Dark Russell
Octagonecologyst
I vote for the ability to add as many civs as you want so we don't need to have this discussion again!!! 
Civ in and Civ out
- Thread starter imagod284
- Start date
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
America out, Soiux, Iroquis(SP?) or, even Apatche for a change. This is just for the first game. America can be in the expansion packs for all I care, as I would like them to be in somewhare!
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Inca, Aztecs out. All of you people arguing about how Mali is "unimportant" - BS. THESE two are unimportants in terms of their overall impact on history, FAR more so than Mali.
Babylon, Phoenicia/Carthage in.
Though if I were to make a Real World game, I'd add "America out, Ethiopia in" to the list. America deserves being in on historical importance, but on a real world map, I'd really rather leave the American continent free for later colonization (and this is what I do in C3C nowaday, with the Inca/Maya/Aztecs/Iroquois/American being transformed into Old World tribes.
Babylon, Phoenicia/Carthage in.
Though if I were to make a Real World game, I'd add "America out, Ethiopia in" to the list. America deserves being in on historical importance, but on a real world map, I'd really rather leave the American continent free for later colonization (and this is what I do in C3C nowaday, with the Inca/Maya/Aztecs/Iroquois/American being transformed into Old World tribes.
DBear
unbeliever
In reference to what I've posted on earlier threads--Mongols out, Babylon in.
'Horde' civs like the Mongols, Celts, Vikings, Goths, Huns, Zulus, etc. could be featured in an expansion.
'Horde' civs like the Mongols, Celts, Vikings, Goths, Huns, Zulus, etc. could be featured in an expansion.
PriestOfDiscord
(Not MobBoss)
It can't be said enough: Aztecs out, Maya in.
Crazy Eskimo
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 367
DBear said:
I really like this idea. It gives the future expansion a nice thematic concept.
Civ 4X: Hordes
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
Just to comment about those who say america is out: It is totally impossible. I know it is not the best civ of all times, I know it shouldn't replace Babs or anything else, but america will always be in every single civ game that you will buy. For commercial reasons, at least. I won't explain it all, I have said it about 100 times, so refer to other civ threads.
On topic: Rome out, Quebec in
About "hordes": I would love this idea.
On topic: Rome out, Quebec in
About "hordes": I would love this idea.
)
greekguy
Missed the Boat
Mali out, Ethiopia in
Aztecs out, Maya in
Mongols out, Babylon in
The hordes expansion idea is great and allows a lot of great civs i.e. Celts, Vikings, and Mongols to be including. I think Ethiopia is more important than Mali. Everyone else has said Aztecs out for Maya, so i guess it makes sense.
Babylon in should be automatic. too bad their not in. :shakehead
Aztecs out, Maya in
Mongols out, Babylon in
The hordes expansion idea is great and allows a lot of great civs i.e. Celts, Vikings, and Mongols to be including. I think Ethiopia is more important than Mali. Everyone else has said Aztecs out for Maya, so i guess it makes sense.
Babylon in should be automatic. too bad their not in. :shakehead
ThERat
Deity
Since we live in those 'oh so politically correct' times, you can just forget about Israel versus Arab scenario. Though it would be an interesting one, since they now have religion as a tool. It would make for a nice scenario involving those 3 religions fighting each other.
As for Civ's America is not a civilisation, it should be out. (but it will never, since the big $$$ are made in the US). The USA could be in at a later stage. People should admit it, but to play 'America' in Civ3 is a real antclimax. Either they beef up this Civ or keep it for an expansion.
So, I'd say America out, Red Indians in.
As for Civ's America is not a civilisation, it should be out. (but it will never, since the big $$$ are made in the US). The USA could be in at a later stage. People should admit it, but to play 'America' in Civ3 is a real antclimax. Either they beef up this Civ or keep it for an expansion.
So, I'd say America out, Red Indians in.
RichardMNixon
Czar
Only one Mesoamerican civ, general consensus seems to be Maya, so take out the Inca and Aztec, add Maya and Babylon.
Spain out, Norse in.
Spain out, Norse in.
I also think that usa (america) should have been in the first expansion pack, like the ottomans, and even spain could be there as well. But if america wasnt in the first game that could affect its sales in the us, and i guess that was the logic of the decision to have it in. We all know that there will be expansion packs, so if it wasnt for that they would easily have postponed including the u.s. till then.
On the other hand it would have sucked not to have greece in the first game, besides the first game should always try to keep the greatest civs of ancient times as well as the most influencial civs. So it would really have been a very bad decision if they hadnt included it
btw: who is hypnotoad? he looks like migraine boy transformed into a toad.
And no girl would kiss hypnotoad only to see him morph back to... migraine boy! migraine boy! (quitar chord)
On the other hand it would have sucked not to have greece in the first game, besides the first game should always try to keep the greatest civs of ancient times as well as the most influencial civs. So it would really have been a very bad decision if they hadnt included it
btw: who is hypnotoad? he looks like migraine boy transformed into a toad.
And no girl would kiss hypnotoad only to see him morph back to... migraine boy! migraine boy! (quitar chord)
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
Mali out- incan out
Vikings in
Assyria In
Vikings in
Assyria In
Invisible Rhino
Prince
America and Germany out. Maya and Babylon in.
tcjsavannah
Wow, it's been a while...
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Why Mali out? It was only the second-largest empire in all of history. Not to mention one of the richest. Not to mention that King Mansa Musa bankrolled the Renaissance, even if by accident. Not to mention that Timbuktu was a great center of learning. Not to mention that whether or not it actually happened, Mali had the resources to get to America two centuries before Columbus (though three after the Norse). So why? Oh, yeah, your Eurocentric (or Asia-centric) history class doesn't/didn't so much as mention them, except in passing. And they're Muslims, and they're black. AAAHHH. Of course, the last bit isn't necessarily true or fair, but nonetheless, Mali is perhaps one of the most important countries in history that gets completely overlooked.
I think that they arent that bad (Mali that is), but a civ should be in if it was very influential. I think that Mali at any rate is a better choice than the mongols, who would be great as one of the civs in the first expansion pack of civ4 but not really needed in the original civ4.
I confess that i dont know anything about Mali apart from the gold trade, but it sounds like they didnt manage to promote sciences or technogoly despite of their riches. Also another argument against them is that they arent that ancient (ok i know that usa is in, but that is due to their later develpopment, not to mention that it would hurt sales if it was out). Really can you think of a reason to have Mali in and not Korea?
Also Austria was very important for a couple of centuries, but didnt even make it in one civ3 pack. Ok, the fact that Germany is in would make Austria too much to be in the original pack, but not having it as a civ in civ3conquests for example wasnt utterly fair either
But the pro is that Mali is a civ we hadnt seen before in Civ, and not an insignificant one. I am more against the mongols, and think that they should be replaced with Babylonians, but perhaps then we would have too few warlike civs in the original pack, and since the Babylonians will be in a latter pack i dont really view that decision as trully catastrophic either.
ps: there is no way that Mali was the second largest empire in history, you are wrong there
It wasnt even the second largest land empire. At any rate it was smaller than:
-the brittish empire
-russia
-tamerlane's empire
-alexander the great's empire
-the roman empire.
Even the byzantine empire was larger, and definately so when it still had egypt and the levant. Perhaps you read that it had been the second largest empire in africa, that is probable
Up to where did Mali reach anyway? I looked for maps at google and what i saw was that the empire of Mali didnt contain a vastly larger area than what Mali is today, and that is smaller than brazil, the usa, china, russia, australia, canada etc etc etc. So as far as territory goes it wasnt big, and if you take out the desert it was a rather small country.
I confess that i dont know anything about Mali apart from the gold trade, but it sounds like they didnt manage to promote sciences or technogoly despite of their riches. Also another argument against them is that they arent that ancient (ok i know that usa is in, but that is due to their later develpopment, not to mention that it would hurt sales if it was out). Really can you think of a reason to have Mali in and not Korea?
Also Austria was very important for a couple of centuries, but didnt even make it in one civ3 pack. Ok, the fact that Germany is in would make Austria too much to be in the original pack, but not having it as a civ in civ3conquests for example wasnt utterly fair either
But the pro is that Mali is a civ we hadnt seen before in Civ, and not an insignificant one. I am more against the mongols, and think that they should be replaced with Babylonians, but perhaps then we would have too few warlike civs in the original pack, and since the Babylonians will be in a latter pack i dont really view that decision as trully catastrophic either.
ps: there is no way that Mali was the second largest empire in history, you are wrong there
It wasnt even the second largest land empire. At any rate it was smaller than:-the brittish empire
-russia
-tamerlane's empire
-alexander the great's empire
-the roman empire.
Even the byzantine empire was larger, and definately so when it still had egypt and the levant. Perhaps you read that it had been the second largest empire in africa, that is probable
Up to where did Mali reach anyway? I looked for maps at google and what i saw was that the empire of Mali didnt contain a vastly larger area than what Mali is today, and that is smaller than brazil, the usa, china, russia, australia, canada etc etc etc. So as far as territory goes it wasnt big, and if you take out the desert it was a rather small country.
Similar threads
