Guess Them Eight New Civs

MalayFanatic, as far as Firaxis is concerned...I'll reckon it'll be a loooooong time before the Malays are in...

Bud, substitute Australia for Hittites.

The Sumerians are already in Civ3. Babylon covers them. The Babylonian city list is made up of a bunch of old Sumerian cities. They'd be on top of each other and share the same cities...what a mess.

The Hittites were a superpower, yes, but they weren't much as far as civilizations go. They left no lasting imprint on civilization. If they stick in Hatti and forget Israel, I won't be pleased.

Poland had best not be included. One never knows, though, Firaxis might just shock me...
 
We are sure of:
1. Incans
2. Mayans
3. Sumeria
---
What I would like
4. Mali
5. Cambodia (Khmer)
6. Ethiopia
7. Holland
8. Some Pacific NW Indian tribe
 
Who do so many of you think that the Hungarians were the Huns? The Hungarians were the Magyars, not the Huns...since the Huns came from the Asian Steppes, not the plains west of the Carpathian Mountains (ie. Hungary).
 
Welcome to Civfanatics, Malay fanatic. I am afraid it will be up to you to provide a Malay civ mod.
 
-Inca
-Maya
-Sumer
-Hittites
-Poland
-Canada or Mexico
-Netherlands or Portugal
-An African Tribe
 
I think that another turkik civ must be
added, i don't mean modern Turkey(ottomans), but turks
( kazaks, tatars, uzbeks etc) .
for example - Turkistan
leader may be Timur Lenk
 
Uhm... Guys... Why Poland?
As far as I know the Poles havent been a force (in any way, cultural, militairy, ect.) in, well, ever.

"-Canada or Mexico"
Mexico = More or less Aztecs
 
Originally posted by Necron
Uhm... Guys... Why Poland?
As far as I know the Poles havent been a force (in any way, cultural, militairy, ect.) in, well, ever.

"-Canada or Mexico"
Mexico = More or less Aztecs
Poland, was at one time, the largest kingdom in Europe.

Polish arms arrived in time, to stop the Ottomans at Vienna.

I'd seek expert opinion on this, on your behalf. ;)
 
Sorry, no Poland.

It's too peripheral and unimportant. It had lots of territory in eastern europe in medieval times if you look at a historical map, but no more than the Avars or the Goths. The territory is so flat that it is hardly a great feat, but the much of the territory is so desolate, that the actual population was no more than a large modern city.
 
Originally posted by Benderino
Who do so many of you think that the Hungarians were the Huns? The Hungarians were the Magyars, not the Huns...since the Huns came from the Asian Steppes, not the plains west of the Carpathian Mountains (ie. Hungary).
The Magyars came fr the Asian steppes too, just at a later age, as with many other tribal confederations... ;)
 
Sazhit, another Central Asian civ besides the Mongols would be good, I think one is missing from West Central Asia at least, but in all honesty I doubt one would make it into Civ 3 Conquests.
:(
 
RIII wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Benderino
Who do so many of you think that the Hungarians were the Huns? The Hungarians were the Magyars, not the Huns...since the Huns came from the Asian Steppes, not the plains west of the Carpathian Mountains (ie. Hungary).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Magyars came fr the Asian steppes too, just at a later age, as with many other tribal confederations...

Yup - the ancient Hungarians started out in Bashkiria and migrated westward over 2000 years' time across southern Russia until a Pecheneg attack in the late 9th century sent them scurrying into the Carpathian Basin. Their political structure was entirely based on the old Bulgar and Khazar models - which is why the first Byzantine sources to mention them call them Turkoi.

Necron wrote:

Uhm... Guys... Why Poland?
As far as I know the Poles havent been a force (in any way, cultural, militairy, ect.) in, well, ever.


Well, whether they get included as a Civ in the game is one thing, but Poland was a great Medieval power. It was a fairly successful kingdom under its first dynasty from c. 963-1138 (winning several wars against Rus) and after an inter-regnum it re-constituted itself under an Anjou princess and a Lithuanian Grand Duke in 1386. This launched its greatest dynasty, the Jagiellonians, who established the common union with Lithuania that lasted until 1795. The united Poland-Lithuania defeated and conquered the Teutonic Knights (Grunwald/Tannenburg, 1410-1457) and made Prussia a Polish fief for two centuries, conquered vast Russian territories (making Smolensk and Kiev Polish cities), defeated the Swedish navy in the Baltic in the epic battle of Oliwa (1627), repeately defeated the Ottoman Empire and drove invading Ottoman armies out of its territory (Chocim, 1629) and Vienna & Hungary (1683-1699). Polish troops even intervened in the Russian civil wars and occupied Moscow in 1610-1613.

The Jagiellonian dynasty ruled a few times in Bohemia (having a vote in the Holy Roman Empire) and Hungary, leading an almost-successful anti-Turkish crusade that got as far as Varna (modern Bulgaria) in 1444. At one point the combined Polish-Lithuanian lands stretched from the Baltic to the Black seas. Polish hussars, with their winged armor, became famous throughout Europe. (Check out this link here for some pics of Polish hussars' famous attire.)

Unfortunately what made Poland powerful in Medieval times did not transfer well into modern times and the empire became an increasing anachronism in the 17th and 18th centuries, until its very messy death in 1795. This is the Poland you are more familiar with, the prostrate occupied Poland. I might add that modern times have not been completely without some bright spots though; Poland defeated the Soviets in spectacular fashion in 1920 and managed fairly well in September 1939 despite amazing odds. Poland also contributed more than a million men to the Allied cause in WW II, the 4th largest contribution after the USSR, the US and Britain. Not bad, eh...?

As per the thread, I would include Hungary as it also played a critical role in Medieval European history.
 
Ok, so the Poles did play a role... Sorry, lol :D
But still, it was short and they didn't have anything 'really' special.

I still say the Portuguese and Dutch played (and play ;)) a bigger role in history.

The Poles do have a bigger market to sell Civ then Portugal.... So maybe....
 
Lithuanians saved ALL OF EUROPE from the mongols in the XIII century. Lithuanians and Poles defeated the Ottomans! And 1920, the gates of Warsaw, was one bad day for Tuchachevsky (general of attacking Soviet forces).

If Lithuanians aren't included, i hope at least the Poles are.
 
I say more European civs, here is my list.

1. Lithuanians
2. The Dutch
3. Portuguese
 
Well, if there are going to be more european civs, then I'll change my list:

1) The Portuguese
2) The Scots
3) Aboriginal Australia
4) Israel
5) The Goths/ Hungary/ Lithuania (either would be fine) - a cive between Germany and Russia and Turkey :)
6) Mali
7) Inca
8) Khmer
 
If it is true that 4 civs have already been decided :(


1) The Scots
2) Aboriginal Australia
3) Israel
4) Mali/ Khmer - not sure
 
Why does everyone who is in a country that isn't in civ3 want their civ in (maybe not everybody)

Lithuania didn't do much historically (compared to Russia, Gemany, England, France, or Spain)

The Dutch have a chance, because they were around the level of Spain (In the Rennesance)

Europe is crowded. Even if you don't play on a Real World map. 3 European Civs dramatically increases the amount of Civs in one culture group. Especially when you consider that most people won't play a Lithuanian Civ based on Historical value.
The Dutch, sure, they had a fairly big influence on the colonial period. They are significant enough to be considered. Portugese, not as important as the Dutch, but not a bad choice as a European Civ. They are hurt by the fact that most Americans don't know the difference between Portugal and Spain ;) I think the obvious conclusion would be a "one or the other, but both" decision.

Lithuania, lets see.
Conquered large territory? No
Produced great cultural monuments (like the Pyramids, or the Eiffel Tower)? No
In an under-represented region? No
Had influence over neighboring countries? No

I don't see why Lithuania should be in, except for the people who play the game in Lithuania.
 
Originally posted by Ecco
Lithuanians saved ALL OF EUROPE from the mongols in the XIII century.
:lol:

I believe I've posted about this somewhere... The gist of which was all of Europe combined couldn't stop the Mongols. Europe was fortunate it didn't attract the attention of the Mongols, after their recon thru Eastern Europe that defeated every European army in the field...

:lol:
 
Louis XXIV wrote:

Lithuania, lets see.
Conquered large territory? No


Actually, Lithuania was the largest land empire in Europe in the 13th century. Poles and Lithuanians were partners in most of the achievements I listed in my previous post.

Produced great cultural monuments (like the Pyramids, or the Eiffel Tower)? No

OK, but neither have the Dutch or the Prussians. Monuments aren't everything...

In an under-represented region? No

Eastern Europe isn't under-represented in Civ?

Had influence over neighboring countries? No

Poland-Lithuania had a profound influence on its neighbors, stretching from Moldavia to Ukraine to Belarus to Russia, and if we throw the Polish-side into the equation then it stretches to the Bay of Biscay. Just because Western European schools can't be bothered to teach anything about the countries east of the Elbe doesn't mean they aren't significant.

Ultimately, it really is pointless to argue over which new Civs should be added because it's all customizable. I've already added Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. to mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom