Admiral8Q
Prince
supern00b said:
There should also be a Prince Edward Island "Spud" Civ, and a Newfie Civ by!
19 Civilizations, lets vote! PART 3!
- Thread starter Craterus22
- Start date
There should also be a Prince Edward Island "Spud" Civ, and a Newfie Civ by!
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
Quebed Quebec Quebec Quebec
and iroquois (because I would vote algonquines since they saved quebec)
and iroquois (because I would vote algonquines since they saved quebec)
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
Celts, because though theyre a European civ its unique and important enough to diserve its own place.
Ethiopia, we need more African civs, and this is a civ with reasonably rich history, also it was the only African country that resisted European colonization of Africa (not counting Liberia, but thats a special case).
Ethiopia, we need more African civs, and this is a civ with reasonably rich history, also it was the only African country that resisted European colonization of Africa (not counting Liberia, but thats a special case).
Mordack
Increase the Deceased
cmon Israel
requirement: they must be in a locked alliance with the US
requirement: they must be in a locked alliance with the US
greekguy
Missed the Boat
Voted Israel and Celts.
The Maya or the Aztecs? The Maya lasted longer, made greater contributions to science. The Aztecs conquered a large region with their warriors and the country of Mexico could be seen as a continuation of their civilization. Then again, the Aztecs succeeded the Olmecs before the Spanish succeeded the Aztecs. What happened to the Maya anyway? Disease, the Aztecs? I'm pretty sure the Spanish did not topple their civilization. In a perfect civ4 both should be represented.
It's too bad written Mesoamerican history is so sparse, then again future civilizations (including ours) improved themselves by reading such written histories. The more written history => the larger impact on subsequent civilizations => the more applicability to a modern game devoted to civilization's history.
It's too bad written Mesoamerican history is so sparse, then again future civilizations (including ours) improved themselves by reading such written histories. The more written history => the larger impact on subsequent civilizations => the more applicability to a modern game devoted to civilization's history.
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
Cm'on, everybody, vote quebec. QUEBEC QUEBEC QUEBEC.
Le Québec a plus de chance que l'ukraine. Ce combat doit être gagné!!!!!
Vive le Québec libre!!!! Vive le FLQ!!!!
Le Québec a plus de chance que l'ukraine. Ce combat doit être gagné!!!!!
Vive le Québec libre!!!! Vive le FLQ!!!!
Celts and Poland. Not trying to be Euro-Centric, btw.
Celts, because they had a far greater culture than most people had ever imagined, and their artwork and history survive to this day (predating most other civilizations).
Poland because, well, I always thought it would be nice to have Poland in the game. Being 25% myself, I'd like to play a couple games with Germany and smack the living bejeezus out of them, so in my world, Polish jokes would be replaced with German jokes..
Just my 2 cents.
Celts, because they had a far greater culture than most people had ever imagined, and their artwork and history survive to this day (predating most other civilizations).
Poland because, well, I always thought it would be nice to have Poland in the game. Being 25% myself, I'd like to play a couple games with Germany and smack the living bejeezus out of them, so in my world, Polish jokes would be replaced with German jokes..
Just my 2 cents.
El Bajong
Chieftain
Tibet and Mali. Would have voted for Ethiopia too if I had another vote, though I guess its a bit too close to Egypt, but that could be said about Tibet/Mongolia too.
Craterus22
King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 700
Thanks for all the votes so far (72 at the moment).... when I made the poll I made a mistake by setting the date too near...
LAST DAY TO VOTE!
LAST DAY TO VOTE!
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
I voted for Ethiopia and the Mongols
@mastertyguy - How can you justify Quebec? Canada is hardly a justifiable civ. And unlike Quebec, they have actually had a chance to influence the world.
@mastertyguy - How can you justify Quebec? Canada is hardly a justifiable civ. And unlike Quebec, they have actually had a chance to influence the world.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I voted Zulu and Iroquios. But really, I don't mind so much about the exact civs as long as there is a relatively even spread from around the world (ie, not 50% European civs!!! 
).
).Craterus22
King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 700
Thanks for all the votes... In previous polls, i tried to seperate out the civs that had a statistically significant lead... in this poll the winners were:
Mongols and Ottomans
but if a larger group were admitted it would include the above plus: Celts, Dutch, and Israel.
I voted for the Mongols (to provide conflict for Russia and China), and Zulus (to be another much needed African country).
The two glaring errors that was produced by this series of polls:
1) Lack of a South American civ.
2) Not enough African civs.
So the final tally would be:
Chinese, English, French, Germany, Greeks, Japan, Rome, Russia, Egyptians, Persians, Indians (from India), Aztecs, Americans, Babylonians, Arabs, Spanish, Vikings, Ottomans and Mongols.
European:
English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings
MiddleEast/South Asian:
Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs, India
Asian:
Japan, Chinese, Russia, Mongols
Africa:
Egyptian
North America:
America
Central America:
Aztecs
South America:
None
My Personal preference: Take out Arabs and replace with Inca. IF there were more than 19 civs allowed - I would still add Inca at the expense of arabs and then add dutch, portugal, carthage, zulus and ethiopian.
Mongols and Ottomans
but if a larger group were admitted it would include the above plus: Celts, Dutch, and Israel.
I voted for the Mongols (to provide conflict for Russia and China), and Zulus (to be another much needed African country).
The two glaring errors that was produced by this series of polls:
1) Lack of a South American civ.
2) Not enough African civs.
So the final tally would be:
Chinese, English, French, Germany, Greeks, Japan, Rome, Russia, Egyptians, Persians, Indians (from India), Aztecs, Americans, Babylonians, Arabs, Spanish, Vikings, Ottomans and Mongols.
European:
English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings
MiddleEast/South Asian:
Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs, India
Asian:
Japan, Chinese, Russia, Mongols
Africa:
Egyptian
North America:
America
Central America:
Aztecs
South America:
None
My Personal preference: Take out Arabs and replace with Inca. IF there were more than 19 civs allowed - I would still add Inca at the expense of arabs and then add dutch, portugal, carthage, zulus and ethiopian.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Craterus22, you point out the error wonderfully. I'm not sure what the solution is... but there needs to be AT LEAST two civs per continent.
Also, the way you organize the continents isn't quite right. South Asia is not a part of the Middle East, South Asia is a part of Asia. And I wouldn't isolate Central America. And I'd hardly call Russia Asian.
With that:
(1) North America: USA
(1) South America: Aztecs (for all intents and purposes)
(1) Africa: Egypt
(4) Near East: Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs
(4) Asia: Mongols, Japan, India, China
(8) European: English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings, Russia
To me, the "peripheral" Civs... Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, MAYBE the Arabs. The other ones you simply could not get away with removing from the game. These three (maybe four) are the only ones that could get swapped around.
But you'll probably find many Europeans willing to stick up for the Spanish and Vikings. And warmongers love the shortlived Mongols.
And I doubt you'll find many people passionately arguing to include the Inca, the Maya, the Sioux, the Iroquois, the Zulu, or the Abyssinians.
Also, the way you organize the continents isn't quite right. South Asia is not a part of the Middle East, South Asia is a part of Asia. And I wouldn't isolate Central America. And I'd hardly call Russia Asian.
With that:
(1) North America: USA
(1) South America: Aztecs (for all intents and purposes)
(1) Africa: Egypt
(4) Near East: Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs
(4) Asia: Mongols, Japan, India, China
(8) European: English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings, Russia
To me, the "peripheral" Civs... Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, MAYBE the Arabs. The other ones you simply could not get away with removing from the game. These three (maybe four) are the only ones that could get swapped around.
But you'll probably find many Europeans willing to stick up for the Spanish and Vikings. And warmongers love the shortlived Mongols.
And I doubt you'll find many people passionately arguing to include the Inca, the Maya, the Sioux, the Iroquois, the Zulu, or the Abyssinians.
Craterus22
King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 700
You say tomato - I say something that sounds slightly different...
I organized them right... I did not state South Asia was part of the Middle East. I grouped them together because they are neighbors that are most likely to be in conflict in the same regional ballpark on most world maps.
I would say that Russia isn't part of western europe... they share a major border with asian countries (and the eastern part of Russia is fairly asian) and in most world map games I play they have more conflicts with mongols koreans and china.
BTW - Aztecs were not in south america - I would consider them to be in the southern part of north america.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Regardless, I wouldn't organize the civilizations in a way to suggest that there are more people in one area than there really are. It seems like the categories you set up were to migrate Civs out of Europe, so it doesn't look like Europe has that many when it actually does, and migrate more civs to the "middle east south asia" category so as to justify cutting out one of them.
If you're going to reduce the number of Civs, it comes back to Europe. Vikings or Spanish would be first to go, in favor of Civs in other parts of the world that are ignored by our largely Western populous.
If you're going to reduce the number of Civs, it comes back to Europe. Vikings or Spanish would be first to go, in favor of Civs in other parts of the world that are ignored by our largely Western populous.
Komoda
Chieftain
personally I think as the game begins with the ancient age, that the game itself should begin with ancient civs.
americans are only within the last 300 years and thus are a modern civ and have really no place in a game that begins in ancient times.
carthaginians
etruscans
sumerians
hittites
mongols
xi
anasazi
olmec
celts
gauls
picts
rroma
ethiopians
nubians
zulus
ashante
those are names of only a few ancient civs.
if players want modern civs in the game, they should have the option to change the name of their civ as the game progresses.
just an idea
americans are only within the last 300 years and thus are a modern civ and have really no place in a game that begins in ancient times.
carthaginians
etruscans
sumerians
hittites
mongols
xi
anasazi
olmec
celts
gauls
picts
rroma
ethiopians
nubians
zulus
ashante
those are names of only a few ancient civs.
if players want modern civs in the game, they should have the option to change the name of their civ as the game progresses.
just an idea
Similar threads
