No Incas?!

bigvic · May 24, 2002, 16:36

Am I to understand that there will be no Incas? What a blank spot on the world map! Wish they would say something conclusive.

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 16:46

We'll find out soon. Hopefully.

I still find it hard to believe they included the Ottomans (Turks, really) and Arabs. True, they may not be the same, but there's a lot of real estate empty on the other side of the ocean...

Cyclotron · May 24, 2002, 17:08

Of course there are Incas... but they're not in PTW. Actually, the Incas reserve a respectable position as one of the barbarian tribes in Civ3 original.

Darkworld Ark · May 24, 2002, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Of course there are Incas... but they're not in PTW. Actually, the Incas reserve a respectable position as one of the barbarian tribes in Civ3 original.

It seems like Firaxis took all the Civs it couldn't fit into the game & turned them into barbarian tribes.

monkspider · May 24, 2002, 17:15

Incas will be in, more than likely.
As I have shown in my "why korea may not be included in the xp" thread, there is good evidence as to why Korea may not be in the XP, with little strong evidence that they will be.
There is one very strong piece of evidence for the Inca that we can't deny: If the Inca or Maya aren't included there wouldn't be a SINGLE american civ in the XP, and I just don't see that happening.

monkspider · May 24, 2002, 17:17

Darn Double post!

bigvic · May 24, 2002, 17:17

D@mnit that blows!

Hell, the Incas were, in my opinion (and I've studied this way too much), bigger and more civilized than the Aztecs.. Don't get me wrong, I do like having Arabs and Ottomans, but only 3 American style civs?

NOT RIGHT

Anyway, if the game supports up to 31 civs, why only 8 anyway? Why not 15? Oh yeah, 7 more in PTW II, coming to a store near you next year for just 30$. Ah, capitalism....

monkspider · May 24, 2002, 17:20

Don't worry Bigvic, I would give the Inca a 90% chance of being in the game.

bigvic · May 24, 2002, 17:35

It really does seem to make sense. I hate lack of balance. I can't wait til we can play on a historical map w/ civs in proper places.

BTW, know I ain't supposed to do this, and speaking of possible lack of balance, but puleeeeze check out my mod on creation forum. Craving feedback, even if bad.

civman2000 · May 24, 2002, 18:52

I would bet anything the Incas are in and the koreans are not. With the recent updates, there is very little support for any argument saying korea is in, and by far the best choice to use instead is the incas.

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 20:27

The problem with saying "the Incans are in, the Koreans are out" is that there is evidence that the Koreans might be included, but there isn't a shred for the Incans. We'll find out though.

monkspider · May 25, 2002, 01:11

There is a more than a shred Trippy, and I would say that it far outweights the evidence for the Koreans.
The simple fact that if the Incas aren't in, then there is not a single American civ in the XP. For purposes of balance amongst the culture groups, there *HAS* to be an American civ.

Jon Shafer · May 25, 2002, 01:30

Ahhhhh, why do so many people call me Trippy!

That's still not evidence though. On a smaller scale, we could have said that they wouldn't have included the Turks, because of their proximity to Greece, Babylon, etc. After all, there were 6 civs included in Europe in the original release, but only 2 from America. I think that the civilopedia image of the Hwacha is much more conclusive than speculation, simply because all the civilopedia screenshot images have been UUs for other civs. Like I said though, we'll find out soon enough...

monkspider · May 25, 2002, 02:05

Fair point, I suppose a case can be made for Korea. But as you said, we will see soon enough.

Switch · May 25, 2002, 02:35

I'm sure Firaxis isn't THAT blind. They NEED a SA civ, as well as another African civ to fill up that big continent.

BTW, monkspider, are you actually socialist?

(just out of curiosity, mind you. Feel free to not answer).

Imp. Montezuma · May 25, 2002, 08:02

Quote:

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
I'm sure Firaxis isn't THAT blind. They NEED a SA civ, as well as another African civ to fill up that big continent.

BTW, monkspider, are you actually socialist?

(just out of curiosity, mind you. Feel free to not answer).

What means SA?

BTW May be MonkSpider are christian-cocialist?

Imp. Montezuma · May 25, 2002, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Of course there are Incas... but they're not in PTW. Actually, the Incas reserve a respectable position as one of the barbarian tribes in Civ3 original.

Why You call Incas as Barbarian??? When was Golden Age of Incas and other civs, Europeans was just Barbarians.

Lucilla · May 25, 2002, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma

What means SA?

I guess that's South America.

siredgar · May 25, 2002, 12:04

I agree with Imp. Montezuma. Although I think the Incans are overrated as a civilization, they should NOT be considered barbarians because they absolutely weren't.

Wernazuma III · May 25, 2002, 12:39

OK, I know that some people have a tendency towards "modern" or "advanced" civs, which includes a strong inclination towards European/Middle-East civs. But why the hell then are the Gauls (or even the Vikings) included? I don't want to debate whether I underestimate those civs or not but the fact remains that: a) Incans surely equal/surpass those two in certain aspects (especially Architecture) and b) would fill a place on the map which is still unoccupied.
Why the hell does Firaxis want to have two French civs? I simply don't get it.

Txurce · May 25, 2002, 13:01

The inclusion of the Gauls in a game that already includes France blows my mind. The Incas filled a space. The Poles are a major, long-lasting civilization. The Huns would have been fun. The Basques would have been truly inspired. But the Gauls?

monkspider · May 25, 2002, 13:05

Yep. I am a christian socialist actually

Switch · May 25, 2002, 13:25

Back on topic: Yes, SA does mean South America.

Anyway, they shouldn't just add in civs based on how big they were. They should also use well known civs. ie, everyone has heard of the Incans and Mayans, but how many people have heard of the Gauls? or the Carthaginians? or the Ottomans? I hadn't until playing AOE. Now, I'm not saying to disclude those Civs entirely, but just that they should look at more known civs first.

And if they do include the Ottomans, would it not be wiser to use a more well known name, such as the Turks?

Thank you for your time.

Lucilla · May 25, 2002, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
Anyway, they shouldn't just add in civs based on how big they were. They should also use well known civs. ie, everyone has heard of the Incans and Mayans, but how many people have heard of the Gauls? or the Carthaginians? or the Ottomans? I hadn't until playing AOE. Now, I'm not saying to disclude those Civs entirely, but just that they should look at more known civs first.

And if they do include the Ottomans, would it not be wiser to use a more well known name, such as the Turks?

Well, I heard about the Gauls, Carthagians and Ottomans before, but that might be because in Europe the occidental history plays a bigger role in history lessons in school than they might do in the New World (might be a prejudice, correct me if I'm wrong).
I must also admit that the Gauls for me were always the French part of the Celts and the Turks are descendants of the Ottomans (again, correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore I'd prefer a Celtic civ to a Gaelic civ and the Ottomans to the Turks.
But that's all personal opinion and taste. After all, it's just a game and it's not supposed to mimic history in every detail.

siredgar · May 25, 2002, 14:11

I am also shocked that there is the possibility of including the Gauls and not the Incans or another civilization entirely.

This game is more Euro-centric than I thought. And when I say Eurocentric I am including the Middle East which has always been a part of European history.

Lucilla · May 25, 2002, 14:44

I didn't say that I wouldn't want the Incans. I just would prefer the Celts to the Gauls, etc.

It's true that the game has heaps of European civs but only very few American, Asian and African civs. My view is of course a European view and I just happen to know more about European history, philosophy and culture than I do about the history of the New World or Asia, e.g.

I guess the game is Eurocentric as you call it, because Europe always had and still has a big impact on the Worlds history and philosophy. But that doesn't mean that I'd feel personaly offended if there were the Incans instead of the Celts included.

I think there shouldn't be a limit on civs and every player should just be able to create or download exta civs whenever they feel like it. If there's a limit of 24 (or 32) civs for the game, the player could decide himself, which one to replace by another one.

siredgar · May 25, 2002, 14:50

I agree that the world has been dominated by Europe in the past 500 years, but I still think that the game should not be so heavily skewed that way since we are dealing with 6,000 years of history, not just the past 500.

Lucilla · May 25, 2002, 15:01

Well, the Greeks and Romans (just to name two civs) are older than 500 years...

Currently the US are dominating the world (whether people like it or not), and to be honest, I quite like it that an American game pays tribute to Europe for a change

siredgar · May 26, 2002, 13:02

My point was that because Europeans (and European settlers, i.e. Americans, Canadians, etc) have dominated world affairs for the past 500 years, a Eurocentric world perspective is reflected on history and who and what was important in that history.

Since I consider the Middle East part of the Occidental world, the game is heavily skewed towards the West:

English, French, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Russians, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Americans, Spanish, Vikings, Carthaginians, Turks, Arabs, and Gauls (16 civs)

That leaves only Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and Koreans in the East (4 civs) and Zulu, Aztecs, and Iroquois as the others (3 civs). It appears that if they add the Gauls, there is only room for one more civ.

It's quite surprising (and yet not so suprising) that they added five more Occidental civs and only one Eastern civ so far. I am hoping that the Gauls are not added in and they include the Incans and an African or Asian civ in.

moomin · May 26, 2002, 13:11

But if they do, people with jump on them clamouring they're racist, 'cause the leaders are ugly.

I'd throw out all non-Euro Civs if I were Firaxis. Let's see the PC crowd compaining 'bout how the fact that Bismarck is one ugly schmack means Firaxis are closet fascists.