New Civs VOTE

[JonathanValjean]

I chose the Inca for two main reasons: 1) another American civilization is needed, and 2) the Inca were quite a force in their time.

 

[lucidity]

1. Austria-Hungary was not a civ. It was an empire comprised of a number of civilizations, the two main ones of course being German (Austria) and Hungarian.

2. The Australian Aborigines were a nomadic people who never built towns or cities. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to represent them.

 

[lz14]

I still think Italians deserve the most, and they are not even in the option!
The ownership of Great Wonders shows a civ's power. US is in the game partly because they built a lot of the wonders in the game, it really doesn't make sense if US is not in, although many think they don't deserve it. While Leonardo and Michalongelo are both Italians, and Italy's cultural achievments is not less than any other civ, I don't see why Italy is not in the game. The reason maybe the Romans. I think everybody is clear that Italians ARE NOT ROMANS ! They are by no means related. China and Mongols even share the SAME UU and they can co-exist, why not Rome and Italy.

 

[JoseM]

The Italians are represented in the game as the Romans.

 

[lz14]

As I said, Italians are not Romans, they are not more closely related than British and Americans. And if in the game they used British to represent Americans, what would people feel?

 

[lucidity]

I think the Americans should be represented by the English. It's stupid when you're playing on a world map as the English and you discover North America only to find it inhabited by...the United States??? What's even weirder is having the US in 4000BC. The other civs I can usually rationalise away as representing the inhabitants at the time, but the US??? That's just stupid.

Furthermore, I think that having both an Italian and a Roman civ would be silly. What's the Italian capital? Rome. I'd also argue that they're the same people as I can't remember any mass expullsions of Romans and importation of "Italians" from history class. Yes there are differences between Rome and Italy - it's called 2000 years!

 

[china444]

WE NEED MORE AFRICAN CIVS!
Some of the civs like the Mali Empire were more advanced and stronger than even the romans! African civs would be great. We have a TON of European civs, but only 1 african civ. a little unbalanced?

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by lucidity
I think the Americans should be represented by the English. It's stupid when you're playing on a world map as the English and you discover North America only to find it inhabited by...the United States??? What's even weirder is having the US in 4000BC. The other civs I can usually rationalise away as representing the inhabitants at the time, but the US??? That's just stupid.

Furthermore, I think that having both an Italian and a Roman civ would be silly. What's the Italian capital? Rome. I'd also argue that they're the same people as I can't remember any mass expullsions of Romans and importation of "Italians" from history class. Yes there are differences between Rome and Italy - it's called 2000 years!

Having the US is reasonable, but look at it this way.... Most of the people who play Civ3 are Americans.... When Firaxis made this they probley knew that was going to happen and included America to make the vast majority of american's who play there game happy.

 

[JoseM]

Mali Empire stronger and advanced than the Roman empire? sorry, i dont think so...

 

[Quokka]

I would like to see an Australian Civ, but how would you do an Aboriginal Australian one? They were nomads that travelled in small family groups. They never built cities, each tribe has a language incomprehensible to any other, and none had any written language.

A Polynesian or Micronesian Civ like the Samoans or the Tongans would be good to see. Their UU could be the outrigger canoe, one that could safely traverse seas and has a chance on Oceans, seeing as how this is exactly how they spread.

 

[Inter4]

The Venezuelans!!!!!

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Quokka
I would like to see an Australian Civ, but how would you do an Aboriginal Australian one? They were nomads that travelled in small family groups. They never built cities, each tribe has a language incomprehensible to any other, and none had any written language.

I don't think that that is a good enough reason for rejecting the Aborigines. They may not have built large cities or have a pre-european written language, but in that respect they are no different from the Zulu and Iroquois. The important point is that they represent a distinctive and ancient portion of mankind, perhaps more distinctive and more ancient than any other. With Aboriginal culture often held to go back in time uncorrupted for 100, 000 years, it is difficult for me anyway, to accept that an English colony which has never achieved political independence in its very, very short history, should be thrust in front them. If you think otherwise, then that's because you have a different conception of how and why "civilizations" should be represented in the game.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Inter32
The Venezuelans!!!!!

jejeje

 

[dojoboy]

How about the Etruscans?

 

[lz14]

There is no way Australian Aboringines should be in the game under current situation. The game is like an Olympic 100m final. Only the best is there, not select one frome every region. The New Zealand MAORI is BY FAR the best civ for the region anyway! They are the only one who did farming and settled down.
And Italian share the same blood as French and German.(and British) Which means they DESTROYED Rome, not that they are Romans. Italians dominatied Europe trade for centuries, and when Europe was far behind Muslems and Chinese, it was Italy who first developed art and science, given birth to people like Leonardo and Michlongelo. Italian poets and scientists were the best of the best. Just one captal city problem should not take Italy out. I strongly demand Italy to be in the game.

 

[Kennelly]

I think Africa deserves another civ.Egypt is geographically in Africa,but culturally it never had links to the part of Africa south of Africa.The Kingdoms of Guinea or especially Mali in the 11th-15th century were high developed ones and should be included.They were probably not advanced as the Romans,but in their time they were certainly way before all Europeans and more civilized than Iroquois i.e. ever were.Even more than the Celts,who were certainly higher developed than presented in Asterix,but they didn't cross the threshold of building true cities and nations like the Mali did.
Please not another European civ,but there are good reasons to include Khmer and Maya as well.

 

[china444]

Yes kennely, thats what I said. I was a bit angry to see more European civs in PTW but yet less South American and African. Why are they left out? Because no-one plays civ in these continents. Most people play civ in North America and Europe and Asia, there fore most civs are located thre to make the players happy.

 

[Chieftess]

hmm, one thing I was noticing. I read somewhere that Scotland and Ireland were descended (so to speak) from the Celts. So, Scotland is almost in effect, Celtic.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by lz14
There is no way Australian Aboringines should be in the game under current situation. The game is like an Olympic 100m final. Only the best is there, not select one frome every region. The New Zealand MAORI is BY FAR the best civ for the region anyway! They are the only one who did farming and settled down.
And Italian share the same blood as French and German.(and British) Which means they DESTROYED Rome, not that they are Romans. Italians dominatied Europe trade for centuries, and when Europe was far behind Muslems and Chinese, it was Italy who first developed art and science, given birth to people like Leonardo and Michlongelo. Italian poets and scientists were the best of the best. Just one captal city problem should not take Italy out. I strongly demand Italy to be in the game.

Personally, I would love to see the Polynesians in the game.

But you are wrong, it is not currently like the 100m Final, more like the World Soccer Championship, where, yes the best are there, but certain places are taken because of geography to the exclusion of better teams. I don't think anyone would argue that the Iroquois or Zulu were more influential than the Portuguese for instance, or Israel. You have to have more backward civs like the Aborigines to give the game historical comprehensiveness, rather than just a fight between loads of European/Western civs and a couple of noteworthy oriental civs.

 

[mazzz]

"My option would allow 2 African civs ýn the game (more than enough)."

???

How many Euro civs are there, how many Asian civs are there?