New Civs VOTE

Whých cývs would you add to Cýv3 and PTW?

  • The Hittites

    Votes: 79 15.0%
  • The Assyrians

    Votes: 93 17.7%
  • The Netherlands

    Votes: 157 29.8%
  • The Portuguese

    Votes: 160 30.4%
  • The Jews (Israel)

    Votes: 164 31.2%
  • The Scots

    Votes: 102 19.4%
  • Aboriginal Australia

    Votes: 77 14.6%
  • The Inca

    Votes: 245 46.6%
  • The Khmer

    Votes: 56 10.6%
  • The Tibetans

    Votes: 52 9.9%
  • The Polynesians

    Votes: 109 20.7%
  • The Indonesians

    Votes: 63 12.0%
  • The Maya

    Votes: 164 31.2%
  • The Goths

    Votes: 73 13.9%
  • The Armenians

    Votes: 27 5.1%
  • The Thai

    Votes: 66 12.5%
  • Nubia/ another sub-saharan cýv on pan-SSAfrican cýv

    Votes: 113 21.5%
  • The Poles

    Votes: 83 15.8%
  • Another Slav cýv or a Pan-Slav Cýv

    Votes: 50 9.5%
  • other

    Votes: 88 16.7%

  • Total voters
    526

Pangur Bán

Deconstructed
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Messages
9,022
Location
Transtavia
This poll is for what civs you wish to be included for the next expansion pack, which will be the Conquest XP.
 
Canada!
 
Lots of very deserving civ missing from that list because they are little known to the average westerner. I see the drive for Asia worked in getting the Indonesians, Khmers and Thais included, but Africa is still left alone...

A rapid look at civilizations that could be considered for AFrica

Ethiopia - that's not even an option, it's a MUST have.
Ghana (Wagadugu), OR Mali, OR Songhay - any of these three, since they were basically "successor" of each others (somewhat like how the "Greek" civilization is actually a succession of the various civilizations of greece, from Athen to Macedonia). Heck, at the heigh of Songhay power, their empire encompassed an area larger than Europe, an empire second in size (as far as my sources are concerned) only to the contemporary Mongolian empire. They had control of an area stretching from Morocco to Cameroon, going inland into Mali and all the area south of the Sahara (and controling the Saharan Oasises), and controled the rich trade in salt and gold on the western end of the desert route. They also controled the legendary city of Timbuktu.

I mean, at its greatest extent their empire was nothing short of being as much of a great empire as Macedonia, Rome, China and so on. These three are included in the game, why not the Songhay empire? (or Mali, or Ghana, since Macedonia is included as Greece).

One may also be willing to think of a Swahili "civ". Even if they were not a united country, the Swahili kingdoms controled much of Africa's east coast and much of the trade in the Indian ocean in their time. Mogadishu, Mombasa, Zanzibar, etc - all cities that still dots the eastern coast of Africa as far down as Zimbabwe to this day.

The addition of Swahili in the south-east, Ethiopia in the middle and Songhay in the west would certainly make the whole game far more interesting in Africa on the RW map than simply "Oh, hi, we got 95% Zulu control, 5% egyptian control, and most of egypt is in Arabia".

In fact, these are most definitely on my list of new civs for the modpack I'm working on. And yes, I've been researching ancient Africa lately for this very purpose.
 
Oda Nobunaga, there is the comprehensive option "Nubia/ another sub-saharan cýv on pan-SSAfrican cýv" (the "on" should be "or"). The reason those African civs are left out was not because of my ignorance, but because the others are more worthy of an indývidual vote. The worthiness was decided by 1) achievement
2) geographical balance and 3)relevance to ohter major civilizations.

Ethiopia, until the word was hijacked by Abyssinia, was a word used for the whole of sub-saharan Africa. In fairness to me, "pan-SSAfrican cýv" covers all the civs that you mentioned. Those Ethiopian civs have very little individual ýmportance to civilization as a whole except maybe as curiosities. My option would allow 2 African civs ýn the game (more than enough).

Please remember that there are a maximum of 20 options!
 
In other words, the choice was balanced with "Who's important in a western biased view of the world." Pathetic.

I mean, we're talking about an empire larger in size than the whole of Europe there, which was *culturaly independant* from Abyssynia (or Ethiopia if you must call it that way) Putting the two together shows just how stupid western historical bias is.

"Rome/another southern European civ" - how badly would that go as an option? Very, because the specific nations that sprang from what used to be the roman empire are known to the western world. But in Africa its alright, because everyone know no African culture ever achieved anything really worth noticing.

No, I'm not African - not in the slightest. Just a bit disgusted at the "lump Africa together, it's not important enough otherwise" notion you seem to be putting forth.
 
Abyssinia/Ethiopia or an East or South African would be a good inclusion, but I'd much rather have Nubia. At its peak, it was the most militarily powerful nation in East Africa (INCLUDING Egypt, which it had previously ruled for seventy years) and was also a religious and commercial capital for Africa. It remained a Christian country for seven hundred years, fighting off invading Arabs. The Arabs eventually won, and after many years the Nubians converted to Islam. They're still around, living in northern Sudan, and they still have their own beautiful and unique culture. In my own personal opinion, they'd be a better new civ than Abyssinia/Ethiopia, but honestly I'd love to see ANY new civs from that area, and was sad to not see them in the original game.
 
The Jews (Israel)?

Heh.


20% of the Israeli population is Muslim.

I think the Israelites or the Hebrews can be a Civilization, but not the "Jews".
 
My first request would be another sub-Saharan civ, Ethiopia and Ghana/Mali/Songhai seem the most deserving. In fact the Zulu would be well down my list but the Zulus are well known in the West so that's what we got.

Oda , I too have been planning a sub-Saharan mod. Let me know how your mod is coming. :)

Other than that, I would say Thailand, because they have some fine looking women.:D
 
COPY OF POST ON PREVIOUS THREAD:

The Abyssinians were called the teachers of the Egyptians. How the most ANCIENT & UNCONQUERED Civilization was overlooked is beyond me. I would of went for them over Zulus ANYDAY! Some of you think the Zulus were great warriors, just ask the Italians what they thought of the Ethiopians :D

Look on almost any world history map, and one thing that is almost always there, neverchanging is the empire of the Abyssinians. That longetivity in itself is reason enough for them to be included in Civ3 ( I know I will add them to my edited version of the game :))
 
Originally posted by teturkhan
didn't quite understand that IceBlaze,

Israel or the Hebrews is alright but not the Jews?
Is that because the term Jewish refers to religious affiliation?

Judaism is a religion.

If you will, align the Jews with the Muslims, Christians, Hindu etc.

If you want an Ethnicity or a Nationality you have these choices:

The Israelites
The Hebrews
The Israelis
Or, more biblical, Kingdoms of Judea and Israel.
 
I am working on Maya and Inca Civs. I have created the Maya UU (plumed archer) and am now creating leaderheads (as well as a spanish conquistador! but thats a different civ!) . Watch this space :)

www.81x.com/thomson_2001/mesoamericamod
 
Although I think its a crime that the Celts, Spanish, and Turks all were left out of the original release of Civ III, I just want to put in my vote for the Poles. Historically, Poland had a very strong, vibrant civilization, especially from the 11th through the 17th centuries (the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Polish cavalry (exemplified by the armored Hussaria) was especially impressive.
 
I would like to see a Caribbean Civ. All the Caribbean countries together make formidable foes.

Australians should be added too.

Ethiopia and Mayans have good history but not game friendly. The Phillipines should be in too. IMO the Spanish should have been there from the start since the Spaniards were a super power and history's biggest conquerer/explorer.
 
My votes:

The Israelites (I just can't say the Jews or Hebrews- its Civs, not religions or languages!)

The Inca

The Maya

The Polynesians (These could be REALLY fun on an Archpeg. map!)

The Aboriginal Australians (Not thats really a wild card ... LOTS of fun!)

The Nubians


Europe when playing with 16 civs and RL starting location is much to crowded. Need to spread the civs out over more of the world.

I wished the XP had added 16 more new ones even if there can only be 16 in the game or better 12 or 8 (play/stabilty purposes).

And adding some new Civ Characterics would have been ... delightful! THAT would probably been too much to expect though.

Perhaps Civ 4 will have a larger pool of civs to pick from ... that would appear to be a very desirable thing, not only from the Marketing of the game perspective, but also to players the world wide. Probably help sales. Might require more extensive playtesting though. THATS a bad sign!
 
Even though you mentioned them in your first post:
You forgot the Vikings. Unnacceptable behaviour. (Also their the Vikings, not the Scandinavians).
 
Originally posted by Cuchullain
Although I think its a crime that the Celts, Spanish, and Turks all were left out of the original release of Civ III, I just want to put in my vote for the Poles. Historically, Poland had a very strong, vibrant civilization, especially from the 11th through the 17th centuries (the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Polish cavalry (exemplified by the armored Hussaria) was especially impressive.

Oops, I voted wrong! I thought "Poles" meant a North and South Pole civ, and was thinking of sween32's penquin and polar bear leaderheads.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by thomson_2001
I am working on Maya and Inca Civs. I have created the Maya UU (plumed archer) and am now creating leaderheads (as well as a spanish conquistador! but thats a different civ!) . Watch this space.

Whew! That's two leaderheads I won't have to do now!:D

As far as the Jew/Hebrew thing,

Jews are members of the Jewish Religion, you can be more specific as there are different doctrines.

Israelis are citizens of the nation of Israel.

Hebrews are a racial stock just as Irish, Germans, etc.

A person can be a mix/match of the above, for example I am part Hebrew,(I'm also part German, Cherokee, Iroquois, Irish, British, Navajo, and African. Americans are mutts.) but I am neither a Jew nor a Israeli.

Personally, I think civ-wise if you were to include them they should be called the Hebrews or Israelites.
 
Back
Top Bottom