Which of the following 10 Civs NOT included in Civ II do you most want in Civ III?

[Czar Szychowski]

I'm new to this forum but not to the Apolyton website. Actually, I've been following this website since late 1999 but never bothered actually signing up and going into the forum. I am a die-hard Civilization fan......in fact, I've played well over 5000 hours of both I and II since I purchased Civilization I in September 0f 1994.

I really like where this game is going, everything I thought would make this game better is going in there.....of course with the exception of religion and various other little things that would spice the game up but probably make it way to complex for even those who have played the originals to death.

One of the areas which I really want to add my two cents is in this area...which Civilizations to include. I have done many years of study in University in both World History and International Politics, and I know this sounds pathetic but I fell in love with History when I first played Civilization, funny how life works eh?
Anyways, from what I have studied in regards to various World Civilizations, here is the Civilizations that should be included (IMHO) and the leader that should lead them. I know that Firaxis has already chosen the Civilizations and their respective leaders, (Joan of Arc for France..give me a break! definately should have been Napoleon) But here it goes anyway:

THE AMERICAS
1.) Americans - Abraham Lincoln
2.) Aztecs - Montezuma
3.) Incas - Atahuallpa....if Aztecs are in, then these guys should be in as well...plus it would be nice to have a Civilization in South America.
4.) Sioux OR Iroquois - Sitting Bull/(no idea of leader) ONE of these should be included, not both. There is no reason to have two Amerindian tribes in the game.

NOTE - If One of these Civilizations are freed up, the Mayans should definately be included.

EUROPE
5.) Celts - Boadicea
6.) BRITISH - Victoria...Never mind the English, the British would be a much wiser choice (incorporating the Scottish) The height of Britains rule was 1897, before the Boer war shattered her glory. This was the year of the diamond jubilee, the 60th anniversary of Britain's greatest Queen ascending the throne.
7.) French - Napoleon
8.) Dutch - Not sure..maybe William of Orange? ...these guys should definately be included...greatest trading empire in 1600's.
9.) Spanish - Isabella
10.) Portugese - ? ...should also be included....fathers of Brazil and overall great colonial empire.
11.) Vikings - Canute
12.) Germans - Frederick the Great
13.) Romans - Julius Caesar
14.) Greeks - Alexander the Great
15.) Russians - Vladimir Lenin
16.) SOME OTHER SLAVIC CIVILIZATION....Polish, Serb or Hungarian would be a good choice....I kind of like the idea of Austro-Hungarians but that is kind of awkward because they were an empire with about 20 different ethnic groups and no clear identity.

ASIA
17.) Turks - Suleiman the Magnificent...The Turks (Ottoman) were responsible for destroying the Byzantine empire and nearly conquered Vienna in the 17th century.
18.) Hebrews - David...The Jews have lasted for several millenia and even through centuries of persecution their culture survives. Should definately be included.
19.) Assyrians - Sargon II...The world's first military empire..should be included for that reason alone. (Could argue that the Babylonians are similar to them)
20.) Babylonians - Hammurabi
21.) Persians - Xerxes
22.) ARABS - Abu Bakr...It was a crime these guys were not included yet. Arab civilization is one of the most important the world has ever known....they are the reason Europe went overseas to search for a better trade route with India and China. During the European dark ages Arab civilization was at its zenith. It would be an abomination to leave the Arabs out this time around. The Arabs are NOT a religious group, they are a civilization unto their own.
23.) Indians - Mohandas Gandhi
24.) Mongols - Genghis Khan
25.) Thai - Rama I (Phaya Chakkri)...I'm not sure if these guys should be in there or not, it would be great to have more East Asian Civilizations though.
26.) Koreans - Yi Songgye...should definately be in there.
27.) Japanese - Toyomoti Hideyoshi
28.) Javanese or Polynesian - Not sure which one....I think it would be great to have the Javanese because it would fill up the Indonesian Islands and I mean considering there are 200 million Javanese today...it would only be fair.

AFRICA
29.) Egyptians - Ramesses
30.) Carthaginians - Hannibal...Actually, these guys are somewhat arguable. But they were responsible for spreading their culture around the mediterranean and nearly brought down the Roman empire during the second Punic war.
31.) Mali - NO IDEA OF LEADER - It would be nice to have another African Civilization. Not many people realize the greatness of this trading empire, which flourished (After Islam spread to it) in the 14th century from its capital Timbuktu....one of the greatest cities in Africa during its peak.
32.) Zulus - Shaka

Thats all.
Like to hear some replies.

DAN

By the way.....The Confederates would be a RIDICULOUS choice.....the Americans are enough. and that picture of the Mongol leader....I would say it is the Japanese leader because that building (Pagoda) in the background is Japanese architecture...not Mongol. Plus the guy himself does not look like Genghis Khan..it looks like a Medieval Japanese Samurai. The Mongol background would probably have a wasteland with several tents or something...not a Japanese castle.

ALSO..where are the picture of the leaders for Rome and Egypt everyone is talking about? Can't find em!

[Venom]

Yeah, let's be those naked people on Easter Island like that movie Rapa Nui.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by ancient
yet every one ignores my post arabs are in civ2!

Only if you replace another civ with them.

[Andreiguy]

The Confederate South may have lost their bid for national independence, but they were a major 250+year old civ in the Americas, distinct from the Yankee North (Americans). I think they ought to be included

I think Americans covers that perfectly fine...they most certainly were not as big a player in the development of world civilization than any other civ in the vote...

Originally posted by Andreiguy
Israel has been around for a whopping 52 years. How about not.

Uh, try 3500 years. They [Israel] are both an Ancient and Modern civ, with great civilizational influence. They should be included.

Sorry 'bout that, I thought "Hebrews" would be better...Israel was definetaly a influential civ, but it wasn't called Israel, and it lost its land several times.

We want the Arabs! (they would be a good enemy for the Hebrews if they're included)

Personally, I don't know why the Arabs weren't included previously, they're one of the most influential civs of all time!

[Eli]

Originally posted by Andreiguy

Israel was definetaly a influential civ, but it wasn't called Israel

Actually it is. The Jews were/are called Am Yi'srael all the time.

But let's move this OT discussion to PM's if you want.

[Ironwolf]

There are many civs that have come and gone over the last 5,000 years. There are many ancient ones that few people have ever heard of have been wiped from the earth. No matter which ones they put in the game, someone will not be happy with it. I think it would be cool to see a city revolt and become an America or Mexico instead of starting out with them as a selection. Or maybe an evolution option so that Roman could become Italian after a change in government types.

[Grigor]

I like civilizations with cities and leaders I have never heard of before and/or can't pronounce.

Hittites
Khmer
Inuit (specializes in polar starts)
Tibetan (mountain starts)
Mayans
Incans (already in Civ II)
Olmecs
Hopi (a super perfectionist Civ)
Hawaiians (island starts)

Doesn't anybody else want to see 25 Hawaiian cities?

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Czar Szychowski
11.) Vikings - Canute

We have already debated the vikings somewhat and this reminds me of another irritation about that from civ2, the name Canute. I'm not sure if that is the name used in english litterature about the vikings but it really annoys me. I can't imagine how they managed to change Knut to Canute. Could as well change it to Harald or any other viking king instead of using Canute.

[Arator]

Originally posted by Grigor
Doesn't anybody else want to see 25 Hawaiian cities?

I do! But I just assumed they would be part of the Polynesian Civ.

[bagdar]

If you like the arabs so much, edit the babylonians into arabs and play. I didn't know that everybody loved them so much.

[Dugrik]

Originally posted by Czar Szychowski
31.) Mali - NO IDEA OF LEADER - It would be nice to have another African Civilization. Not many people realize the greatness of this trading empire, which flourished (After Islam spread to it) in the 14th century from its capital Timbuktu....one of the greatest cities in Africa during its peak.

Your leader would be Sundiata Keita (aka Sogolon-Djata), the Mandinka warrior-king who united a weak and scattered people and ushered in a glorious period of peace and prosperity.

[Gangerolf]

Why has the ZULUS been included in every civ game???? What have they done to deserve this honour? OK, maybe they made some mess down in South Africa in the 1800s, but that's it. And their capital in the games, Zimbabwe - was that even a Zulu city? I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I suspect they've been included to be "the" Sub-Saharan civ. But in my opinion there are many better alternatives:

- The Mali
- The Ethiopians
- The Swahilis. Check out this link: http://archaeology.about.com/science.../blkusimba.htm

And as long as the Americans are in, we might as well throw in the BOERS

[Venom]

Dude, the Zulus had that sweet moive made about them. Zulu dawn. Plus I saw them in a Jackie Chan movie last night and they kicked ass.

[SerapisIV]

I don't see what the big problem a lot of you people have with the American Civ, the American nation has lasted longer and with more international influence then a lot of the Civs already in the game, namely Napolean's empire, Communist China, Communist Russia (if Stalin is leader), Ghandi only lived 50 years ago, prior to that India was just a British colony. And if longevity is a major question, why then would Alexander's or Genghis Khan's empires be in the game? They collapsed into smaller entities following those individuals death. Enough with the US bashing, the Americans are the reasons why the internet and personal computers even exist and we're not waiting for their invention 10 years from now, give a people their due.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
And as long as the Americans are in, we might as well throw in the BOERS

I don't see what the big problem a lot of you people have with the American Civ

It wasn't my intention to bash the Americans - as one of the greatest powers EVER, it would be strange if they weren't included in the civ games.
My point was that both the Americans and the Boers (or Afrikaaners) are post-colonial nations, the Americans (at least the eastcoast) being a former English colony and the Boers being the descendants of the Dutch Cape Colony.

Rolf

[Kropotkin]

Many civs could be considered post-colonial really so that's no good reason in my opinion. SerapisIV's claims that america would have lasted longer than china and russia is weak but that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be included. Boers ins't a bad idea by the way...

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Many civs could be considered post-colonial really so that's no good reason in my opinion. SerapisIV's claims that america would have lasted longer than china and russia is weak but that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be included. Boers ins't a bad idea by the way...

I never said that America is longer then China or Russia, I said Communist China and Russia. It's already shown that Mao is leader of China. The US is even older then the marxist theory which is the foundation for communism. Besides that if they wanted a true Russian leader, one who wasn't just a butcher, they should pick Catherine the Great, not Stalin. About the Chinese, they were a back-water colonial dumping ground for everyone from the British to the Japanese for 400 years prior to the communists, for a great leader there they should pick one of the emperors, not the pedophile Mao (no relation to the Apolytoner ) All the arguements against the US are bullsh*t. The US was (or is, though 'is' is debatable) one of the strongest nations politically, economically, and militarily that the world has ever known, any Civ game without them would be an insult to the concept of great civilizations..

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Besides that if they wanted a true Russian leader, one who wasn't just a butcher, they should pick Catherine the Great, not Stalin.

Are you saing Stalin is going to be the Russian leader in Civ3??? That's like having Hitler as the German leader. I know they used Stalin in Civ1, and Lenin in Civ2, so going back to Stalin seems a bit STRANGE.

In my opinion, *Peter the Great* should be the Russian leader (the guy who very much created modern Russia and also he built St. Petersburg)

BTW: Catherine the Great is (at least in Civ2) the female leader.

[SerapisIV]

I don't think that the Russian leader has been discovered yet...Damn Firaxis

I also don't think that Firaxis is implementing a male and a female leader, only one leader per civ. This could be wrong, but there haven't been any civs repeated with different leaders. Both of the questions are really just wait and see questions though, hopefully a preview or Firaxis will answer them soon.

[supremus]

If you play World Map it woulb be good to use civs in some large continents like South America and Australia. I think Incas and Brazilians in South America and Aborigineans and Australians (and perhaps Polinesians) in Oceania could offer interesting possibilities in this sense.

[N35t0r]

ARGENTINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DarkCloud]

-Arabs: Good
-Austro-Hungarians: Just group them with the Germans; not necessary for a civ
-Confederates: Not a real civilization
-Dutch: Could do without, but would be nice to have.
-Incans: Useful.
-Italians: Could do without.
-Polynesians: We need more Island nations
-Portugese: Could do without
-Turks: Could do without

-Just make the Israelis the Hebrews for the Hebrews have been around longer than the Israeli Nation, for the Hebrews are the Jewish peoples before they had their own nation.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Incans! A once great Civ that is very different from all the others.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Dugrik


Your leader would be Sundiata Keita (aka Sogolon-Djata), the Mandinka warrior-king who united a weak and scattered people and ushered in a glorious period of peace and prosperity.

I think Mansa Musa is much more known as a ruler of the Mali

[Eli]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
-Just make the Israelis the Hebrews for the Hebrews have been around longer than the Israeli Nation, for the Hebrews are the Jewish peoples before they had their own nation.

Israelis = Hebrews = Jews

This has changed a little bit lately thogh.

[Kropotkin]

I never said that America is longer then China or Russia, I said Communist China and Russia. It's already shown that Mao is leader of China.

Yes I know you said that, that just the reason why your argument is weak. One have to pick one leader and thus some/most episodes of a countries existance falls in the background. We could as well start to divide america into different timeperiods in the same way. Should the leader be John F Kennedy or G. Washington for example. It's not like the america of late 18th century has much in common with america in mid 20th century when it comes to culture and social conditions. But all this is really academic, France, Russia, China and America should be included.

[K.J.H.]

Originally posted by Czar Szychowski
8.) Dutch - Not sure..maybe William of Orange? ...these guys should definately be included...greatest trading empire in 1600's.

William of Orange is correct (yes, i'm dutch). He was a leader in the 1600's ('The Golden Century' for the Dutch (actually 50% of this century was about war against Spain, but the economy increases)). The national anthemn of the dutch is even about William of Orange. If there are too many male leaders of the civs you can always choose Queen Wilhelmina. She had to flee to London during WWII, but was afraid to go into history like a chicken, so she supported the Dutch resistance against the Germans by radio.

I'm very honoured of all the attention the Dutch get in this forum. In modern ages we are nothing but the poo of a fly on the world map.
However, in the ancient ages a north dutch tribe - the Frisians - resist stronge against the Romans.
In medieval times (500-1500) the Dutch haven't got very much influences. Well, they had a trading pact (Hanze Pact) with scandinavians but that meant nothing.

But didn't firaxis do 16 or 20 civilization in the game. In that case we can forget our dutch, portoguese, incan, arab, hebrew etc. dream

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand why more people don't vote for the Turks. After all, they did stick around as the Ottoman empire for almost a thousand years. The Arabs are good, too.

[King Richard]

Originally posted by paiktis22
A few comments:

Italians are covered my the romans as far as I am concerned.

Austro-Hungarians. Hungarians might have a problem that you have put them together with the Austrains. A hungarian acquintance of mine never stops telling me how opressed the hungarians were under austrian rule.

Which Arabs? Everybody sais Arabs but which ones? It's like saying «Europeans» I think.

Other than that that's a nice list I think.

I agree with you! There's nothing called "the Arabs". The arabs everyone is talking about is really a bunch of people who believe (is forced to believe...) in Allah, they formed multiple empires, though.

The problem is that a civilization like the Mongols also consisted of multiple empires (following the death of Ghenghis Khan). Furthermore; The Greeks didn't have an empire at all, they had about 400-600 city-states which frequently warred with each other. By the way; Alexander the great was macedonian, and shouldn't count as the leader of the greeks...

You can't have something as vague as "The Arabs", since they would consist of already implemented civs like the egyptians and the babylonians (persians if they're in...)

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by King Richard


I agree with you! There's nothing called "the Arabs". The arabs everyone is talking about is really a bunch of people who believe (is forced to believe...) in Allah, they formed multiple empires, though.

Not all Arabs are Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Islam was the impetus that caused Arabs to unite and spread out throughout the mid east, north africa, and spain. Maybe Turks would be a better choice since they've been unified longer, they were even in Civ1 until up to the last minute (the Germans replaced them).
Arabs are a very worthy civ, and yes, probably similar to the mongols in that their unity broke down after a while, but still Arabs were the "enlightened civilization" during the middle ages.

Also, the Egyptians in the game aren't modern muslim egyptians, but ancient ones, FAR before islam