|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by JamesJKirk
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).
|
Are you serious about this?
|
Quote:
|
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.
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...
|
It's not a good choice to 'evaluate' civs, and use empire-building as a criteria anyway. Mongols could be evaluated with their empire-building-capacities -maybe-, but not certainly the Greeks...
Macedonia is part of Greece, and Alexander is a Greek leader: This is irrelevant to the game, (for obvious reasons) but the Greek world extended from the east of the Black Sea to the southern shores of France, and each colony has important cultural contributions to mankind; those in Italy, mainland Greece, the Aegean Islands and Anatolia in particular. (they weren't built for mining
).
The enthusiasm about the Arabs is interesting, but since we have The Greeks, The Persians and the Indians, to what good is to have the Arabs as a seperate civ? (I'm being silly today) The Arabs were the medium through which Indian Mathematics, Greek philosophy and Persian Mysticism passed onto Europe during the middle ages. "A bunch of people ....." is not a good designation though.
I think the 16 civs is great. If the Chinese also are in, I've nothing to worry about
.
