No Incas?!

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by siredgar
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.

I don't disagree...

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.

I didn't mean to be ignorant towards non-European civs, just wanted to provoke a little bit. Hope you don't feel personally offended

[KaiserIsak]

My opinion is that the incas are fairly over rated as a civ (just look at their age, punishing methods, and so on) but they still have two thing that count for them: 1) We need to fill up south america and 2) Their political system. Most people dont know about how this worked, but i will try to explain.
First, there were nothing like private property in the inca empire (offcourse you could own clothes and such, but no one owned the land). It was all owned by the empire. It was didided into three mayor pieces: One piece for the sun (all the religious rituals), one for the Inca (the emperor and his byrochratie, to national granaries so people could get food in bad times, and to the army) and the by far biggest piece which went to the peasents. Each year every family were given one new piece of land (so the bad lands were re-deployed every year) compared to the size of their families. Everybody worked togheter on all the land, but they only gained the food from that piece they had been given.
In hard times, the inca, as i said, gave out food from his granaries to the people.
I could say alot more about this, but i think this is so special that they deserve to be in. More then the gauls at least. And much more then the aztechs and the iroquese. I would remove the gauls and add the incas.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
...2) Their political system. Most people dont know about how this worked, but i will try to explain...

In terms of Civilization III just name it as Communism.

[KaiserIsak]

Not excacly. Similar systems have been seen other places where there are more shortage of labour then of good farming land.
Many historicans have actually thinked of the similarity, and called it a "socialistic utopi". But today the knowledge of their punishing methods and other things proves that they dont have the respect of humans that the socialistic idea. Death for ordinay peoples were often nothing for the over-class. And theres another point, the over-class. In socialism there are not supposed to be any over class (offcourse it was in the so-called socialistic east europe, but they really dont deserve to be called socialistic).
The system of the incas have later been called a very good combination of centralization and de-centralization (i will not explain why now), and, indifference from the rest of the world, the incas had labour shortage and therefore had better conditions.
Remember how limited the european peasents were in terms of owning their own land (in Prussia, about mid 17th century, everybody who could not prove that they were free peasents were made servants and their land were conifiscated, and this were very common in all of europe).

[Oerdin]

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.

I do hope the Incas are in but the truth is we don't NEED a civ any where just to fill out the reall world map. The truth is 99% plus of all games will occur on a random map so there really is no reason to arrange everything for that 1%.

[kring]

I have never played an Earth scenario, and may not.

While I have no preference, it would be nice to see more worldwide civ choices. Since PTW is supposed to allow mod choosing, I will download the civs from here and other places and put them in my game. I may also use some of these to have C3PTW Spain vs Apolyton Spain in a game to see which is better.

I would suspect that at some point in time Civ3 XP2 will come out with additional civs.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
Not excacly. Similar systems have been seen other places where there are. . . [skip]

[offtopic]Don't tell me about punishing methods of communism (socialism). Incas had great humanism compare to 'real socialism'. It's our history, it's my life, it's my former country. Don't make propaganda!!![/offtopic]

[KaiserIsak]

Montezuma--> 99% of the countries in the world claim that they are democratic. But does that mean that they are?
So was east europe socialistic only because they claimed it? I would bet saddam husein claims that he is democratic, out of this logic, we would have to call him that.
In my opinion there have never been a true socialistic country in the world. The first rule of socialism is democracy and humanity, and that were not included in either east europe, china, vietnam or champuchea.
You may compare the incas to the system of east europe, but not to socialism. I would only cathegorize east europe as semi-capitalistic despotisms.

[punkbass2000]

Any country that is not purely capitalism is socialistic to a degree. Socialism and capitalism are on the same scale, any weight added to one is taken from the other. Put all the weight on the socialism side, and you've got communism. This is over-simplfying it, of course, but I'm not about to go into a three page discourse about poli-socio-economic systems at 5 in the frickin morning when I should be writing my report that's due in 7 hours.

[KaiserIsak]

It is not that easy punkbass2000. There are other economic systems as well (feudalism for exampel)

[Spiffor]

I too regret the Gauls are in, while we dearly lack African Civs. I know almost nothing about African history, but I know some empires erupted and built huge cities. Also, most African cultures are sedentary, which qualifies them to be Civs in the Civilization point of view.
I also regret there are no Civs from south east Asia (Thai, Khmer, Javanese etc.). IIRC, the wars between these Civs and the other Asian Civs were pretty frequent. Weel, again, my Eurocentric history knowledge doesn't let me be more precise.

[ScreamingViking]

The Incas should be in because:
1. They are easily identified and recognized,
2. They do "fill a hole". Some of us like World Maps.
3. They were at the peak of their power for over a century, apparently a required time frame (eg. America, Carthage, Russia),
4. They had a unique government and culture (see KaiserIsak).

Using my points as criteria, Korea does not compare. Ideally I'd take Korea as well, but not instead of Inca.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
I would only cathegorize east europe as semi-capitalistic despotisms.

That would be ignorant. Despotism, yes, but it is hard to classify something as capitalistic when both the accumulation of capital and the ownership of land is out-lawed.

[KaiserIsak]

It really does not matter what you call east europe. But they were not socialistic in the way marx wrote about it. Thats enough for me.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
Montezuma--> 99% of the countries in the world claim that they are socialistic. But does that mean that they are?
So was east europe socialistic only because they claimed it? I would bet saddam husein claims that he is democratic, out of this logic, we would have to call him that.
In my opinion there have never been a true socialistic country in the world. The first rule of socialism is democracy and humanity, and that were not included in either east europe, china, vietnam or champuchea.
You may compare the incas to the system of east europe, but not to socialism. I would only cathegorize east europe as semi-capitalistic despotisms.

Is West capitalistic only because they claimed it? That's true socialistic? By Your logic all World is unrealistic because for World not enaugh space in Your classification. If You have Dalton syndrom (nothing personally), and majority names something RED but You (and only You with few persons with same syndrom) seen it as GREEN, it's only Your mistake!

Former USSR and East Europe and China and North Korea and Cuba was (and is) socialistic with communist party rule.
I live in one of them. It's reality. Your theories open door of Hell.

DON'T PROPAGANDA, GUY!!!

[KaiserIsak]

I just saw a mistake in my spelling from last post. It should be:
99% of the world claims that it is democratic (it probably does not change anything for you, but thats what it was supposed to be)


It does not matter what they call it.
Nowbody i know support the soviet union, or any other socialistic nation that have ever excisted. But i do know many that supports marx theories. And he did not told stalin to kill of his population, did he? He actually said that democracy was about the most important thing. Its not his (OR HIS THEORY) fault that his name have been used to slaughter populations.
How can you say that a country who used about 90% of its money on the military was a peoples nation? Because that is what a socialistic nation is suppsed to be.
I dont say that socialism works, i say that as long as no countries is doing what "socialism tells them to do", i will not call them socialistis nations. And that include democracy. No country in the world deserve to be called socialistic, it may never be anyone either, but there have not been yet.

I think all the former and current "socialistic" nations are screwed, but i look upon the world, read my history, and i find that the world have always, and still is screwed. You have to be blind to not see that the world and its system is killing itself. Now.
Socialism may not be the solution, but capitalism is the sure death.

[bigvic]

wow. socialism talk.

well, incas were definately commies, before commies were commies, so to speak...


anyway, kind of dissapointed w/ choices, or lack thereof, in govs in civ III.

So, any news? Incas, in or out?

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
I just saw a mistake in my spelling from last post. It should be:
99% of the world claims that it is democratic (it probably does not change anything for you, but thats what it was supposed to be)
...scip...

Socialism may not be the solution, but capitalism is the sure death.

Well, Kaiser, so

No country in the world deserve to be called socialistic
No country in the world deserve to be called monarch
No country in the world deserve to be called peoples
No country in the world deserve to be called democratic
No country in the world deserve to be called co-operative
No country in the world deserve to be called federative
No country in the world deserve to be called unitarian
No country in the world deserve to be called centralised
No country in the world deserve to be called communal
No country in the world deserve to be called western
No country in the world deserve to be called eastern
No country in the world deserve to be called northern
No country in the world deserve to be called southern
No country in the world deserve to be called polar

Definetely None and Nothing haven't names
Nothing sense

Nothing...
...

In beginning was Word...

All of rest ended with Word...

The End. Period.

[kring]

There is still no word about Incas/Incans being in or out.

[dunk]

Originally posted by bigvic
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....

My hope is the PTW editor will allow adding of civs. That leaves 7 civs that we can make ourselves.

[KaiserIsak]

Some countries call themselves democratic (like north korea), but they are not. I think we can all agree on that.
Some countries call themselves democratic, and they are at least more democratic (like norway). They may be called democratic. We probably can agree on that too.
Some countries call themselves socialistic (like cambodia) and slaughter their population, something that have nothing to do with socialism. If you know your theory, then you will agree.
By the defination of socialism, and the way socialists are lokking upon the defination, there have been NO socialistic nations.
Marx, or even Lenin NEVER told anyone to slaughter their populations or install despotic governements. They told them excacly the opposite. The countries still called it socialism, even if they did the opposite of what they were supposed to do. they could have called it anything, but they took a name that sounded good. And at the same time they made that names reputation terrible. While does who really wanted to do some socialism were accused for supporting the murders.
Its not a natural law that socialsm and killing is two thing of the same case. Its simply someone who have made killing in the name of the peoples.
Socialism is not what they had in eastu europe. Its something we still have not seen, and may never see.