves to be a civ been played to death over and over and over and over and over?!?!?!?!

[dunk]

I agree with ALPHA.

This thread has turned into the stupid "Americans aren't old enough to be in Civ" thread. No one should be removed from the game, only added.

The game could alternately start as a single group of apes in Africa to satisfy the "Only the Original Civilizations Belong in the Game" crowd. The first tech you would discover is "Evolution to Humanity". Until then, you can only run around swinging from trees and eating bananas. Then, you could discover "Nomadicism". Now, you're units can actually move. Then, you can discover "Farming". Now, you can build irigation. Then, you can discover "Settlement Building". Now, you can start Civ as we know it as soon as a revolution happens so we get two civs.

If Civ III were fully editable in this aspect, oh wait, it already is, you could put in whatever civs you like in place of the (this is my opinion of how some people on this board view the Americans or Iriquois) abominations.

Splitting new civs off of old ones as the only way of getting the Americans is simply, well, not Civ.

[Grrr]

The English, even though historically they were really powerful, CivIII has made them a joke.

But I do agree on the American issue.

[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.