The most glaring omission...

Roman · October 1, 2001, 15:02

... are the Arabs.

orange · October 1, 2001, 16:19

definitely. I just posted about this topic in another thread...to lazy to repost it.

ranskaldan · October 1, 2001, 20:02

totally and utterly agreed. second to that are the spanish.

the moment i get civ3 i'll immediately download an arab patch.

Steve Clark · October 1, 2001, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
totally and utterly agreed. second to that are the spanish.

the moment i get civ3 i'll immediately download an arab patch.

And the problem with that is...?

d_dudy · October 1, 2001, 20:18

the spanish should be in first, think of how many people have some spanish descent in them......

Christantine The Great · October 1, 2001, 20:28

Nah, there are already enough Middle Eastern civs. Same with the Spanish (of course with the bigger map...nah, still no).

d_dudy · October 1, 2001, 20:45

you just don't play with the french or romans

Dimorier Maximus · October 1, 2001, 20:59

Babylonians are Arabs. Persians are Arabs. Egyptians are Arabs.

OK, maybe not, but the Babylonians are supposed to represent the Arabs. The Arab capital would be Baghdad. That is extremely close to where Babylon was.

Now the Turks, on the other hand...

There is no civ that has its capital at Istanbul or Ankara. They are a glaring omission.

St Leo · October 1, 2001, 22:14

Babylonians are Arabs.

Babylonians are Semites just like Arabs and Hebrews.

Persians are Arabs.

Tell that to a Persian.

Egyptians are Arabs.

Not ancient Egyptians.

OK, maybe not, but the Babylonians are supposed to represent the Arabs.The Arab capital would be Baghdad. That is extremely close to where Babylon was.

Why not Mecca, Medina, Damascus, or Cairo? The greatest Arab dynasty did rule from Baghdad, but still...

ranskaldan · October 1, 2001, 22:37

Persians are not Arabs, and they've never been Arabs.

Egypt and Babylonia are now Arab, but they weren't when the Pyramids and Ziggurats were built.

Babylonians weren't exactly Semites. The Sumerians weren't, for example. And 'Semites' doesn't mean they're all the same. The Hebrews and Arabs are Semites. Yet they aren't the same at all.

Arabs simply had too great an impact on world history to be ignored. Together with China, they dominated the world when Europe was still bogged down in the Dark Ages. I'd put them at equal importance as the Romans, Chinese, or British. I know that Middle East is cluttered up, but the Middle East has just been too good at producing magnificient cultures.

D_dudy: think how many people there are with arab descent.

monkspider · October 1, 2001, 22:44

I would love to see the Arabs, however I feel the Mongols may have been an even more glaring omission.

Gatekeeper · October 2, 2001, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
I would love to see the Arabs, however I feel the Mongols may have been an even more glaring omission.

Damn straight! The Mongols were a part of Civilization from the very beginning. Those SOBs really did change the world, too. I think TPTB should have expanded the civilizations list a wee bit in order to fit them in, along with Spain, Incas (or Mayans) and perhaps the Vikings and Carthaginians.

Alas, as I have a Macintosh, I shall have to wait longer than the rest of you. At least the bugs in the Windows version will be worked out by the time a Mac release comes. Perhaps TPTB will also release both Civ III and a patch for those civs in question at the same time for the Macintosh community.

CYBERAmazon

KrazyHorse · October 2, 2001, 02:37

Omissions, in order: Spanish, Arabs, Mongols, Vikings

Sarxis · October 2, 2001, 02:51

I think the reason that a lot of civs didn't get selected, and why others did, was because Firaxis wanted to mix things up a bit by including civs that were different from each other. Tough decisisions that had to be made to cut some of the other major civs, but that's how it all panned out.

Also another thing to consider is the civ leaders. Who would you pick to represent the Arabs or the Spanish? The leaders for the civs that are included in the game are quite well known: Cleopatra, Ceasar (Julius, Augustus- which Ceasar is in the game btw?), Lincoln, Gandhi....

Ok, so I am defending Firaxis. But they had 16 civs to work with, and they had to choose which would be in, and which would be candidates for an XP.

KrazyHorse · October 2, 2001, 02:53

Spanish: Isabella

Arabs: Saladin

Sarxis · October 2, 2001, 03:05

Who?

But truthfully, Isabella isn't a big icon in the Western psychi (well, not in mine anyway), or Saladin for that matter. Though I agree that they were both great leaders in their time, and would be good as representatives in CivIII.

But ultimately it comes down to this: there can be only so many civs in the game, and Firaxis chose what they thought would compliment CivIII most.

monkspider · October 2, 2001, 03:16

There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game. The only disagreement would come over which would take higher priority over the other, as one could make a very solid case for all four. .

monkspider · October 2, 2001, 03:17

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Spanish: Isabella

Arabs: Saladin

I agree

player1 · October 2, 2001, 03:44

All modern versions of these civilizations:
Babylonians, Persians & Egyptians are Arab nations.
Iraq, Iran & Egypt.
Personaly I would like to have Turks in the game.
They where most powerful Arabic nation in renesanse & industrial time.
Maybe in expansion pack.

player1 · October 2, 2001, 03:48

These 3 nations: Iraq, Iran, Egyptian are all descendents of
Arabs + Babylonians, Persians or Acient Egyptians.

Having Arabs is similar as having Italy & Byzantine as Civilizations together with Romans.

Urban Ranger · October 2, 2001, 05:06

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game.

Okay, choose 4 existing civs in Civ 3 to elminate to make room for these so called "glaring omissions."

Difficult, innit?

KrazyHorse · October 2, 2001, 05:16

I'll get you 2, at least: Zulus and Iroquois. If you wanted an African civ there are better examples, and the Iroquois are a joke.

to Ribannah in dvance.

Rogan Josh · October 2, 2001, 05:20

The celts are the most glaring omission. The were a big influence in the dark ages.

player1 · October 2, 2001, 08:16

Personaly, I would make expansion pack with 5 civs

I will make explanations for their civ attributes.
Every civ is of different culture:

-European: Spaniards (Militaristic & Commercial)
Major trade power, could be Expansionistic but they where more
conquerors than settlers)
-Middle East: Turks (Expansionistic & Religious)
They controlled very large part of the wolrd & build many Muslim
Temples
-Asian: Mongols (Militaristic & Expansionistic)
They conquered almost half of the world
-American: Incas (Religious & Industrial)
Important Native Americal civilization, Religious, lived on very harsh
terrain (needed lots of irrigration)
-Ancient Classical (that Roman, Greek, Egyptian style):
Chartaginans (Expansionistic & Commercial)
Trade power, descendents of Phenicians, controlled lots of colonies.

Ribannah · October 2, 2001, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'll get you 2, at least: Zulus and Iroquois. If you wanted an African civ there are better examples, and the Iroquois are a joke.

to Ribannah in dvance.

Soon, Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois

I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.
Mongols, Spanish and Vikings (better: Norse) definitely don't belong in the top 16 IMHO. Sure, they had empires, but what did they give human civilization?

aaglo · October 2, 2001, 09:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
Soon, Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois

I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.
Mongols, Spanish and Vikings (better: Norse) definitely don't belong in the top 16 IMHO. Sure, they had empires, but what did they give human civilization?

Again, and again, and again... will this never stop? People keep arguing which civ deserves and which don't deserve to be included in a game...
IMHO every freakin' god damn civ deserves it, even those which currently aren't. It's like comparing which is better: sugar or salt.

And yes, soon Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois

Ribannah · October 2, 2001, 09:58

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
It's like comparing which is better: sugar or salt.

Believe me, salt is MUCH better than sugar.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

aaglo · October 2, 2001, 10:03

Salt is better than sugar? In what way? I hope you don't use salt instead of sugar (in cakes, for instance).

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA

Ubik · October 2, 2001, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.

No need to rephrase it, Ribannah said it all... I am more fond of the Nubians, though. So, Arabs in for Persia and Nubians in for Zulu!

But - excuse me - certainly the Mongols do belong in a civ game - hell, the "what did they give to civilization" could be said for more than one of the "modern" civs...

...and I'd have to go with sugar

Steve Clark · October 2, 2001, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game. The only disagreement would come over which would take higher priority over the other, as one could make a very solid case for all four. .

Why is this even an issue? Just wait a little while and you'll probably see 100+ civs available to put into the 16 slots. Makes everything discussed here completely moot, imo.

For example, one of my very favorite Civ2 game I played included the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Minoans, Babylonians, Persians (and someone else), plus the barbarians disguised as Libyan raiders. You understand what I'm getting at?

Now in Civ3, whether these new ones include those fancy 3D leaders is irrelevant, imo. As far as civ attributes, those should not be in the regular game, only in scenarios.