Iroquois aren't important enough to be in Civ3

[Pius Popprasch]

Neve more than 1 million people, without cities and having researched some ancient techs at best are the Iroquois deserving to be in the game?

[Tingkai]

Here we go again. I think we've had this thread a dozen times before.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Here we go again. I think we've had this thread a dozen times before.

Show me the other poll! I actually replaced the Lincoln-Americans with the Iroquois. So it is different.

[Ribannah]

How many million people lived in Greece at the time of their rule?

The size of Iroquois towns (up to 4,000 people) was the same as standard European towns at the time. And note that back then even London was entirely made of wood, a fact that did not escape the population when the fire broke out ...

How many non-ancient techs did Babylon research?

The Iroquois discovered constititional Democracy and had advanced agriculture (the Three Sisters system) and war tactics, all before the start of their Golden Age. For a long time they had more skilled Musketmen than any other power in North America.

[Ribannah]

By the way, your 'poll' is flawed, since the option 'Yes, because they were the main civilization in the region' or some such is missing.

[dunk]

I think there are too many European civs in the game.

Romans
Greeks
English
French
Germans
Russians

It could be Romans or Greeks. I would prefer Greeks.

English, French, and Germans... Just one please. They're all Germanic tribes anyway.

The Iriquois should definately be in there.

Where are the Inca? Where are the Turks? How about Polyponesians? Why not the Amazons or something, so South America can have a couple? I would prefer a more diverse selection. Just my opinion.

[Herr David]

*g*

They're thrown together from 6000 years of human history, recorded only by the victors and viewed from a European perspective. Whaddaya expect? It's a game not my doctoral thesis... And it's fun

[civman2000]

None of the Above. Yes because they were a long-lasting nation, one of the most civilized native american tribes, and 60% of the basis for the US government

[muppet]

This is a strange poll. Heavily biased.

The two 'YES' votes are at least a little insulting. A real 'yes' vote doesn't exist.

The two 'NO' votes simply can not be true. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Neither 'NO' option is valid.

Was this poll designed in jest? You could at least throw in a smiley or two so that newbie Native American Apolyton visitors don't get offended.

[MqsTout]

I happen to be from the area that was the heart of the Iroquois nation, and have learned through my years many various pieces of their history, culture and achievements. I live actually only 2 hours from Salamanca (which, sadly, has gone the way of most 'reservations' - tax-free fuel and cigarettes) and am disappointed that there is so little mention of the Iroquois in history texts. They were major players in early America (the two wars, "French and Indian" and the American Revolution) and, as it has been mentioned above, were a strong basis for the American government.

(A common Americanism, "to be on the warpath" comes from Iroquois customs, too!)

[civman2000]

Originally posted by muppet
The two 'YES' votes are at least a little insulting. A real 'yes' vote doesn't exist.

The two 'NO' votes simply can not be true. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Neither 'NO' option is valid.

Definitely true...not only were they large, civilized farmers, but also a role model for european settlers and especially the american rebels (not meaning to have a negative connotation...)... in the boston tea party the people did not dress up as indians and particularly iroquois as a disguise, but because they were a symbol of liberty!

[Dauphin]

They deserve to be called a civilization, but there are more important civilizations that should be in the game.

[civman2000]

hmmm...maybe, like spain or turkey or something, but another american civ is needed, and the only choices would be iroquois, sioux, and incas...and then remember that firaxis wanted to have canada, the us, and mexico in the game...

The best solution to all of this would definitely have been to have more civs overall...

[Beren]

Agreed.
But that doesn't solve the problem. Even if you'd put about 200 civs in the game, the Birmese start complaining they're not in the game and think they're more important than something like Sioux, Cheyenne or other Indian tribe.

It would of course be cool to start on a huge map with say 30 civs and that gradually new ones appear. Maybe on a tiny map would be even cooler.

[Dauphin]

Thats where CtP came into its own, you could choose which civs you wanted to in any given game. (Replacement) Slots were then provided for additional civs.

[civman2000]

CtP is clearly a bit too far in that direction. But having, say 21 civs like civ2, or maybe 32 or something would be nice...after all, there are only 5-10 civs I've seen complaints about not being there...

[Beren]

Yes, but the problem is that when you put those civs in it, then the same complaints will occur about different civs.
Suppose you add these civs:
Spain, Turkey, Arabia, Phoenicia, Carthage, Mayas, Holland, Vikings, Celts
Then, for instance, the Swedish will complain that they were once a major country too. (Which by the way is true.) And if you add them, another country will 'revolt.'

[Dauphin]

I would think a good idea would be that civs are continually added to a database, and then you select from the database the civs you want in your games.

The database would have no pre-determined number limit, and would only, not have, civs that gamers have not yet created. If people created all the civs you mention, and then some, you keep all happy.

The complaints would be over which ones were created for starters, but avid mods would be able to create for the shortfall.

[civman2000]

great idea

[Jethro83]

:Hmmm:.... the endless flame war continues.



Whether or not the Iroquois are too unimportant to be in Civ 3 really doesn't matter. The fact is that Firaxis needed someone who could represent the greatest Native American power in North America. Not that history really matters in such decisions, but obviously the Iroquois are such people.

Getting so tired of seeing all of this "This civ shouldn't be in it because they're not important enough/too young, etc." and "That civ is too important to be excluded/better than this/that civ, etc.". I'm sure that there are legions of people who agree with such sentiment.

If you don't like the civs you can choose from, its a simple matter of using Civ3Edit to change them, or using Gramphos' Civ3Multitool to add them if you're like me and think that no included civ really deserves to be replaced/chopped out.

Please resist the urge to be continuing these flame wars, as there is no need for them. I know that the perfect solution to my problem with such flamings is IGNORE THEM, but with every second thread having at least one shot in the many flame wars, they are far too in-your-face to be able to ignore. I've tried, but I find it impossible to avoid.

The only way this problem can be stopped is if people stop contributing to it. Kick the habit and leave the flame wars to the sad individuals who start them. Don't let them extend to every thread in the forum. There are people who are trying to speak out their mind in intelligent, informative and sometimes humourous ways, and that is what Apolyon should encourage.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I know that the perfect solution to my problem with such flamings is IGNORE THEM, but with every second thread having at least one shot in the many flame wars, they are far too in-your-face to be able to ignore. I've tried, but I find it impossible to avoid.

I find nothing wrong with threads discussing whether or not a certain civ was a good choice for the top 16 or whatever as such. It is often a good opportunity for people to learn about civilizations they knew little about - and even for those of us who know a lot, as there are always surprises and new insights to consider.

There are only a few posters who spoil it for the rest of us by taking every disagreement as a personal insult (or do even worse, with pre-emptive strikes).
The rest of us may be ignorant, stupid, uninformed etcetera in their eyes, but we are here because we are interested, and we try to inform each other and try to do so in a friendly and respectful way.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Ribannah




I find nothing wrong with threads discussing whether or not a certain civ was a good choice for the top 16 or whatever as such. It is often a good opportunity for people to learn about civilizations they knew little about - and even for those of us who know a lot, as there are always surprises and new insights to consider.

There are only a few posters who spoil it for the rest of us by taking every disagreement as a personal insult (or do even worse, with pre-emptive strikes).
The rest of us may be ignorant, stupid, uninformed etcetera in their eyes, but we are here because we are interested, and we try to inform each other and try to do so in a friendly and respectful way.

Yeah. I guess you're right. The unintelligible, ignorant types with mere nano-second attention spans really do ruin what could be a constructive learning experience for people who are interested in learning something. I guess a stronger effort needs to be made to ignore these ignorant types. If they don't get any reply, then they will probably get bored and leave. They are only doing it to get everyone's attention, and so aren't unlike bullies. And like bullies, they'll get bored of us when we don't give them the response they want from us.

[dunk]

I like reading these discussions to a point. It's interesting to see what people have to say about why this or that civ should be in the game.

But, I want em all. I don't see why there has to be a cap on the number of choices (currently 16). We should be able to add in as many as we'd like easily.

I think every civ is "good enough" to be in the game. It would be fun to be a different civ each time and never have the same game two times in a row.

[Dauphin]

I find these discussions interesting based on what they tell you about posters' (wider) views, not what they tell you about the subject. Basically I find peoples' thought processes on why *the Iroquois aren't important enough to be in Civ3* far more interesting and revealing than the subject matter.

*Topical example.

[Alanus]

The leaders of the Iroquois in the default game are definitively not Iroquois ! (Red Cloud, Sitting Bull)

[Whoha]

Ok Markos, close this one as well, or you are showing favoritism to the Americans and we absolutely can not have that

oh and its a game, what does importance have to do with anything, and how do you quantify being important enough? Having accomplished something, or surviving for a long time?

[Spiffor]

I think it's pretty subjective. I don't think there is any worthy criteria to tell if a Civ must be in or not... It's an affair of taste.
As far as I understand, the "America isn't old enough to be in Civ" thread went about one thing America barely has, while other Civs have plenty : history.
Even if the formal Civ was there for a little time (Incans lasted 2 centuries according to SirEdgar), their culture and their link to the territory is rooted very deeply. Germany, although unified in 1870, recognizes itself in the German groups which come back to ancient times. Although France is technically speaking 1000 years old (which is pretty young), its historical roots go back to the ancient times as well (the children are taught that the Gaul-Celts were the ancestors of the French).
Although the Iroquois federation didn't last long, their traditions last on more than a millenium, same for the Zulu. So, I think they're good for being considered old enough.

But the true formula behind Civ choices at Firaxis is : you take the Civs of your customers, you take present or past great powers, you take some ancient and quasi mythical Civs, and above all, you take FAMOUS Civs, so that the player won't be confused (hence, no Khmers / Nubians)

[KrazyHorse]

Haven't we already seen this?

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Haven't we already seen this?

Yes we have. Who the hell resurrected this topic anyway?

[Dauphin]

Alanus.