Expansion Pack Civs (Part 4): A never-ending story?

[Locutus]

Attention: overall ranking has been moved to the second post.
Too many people are voting without knowing the rules (properly) so I moved the rules up to make them easier to spot. Also, this way the first post can serve as a central point with relevant links for this thread and the Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack (see bottom of post).

Okay, contrary to my habits, I'll try and keep this short (or as short as possible anyway )...

For historical purposes, here are Parts previous incarnations of this discussion:
Expansion Pack Civs: One more thread... (Let's do it right)
Expansion Pack Civs (Part 2) (temporary thread due to forum problems, started by MarkG)
Expansion Pack Civs (Part 3): Just one more...

If you want to read about the history or background of this poll, see the old threads. What it boils down to is that a lot of people aren't completely happy with the civs included in Civ3 (or more accurately, with the civs not included). So the idea of this poll is to give everyone an oppurtunity to vote for the civs they would like to see in a future Civ3 expansion pack, presuming Firaxis ever decides to make one.

Rules
In this poll, you can give points to civs that you would like to see included in an expansion pack, with the following restrictions (which have as sole purpose to prevent this thread from being 'abused' in any way):

1) You must vote for at least 6 civs and for at most 16 (you can vote for any civ you want that isn't already in Civ3, whether it's a 'big one' like Spain or a 'small one' like Liechtenstein);
2) You must give at least 80 points and at most 160 (the more points, the more important you feel the civ is);
3) You can give at most 20 points per civ;
4) I, Locutus, am the 'moderator' of this poll and have to right to refuse or change any vote (immediately or retroactively) if I find it for whatever reason unsuitable; I will always announce any change or refusal and if you don't agree with my decisions, you can either change or retract your vote;
5) This poll is intended to be a representation of the wishes of the Apolyton community, so do not promote/advertise or otherwise mention this thread outside Apolyton or to non-Apolytoners; if you're not an Apolytoner yourself but just 'passing by' or found a link to this poll outside Apolyton, please don't vote.

Next, there are a few 'rules' that are intended to facilitate me in moderating this poll:

6) If you just post civ names and no points, the points will be distributed equally among all choices. So if you post 16 names without points, all choices will get 10 points. If you post 8 names, all choices will get 20 points. If you don't agree with the points I assigned to your choices, give points yourself in the first place or change your vote afterwards (see below).
7) If you wish to change your vote for any reason, that's possible; but please don't edit your existing post or just post a new list. This would be very confusing for me to keep track of. Instead, only post the changes you wish to make. FE, if you already voted but see someone vote for the Cubans and think 'that's brilliant, why didn't I think of that?', you can change your vote by posting 'Arabs -7, Cubans +7' or something like that. Please do this even if you still have enough points left, so I can doublecheck to make sure you don't exceed the maximum number of civs/points. So if you only 'spent' 150 points over 12 civs, don't just posts 'Cubans 10' but rather 'Cubans +10'. TIA for doing so.

I think rules 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are pretty obvious but 4 and 5 may need some explanation:
- Rule 4 is mostly for emergency situations, I don't plan on refusing votes on a large scale or changing people's vote to suit my own agenda or whatever. It's intention is to allow me to intervene in the exceptional case where people are (willingly or unwillingly) 'abusing' this thread. In the eyes of of most people it was probably already an unwritten rule in the past. I might also use this rule for things like merging similar civs together, preventing people from voting for non-civs like poodles/Washington Redskins/AC Milan/Britney Spears fans/whatever, stuff like that.
- Rule 5 is undoubtably the most controversial one, it's basically a drastic shift in the focus of this poll. The reason for this is that Apolyton is an international community with people from all over the world, and at least 95% of these people is intelligent and reasonable enough to not (willingly or unwillingly) use this thread for their own political agenda but to cast an well thought-out vote for all civs they truly think should be in a Civ3 expansion pack. The opinion of the average Apolytoners most likely isn't all that different from the opinion of the average Civ player. If nothing else, the 'Polish invasion' showed us that when non-Apolytoners are involved in this discussion, it's impossible to guarantee that these people will cast equally well thought-out votes and to an equal degree represent the entire world community. Even though the opinion of an 'outsider' is just as important and valuable as the opinion of an Apolytoner, it would only have any value for this poll if *all* 'outsiders' everywhere in the world would be informed about the existance of this poll and would be allowed to vote, something which is practically impossible.
I realize full well that it's near to impossible to enforce this rule, I'm relying on the common courtesy and decency of all involved not to break this rule. Let it be very clear: I certainly do not plan on declaring all settlers who registered within days or hours before posting their first post in this thread 'suspects'. I know there are many long-time lurkers out there, some of them could be (and even have been) persuaded by this poll to finally register and vote. They may not have a public history on Apolyton but they are Apolytoners non-the-less. The same goes for newcomers who happen to make (one of) their first posts in this poll, they may not have been Apolytoners for very long but they are here to stay and thus have every right to call themselves that.
The only people that are not 'allowed' to vote are people that hardly or never visited Apolyton in the past and don't have any intention of coming back in the future. Normally these people will only find this poll if it's advertised by others (like LoD did earlier), so that's why I ask all everyone not to promote this poll outside Apolyton.

Examples
Here are some example civs to guide you in picking your civs (by no means exhaustive, feel free to post others): (Africa) Bantu, Zimbabwe, Swahili, Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali, Moors, Morocco, Ethiopia/Axum, Nubia, Carthage, South Africa/Boer (Americas) Eskimo, Canada, Sioux, Cheyenne, Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Olmec, Maya, Inca, Tolmec, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina (Oceania) Maori, Aboriginals, Australia, Polynesia, Philippines, Indonesia (Asia) Khmer, Siam/Thai, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Mongol, Annam/Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Tamil, Sikh, Moghul, Kazakh, Pakistan, Parthia, Bactria, Armenia, Arabia, Hebrew, Hittites, Sumerian, Turkish/Ottomans, Byzantine, Phoenicia, Fillistines(sp?), Iraq (Europe) Spanish, Dutch, Minoan, Celts, Viking, Polish, Austria(-Hungary), Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danish, Scots, Irish, Belgium, Portuguese, Basque, Slavic, Serbia, Macedonia, Czech, Swiss, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Goths (for more: see ranking)

Ranking
Finally, in the post below you can see the latest update of the overall ranking. You can download an Excel worksheet with the complete data of this poll here (right-click and select 'Save Target As...').



Links
Below are links to discussions the most popular civs in the poll. Discussions on the properties of the top 16 civs can be held in these threads:

Arabs	Ethiopians&nbsp	Maya	Portuguese&nbsp
Byzantines&nbsp	Hebrew	Mongols	Spanish
Celts	Inca	Poles	Turks
Dutch	Koreans	Phoenicians&nbsp	Vikings

(Other links will be put here)

[Locutus]

Last update: wervdon (time & date: see 'Last edited' at bottom), 252 valid votes casted, 38267 points given (= 94.9% of total # of points possible)

#&nbsp	Civilizations		Points	Votes	%
1.	Spanish		3131	181	8,2%
2.	Mongols		2831	167	7,4%
3.	Arab		2665	160	7,0%
4.	Inca		2533	163	6,6%
5.	Vikings		2368	147	6,2%
6.	Turks/Ottomans		2304	149	6,0%
7.	Phoenicians/Carthaginians		1489	100	3,9%
8.	Maya		1314	95	3,4%
9.	Celts		1291	88	3,4%
10.	Portuguese		1228	82	3,2%
11.	Dutch		1178	86	3,1%
12.	Hebrew/Israelis		1108	78	2,9%
13.	Ethiopians/Aksumites		956	62	2,5%
14.	Poles		943	59	2,5%
15.	Koreans		799	48	2,1%
16.	Khmer		662	44	1,7%
17.	Byzantines		660	44	1,7%
18.	Polynesians		654	48	1,7%
19.	Mali(ans)		560	41	1,5%
20.	Austrians/Austro-Hungarians		495	32	1,3%
21.	Huns		386	26	1,0%
22.	Inuit/Eskimos/Aleutians		374	27	1,0%
23.	Assyrians		340	24	0,9%
24.	Australians		340	24	0,9%
25.	Sioux/Dakota		308	29	0,8%
26.	(Australian) Aborigines		298	20	0,8%
27.	Magyar/Hungarians		268	21	0,7%
28.	Siamese/Thai		262	20	0,7%
29.	Brazilians		250	18	0,7%
30.	Scots		250	17	0,7%
31.	Swedes		241	16	0,6%
32.	Tibetans		226	18	0,6%
33.	Slavs		200	14	0,5%
34.	Canadians		180	12	0,5%
35.	Annam/Vietnamese		177	14	0,5%
36.	Sumerians		175	13	0,5%
37.	Czech		168	11	0,4%
38.	Apache		159	12	0,4%
39.	Serbs		145	8	0,4%
40.	Neanderthals		143	8	0,4%
41.	Ukrainians		130	9	0,3%
42.	Minoans		125	8	0,3%
43.	Goths		120	9	0,3%
44.	Hittites		110	9	0,3%
45.	Indonesians		110	9	0,3%
46.	Zimbabweans		109	10	0,3%
47.	Ghanaians/Accrans		107	9	0,3%
48.	Swiss		105	6	0,3%
49.	Italians/Venetians		100	8	0,3%
50.	Argentinians		100	6	0,3%
51.	Cubans		100	5	0,3%
52.	Welsh		100	5	0,3%
53.	Nubians/Kushites		99	8	0,3%
54.	Native Americans/American Indians		91	9	0,2%
55.	Holy Romans/Catholics/Vaticans		90	6	0,2%
56.	Irish		90	6	0,2%
57.	Trojans		86	6	0,2%
58.	Latvians		86	5	0,2%
59.	Fins		85	5	0,2%
60.	Scandinavians		80	6	0,2%
61.	Bantu		75	6	0,2%
62.	Tartars		70	4	0,2%
63.	Nigerians/Swagilians		60	6	0,2%
64.	Songhai		60	5	0,2%
65.	Belgians		60	3	0,2%
66.	Confederates		60	3	0,2%
67.	Crown of Aragorn		60	3	0,2%
68.	Kazakhs		55	5	0,1%
69.	South East Asians		55	4	0,1%
70.	Olmec		52	6	0,1%
71.	Berbers/Moors		50	5	0,1%
72.	Maori		50	3	0,1%
73.	Californians		48	3	0,1%
74.	Harappans/Dravidians/Indus People		46	5	0,1%
75.	Mexicans		44	5	0,1%
76.	Anasazi		40	4	0,1%
77.	Cherokee		40	4	0,1%
78.	Amazonians (Native Brazilians)		40	3	0,1%
79.	Armenians		40	3	0,1%
80.	Danes		40	3	0,1%
81.	Etruscs		40	3	0,1%
82.	Filipinos		40	3	0,1%
83.	Swahili/Kilwans		40	3	0,1%
84.	Iraqis		40	2	0,1%
85.	Indo-Malays/Austronesians		35	2	0,1%
86.	Muslims/Near East Asians		35	2	0,1%
87.	Quebecois		33	3	0,1%
88.	Uzbek/LithuUzbek		32	3	0,1%
89.	Texans		31	3	0,1%
90.	Boers		30	3	0,1%
91.	Iberians		30	2	0,1%
92.	Iranians		30	2	0,1%
93.	Norwegians		30	2	0,1%
94.	Philistinians		30	2	0,1%
95.	Macedonians		29	2	0,1%
96.	Hmong		28	3	0,1%
97.	South Africans		25	3	0,1%
98.	Bulgarians		25	2	0,1%
99.	Virginians		25	2	0,1%
100.	Amazons		22	2	0,1%
101.	Navaho		20	3	0,1%
102.	Hawaiians		20	2	0,1%
103.	Al-Alandalus		20	1	0,1%
104.	Almerienses		20	1	0,1%
105.	Bangladeshis		20	1	0,1%
106.	Bedouin		20	1	0,1%
107.	Cartagenians (from Cartagena)		20	1	0,1%
108.	Castilla-Leon/Castillians		20	1	0,1%
109.	Pygmy		20	1	0,1%
110.	Seljuks		20	1	0,1%
111.	Singaporeans		20	1	0,1%
112.	Snake Mounds		20	1	0,1%
113.	Ugandians		20	1	0,1%
114.	Liechtenstein		17	2	0,0%
115.	Luxembourg		17	1	0,0%
116.	Yankees		15	2	0,0%
117.	Algonquiens		15	1	0,0%
118.	Manchu(rian)s		15	1	0,0%
119.	Sub-Saharans		15	1	0,0%
120.	Mesopotamians		12	1	0,0%
121.	Galactic Emperials (Star Wars)		11	2	0,0%
122.	New Zealanders		11	1	0,0%
123.	Caribbeans		10	1	0,0%
124.	Geordie		10	1	0,0%
125.	Hopi		10	1	0,0%
126.	Javans		10	1	0,0%
127.	Mon		10	1	0,0%
128.	Teutons		10	1	0,0%
129.	Tocharians		10	1	0,0%
130.	Tunguz		10	1	0,0%
131.	Tunisians		10	1	0,0%
132.	Columbians		7	1	0,0%
133.	Slovakians		7	1	0,0%
134.	Palestinians		5	1	0,0%
135.	Sámi		5	1	0,0%
136.	Hospitaliers		4	1	0,0%
137.	Fatty Lumpkins		2	2	0,0%
138.	Khwarizm		2	1	0,0%

[Locutus]

Okay guys, I recounted the list, as can be seen above. I deliberately counted exactly the same votes as in the last update of the previous thread (i.e. all votes up to Staszek, but all votes after Roland Ehnström were invalid under the new rules) and I will wait a few hours before updating the rest of the vote. This way everyone can see the effect of enforcing the new rules. Most notably, the Poles have lost almost 250 points but they only fell back 3 places on the overall ranking (from 12 to 15). Looks like even without a 'Polish invasion' we perfectly well recognize Poland as an important civ (though I'm sure the invasion helped a bit)...

Here's a list of all people who for who's vote were counted under the old rules but are no longer valid under the new ones (20 in total):

Bob Dornan (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Rasputin (only 5 civs, 50 points)
StSz (only voted 20 points)
PGM (only 3 civs, 41 points)
Orioles3386 (only voted for 4 civs)
Adrien (only voted for 5 civs)
krzysiek (only voted 55 points)
Brad (only 2 civs, 40 points)
Triped (only 1 civ, 20 points)
MarsJan (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Kalbarczyk (only voted for 4 civs)
Henryk Przerwa (only 1 civ, 20 points)
almaryk (only 1 civ, 20 points)
bartuk (only 1 civ, 20 points)
Maveus (only 1 civ, 20 points)
vasyl (only 4 civs, 40 points)
DZASKUL (only 1 civ, 20 points)
borg (only 3 civs, 60 points)
ogotai (only 3 civs, 40 points)
Staszek (only 1 civ, 20 points)

This doesn't yet include the people who's votes I haven't counted yet, I'll post their names next time when I update the ranking. If anyone wants to know if they still have points left or whatever, I refer to the Excel sheet I linked to above, it contains all the data collected in this poll, including the total number of points and civs that were voted for by each poster (who casted a valid vote).

On Gramphos's request, I added percentages as a statistic for each civ. If anyone else knows of any other fun things to keep track off, let me know.

For those of you who haven't done so already: keep on votin'...

[Mankind]

edited:


what a .......


mistake

My votes where counted

but ok i still have those *20* left ..... now on what civ ....

[LoD]

Locutus: Under the risk of provoking a new discussion, I'd like to say that, IMHO, the new rules should be applied from now on, and not be applied historically backwards. This is the standard conduct in such situations.

[krzysiek]

My updated votes:

Australians 20
Slavs 20
Koreans 20
Poles 20
Spanish 15
Ethiopians 15
Hebrew 15
Khmer 10
Portugal 10
Turks 10
Polynesians 5
TOTAL 160

[Locutus]

LoD,
No, I strongly disagree. It's simply unfair if people who happened to have found this thread earlier have a lot more freedom in choosing their votes than people who happened to will find it later. The only way to make sure this thread is fair and consistent is if everyone votes by the same rules. People whose vote was declared invalid will simply have to vote again...

[LoD]

Alright .

[knott]

I am new.

Spain 20
Mongols 20
Vikings 20
Turks 20
Inca 20
Austrians/Austro-Hungarians 20
Phoenicians/Carthaginians 20
Arab 20

[Ubik]

Well done, Locutus, a great move! Now this poll should become what it was ment to be... or at least we could try to maintain it that way

[Be Quicker]

I am sorry, I think the new rules etc. are a good idea, but I am confused. I mean I've voted after Roland Ehnström (I guess), and I think my vote was legal. So now I am going to have to wait till the next update to se whether this has been incorperated, right?

[Dessloch]

uh oh so my vote wasn't counted??? right?
so should I vote AGAIN, or just make notes such as
country x + 20 votes
country Y + 2 points???

or just new votes.... I think this would be easier

[Gramphos]

Locutus, Now you have three posts in the beginning of the thread if it would be to long again

percentages with ',' and not '.' as a decimal separator. I thought I'd never see that on Internet. *Jumping up and down in ecstasy*

How long will it take for Mark to top this one?

[Locutus]

Be Quicker,
Yes, everyone who voted after Roland Ehnström will have to wait until the next update to see (if) their voted (are) added to the ranking. In your case though I can assure you that they will be.

Dessloch,
Indeed, your vote was not valid according to the new rules. For those people who want to 'fix' their vote to fit the new rules, like you, I don't particularly care whether they post a 'new vote' or an 'update', whatever you prefer.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Locutus, Now you have three posts in the beginning of the thread if it would be to long again

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

percentages with ',' and not '.' as a decimal separator. I thought I'd never see that on Internet. *Jumping up and down in ecstasy*

Oh, dang! Hadn't thought of that yet. I have a Dutch version of Excel, it automatically uses ','. Well, unless people have a real problem with that (and quite frankly I can't see why they should), I'm gonna have to leave it at this. It would probably involve a fair amount of work to fix that without screwing up all my other Excel documents (and this is of course how it *should* be ).

[mactbone]

Since you're using Excel now, can you post that file as an attachment? I'd like to see what I can do with it.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Since you're using Excel now, can you post that file as an attachment? I'd like to see what I can do with it.

He has it uploaded on another page linked to one of his first posts.

Locutus,
What I was saying is that if the ranking became over 20000 chars you would have expansion abilities within the thread
Oh, and I thought of, now then you use Excel, why not have bars for each civ as well. (I've made some code for it in your file. If you want it please inform me.)

This is a sample. (current top 16) Edit: Top16 Ranking changed to Locutus' 213 votes update

#&nbsp	Civilizations                                   &nbsp		Points  &nbsp	Votes  &nbsp	%
1.	Spanish		2548	149	7,8%
2.	Mongols		2372	139	7,3%
3.	Arab		2289	140	7,0%
4.	Inca		2153	141	6,6%
5.	Vikings		1928	122	5,9%
6.	Turks/Ottomans		1854	123	5,7%
7.	Phoenicians/Carthaginians		1319	90	4,1%
8.	Maya		1209	89	3,7%
9.	Celts		1090	76	3,3%
10.	Portuguese		958	65	2,9%
11.	Hebrew/Israelis		936	68	2,9%
12.	Dutch		904	69	2,8%
13.	Ethiopians/Aksumites		816	53	2,5%
14.	Poles		813	51	2,5%
15.	Koreans		656	40	2,0%
16.	Byzantines		585	39	1,8%

[Gramphos]

I just made some calculations, and the whole list (Not including headers would be too big)
So the idea won't work unless Some code can be stripped (I.E. not using the end of the bars)
Or more then one post is used to keep the ranking.

[Master Marcus]

Gramphos: why not have bars for each civ as well

very cool feature, like the polls, but for the top 10 or 16 at most since this takes a huge space cost. Keep up the good work

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Master Marcus
very cool feature, like the polls, but for the top 10 or 16 at most since this takes a huge space cost. Keep up the good work

Maybe should work. I'll count on it and inform back.
Locutus must still accept my offer.

[Gramphos]

Current Ranking with TOP-16 bared gives a length of 20151 bytes if all tabs and linebrakes are removed (Not including header.) (Too small)

With top 10: 19131 byte

FULL list: 33110 byte

(MAX POST SIZE: 20000 byte)
top 10 would work.


Edit: I've tested to remove the width and height attribute from the sides:
FULL list: 27830

16: 19447
10: 18691

[Locutus]

MacTBone,
It's too large for an attachment and Markos doesn't allow *.xls files to be attached. That's why I put it on my website (second posts, near the bottom, under the header Ranking).

Gramphos,
Okay, I get it now, as an emergency situation that would be possible, yes...

Well, I very much like the idea of the bars but I'm afraid that it takes up too much space. I currently still have something like 2000 characters available in the first post and I'll need those for extra civs that people might introduce in the future (typically a new civ is introduced once every 2-3 votes and can easily take up 150+ characters). It would only be a useful feature for the top 16 or so (the rest of the civs are way too close together, all bars would all be roughly equally long - or short rather) and it would require me to break up the ranking and spread it over 2 posts, something which I prefer not to do if I don't have to. But if enough people would really like this and noone objects to it, I might consider it.

[Jay Bee]

(OT comment)

So, in Dutch decimals are separated by commas just like in Spanish, French and German? Why have we allowed ourselves to be dominated by such a barbarian language that uses . instead of the more universally accepted , !!!


(Sorry, I could not help it )

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
Gramphos,
Okay, I get it now, as an emergency situation that would be possible, yes...

Well, I very much like the idea of the bars but I'm afraid that it takes up too much space. I currently still have something like 2000 characters available in the first post and I'll need those for extra civs that people might introduce in the future (typically a new civ is introduced once every 2-3 votes and can easily take up 150+ characters). It would only be a useful feature for the top 16 or so (the rest of the civs are way too close together, all bars would all be roughly equally long - or short rather) and it would require me to break up the ranking and spread it over 2 posts, something which I prefer not to do if I don't have to. But if enough people would really like this and noone objects to it, I might consider it.

I've asked Mark in the Community to add two BB-codes that would make it mush smaller. And if you removed all tabs before you posted it it would be a little smaller too.
(And the current page I use is it easy to change the number of posts that have bars. Do you want it? Email me (so that I can get your e-mail address.))

[orange]

Awesome work!

I'm really happy with the top 16 except for #16 itself - Byzantines

Go Mali!

[Jer8m8]

Locutus-this could be hard, but could you try to figure out who has votes left and how many?

[Locutus]

Yeah, Jay Bee, I think just about the whole world except for the English speaking countries use the ','-notation. We really ought to start a revolution over this, the '.'-notation is sheer heresy!

Gramphos,
Email is on it's way. If Markos adds those vBB tags and it saves enough space, I will certainly add those bars...

Jer8m8,
You can easily figure that out by downloading the Excel sheet but I wouldn't mind posting a list next time I update either.

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's my votes...

Mongols 20
Inca 20
Polynesians 20
Mali 20
Khmer 20
Vikings 10
Maya 10
Spanish 10
Arabs 10
Carthaginians 10
Celts 10

Total 160

[orange]

Hmmm, I checked the excel sheet...my votes don't match up...

Here's what you have...
Spanish 20
Mongols 10
Vikings 10
Turks 10
Phoenician 10
Celts 20
Portugese 5
Poles 10
Assyrians 10
Australians 10
Huns 5
Brazilians 10
Canadian 10
Mexican 10

Total - 150

here's what I want...
Spanish - 20
Arabs - 20
Celts - 20
Mali - 20
Inca - 20
Phoenician - 20
Portugese - 10
Aksumite - 10
Vikings - 10
Mongols - 10

Total - 160

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
Gramphos,
Email is on it's way. If Markos adds those vBB tags and it saves enough space, I will certainly add those bars...

File is on its way.
If Markos want those cool bars he better add that code.