The remaining Civ

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by nalves


Yes but the arabs are in (representing many nations) why not the Polynesians.

Because comparing the accomplishments of the early Arab caliphate to any early Polynesian kingdom is like comparing a formula1 car to a model T.

 

[wildWolverine]

Well said (about the US and Britain). However, I doubt we will get any input from the testers...

Nicely done w/ the Polynesians!

 

[Globetrotter]

I think each civ had its own era of glory. The only thing about the game is that it merges the current powers with ancient civilizations, giving the player the ability to make an old civilization dominate the world, recreating history. That's what's fun about it.

So as mentioned above, we can't say that Carthaginians imply Phoenicians, nor Americans imply England (i liked that comparison)

 

[nalves]

Originally posted by aaminion00


Because comparing the accomplishments of the early Arab caliphate to any early Polynesian kingdom is like comparing a formula1 car to a model T.

The question was... "not include Polynesian because they were not a civ but many civs" ... What i meant was thinking that way the arabs should not be there as just one nation.

And of course that the arabs were/are much greater.

 

[wildWolverine]

I think Globetrotter has best analyzed the situation, settling the discord... even if Lars is a jerk.

<hits head> must remember that this is a game.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
... We need to differentiate between civilizations and nationalities. Granted, this mistake has already been made (France, America, Spain...)...

America is in Civ because we have developed our own non-European culture. Americans are descendants of people from around the world, from China to Ghana to Britain to Iran. My family has been in America for almost 400 years. There are elements of all these cultures in American culture, so America should stay in the game, along with France and Spain. No civ's should be removed, i mean, what good would that do. However, i agree with you that there needs to be a bigger variety of Civs, including the Souix. We should also add more African civs and add Isreal.

 

[Sims2789]

The Arabs don't represent many nations. there used to be a pan-Arab state called the Arab Empire (maybe it was the Islamic Empire) that included Arabia, Persia, the southern Caucasions, North Africa and Spain.

 

[erez87]

I think that from to civ3, civs shouldn't be added cause they good historicaly.
New civs need to be added to make the game balanced.
Adding 1 more country into Iberia make the largest world maps become realy crowded there.
Adding Netherlands is worse. We have germany france celts and vikings... what more?! Denemark belgium and maybe even luxemburg?!?!
We need more civs in huge africa, and MANY MANY more in SOUTH america, and some more in the north.
And they realy need to add asian and australian (ocianic) civs... cause asia is huge for 6 civs... (maybe 5 without persia and 4 without japan, and that not including russia).
and no more in the middle east! We have babylon, persia, egypt, arabia, greece, and russia a bit to the north.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

yeah i agree and the Sioux would be a good choice because Norht America is too empty, evertime i play a world map the Iroquois (sp?) are massive.

 

[samildanach]

What about having the Neanderthals included- I appreciate that the the latest evidence points to them having died out aound 27,000 years ago ( or at least dissappeared as a distinct species) but whos to know maybe they clung on to 4000 BC in some as yet undiscovered settlement. I think it would be fun to take the last village of a dying species and take it and them into the modern age. And lets face it, if they are going to include the portuguese and the dutch then the neaderthals should be included as well. Or do you feel that the neanderthals are already covered by those civs.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Who says that every spot on earth needs filled from turn 1? People want a civ for Australia, well, there were no civs in Australia until the English started settling it!! Would it be so terrible to have a situation like that in the game?

The world map shouldn't go into consideration at all when creating a civ. You can't play a realistic game on it anyway, and few people do. It should be based on the merits of the civilization. Africa should be sparsely populated, with only 2 or three civs. Europe should be packed.

I sometimes think I would like to see an option where there are civs in Australia and the Americas, but they are disadvantaged in some way- in the sense that they will lag well behind the european civs in technology. This would ensure they were relatively easy pickings for whatever european civ gets there first. The navel side of the game would become more important and there would be a more historical feel to it for those who want that.

 

[SoCalian]

No neanderthals, It just doesn't make sense as a civ. I mean what would their UU be?

@Mr. Dictator: Why did you have to go and steel my avatar. It doesnt really mater though. After I hit 300 I will try to get One of Mussolini(sp?).

 

[Furius]

@ aaminion00, I can geuss the answer to that for you, "No, I can't tell you"

 

[maverick_mw]

The Sioux were is Civ2, so they get my vote.

 

[durfal]

And lets face it, if they are going to include the portuguese and the dutch then the neaderthals should be included as well. Or do you feel that the neanderthals are already covered by those civs.

Not Amused

I think that from to civ3, civs shouldn't be added cause they good historicaly.

And I always thought this game was about a what if situation with a lot of the historicly most important civs and civs with a huge collected distinctiveness like the Zulu for the Bantu in Africa and the Iroquois for the Native North Americans.

I do agree that I like to have some more of the latter group in game but there are only so many spots to give away.
I would love to have the Aboriginals, Polynesians or even Inuit in game, but not if that would mean that the Dutch or Portuguese were left out just because they were originated from Europe. The empires over sea and around the world were always much bigger than the originating countries itself in Europe and that isn't possible to play like on a standard worldmap with correct starting possitions.In game overseas cities are mostly being build when you already have a big empire at your starting possition.
And I think that most people don't even play on the worldmap as a standard.
From reading most posts I think 15% only play on worldmaps and the rest only partionaly or never. And who plays with all the civs at the same time? Only a selected few with very fast computers can do so.

But the choice of which civ should be included and which one excluded (or whatever) is so personal that if you ask everybody on this board to give his/her list of 31 civs to include almost everybody will come up with a different one.

 

[Gainy]

...another case for Scotland. Not every wonder has an actual Civilisation in the game that built/owned em. Adam Smiths Trading Company is the only one, so if Scotland was in the game then i oculd take the "Not" out

Also Scotland could be used as a sea-faring civ (because of the Scottish shipbuilding industry). Industrious, Seafaring

 

[khirkhib]

The HUGE disadvantage that Australia and the Americas had is that they did not have beasts of burden. True the Incas had semi-domesticated Llamas but they aren't quite as versitile as a horse. The world map shouldn't distribute horses or cows in the Americas and the tech ladder should be bottle-necked where it would be impossible for them to learn the technology. How are you supposed to learn Horseback Riding if you don't have them. It would be cool though if the horse and cow resources could distribute from where they are domesticated. So lets say Russia was the first civ to Domesticate horse I would have to pay them or trade them to get the animals but once I do I get the animal distributed in my territory. I would be a more realistic way of distributing renewable resources.

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by erez87
I think that from to civ3, civs shouldn't be added cause they good historicaly.
New civs need to be added to make the game balanced.
Adding 1 more country into Iberia make the largest world maps become realy crowded there.
Adding Netherlands is worse. We have germany france celts and vikings... what more?! Denemark belgium and maybe even luxemburg?!?!
We need more civs in huge africa, and MANY MANY more in SOUTH america, and some more in the north.
And they realy need to add asian and australian (ocianic) civs... cause asia is huge for 6 civs... (maybe 5 without persia and 4 without japan, and that not including russia).
and no more in the middle east! We have babylon, persia, egypt, arabia, greece, and russia a bit to the north.

And these civs that you propose to add to South America are.... who exactly?

The Incas are the only powerfull empire to ever exist in South America that we know about.

I'm telling you people, the Poles, Khmers, and Mali would be the best choices.

 

[nalves]

Originally posted by samildanach
And lets face it, if they are going to include the portuguese and the dutch then the neaderthals should be included as well. Or do you feel that the neanderthals are already covered by those civs.

I want the Portuguese mainly because I am Portuguese, then I understand your choice for the neaderthals...


no offence dude

 

[samildanach]

Yeah, you have seen right through me. After hard day hunting mammoths I would like to play a civ game in the evening that appreciated my species contribution to human civilisation. The dutch guys reaction is a bit strange as to me the connection between Neanderthals and Netherlanders is striking, in the same way that one can draw a line from Angles to Englanders. There is a clear linguistic progression there, if I am not mistaken.