APOLYTON EXTRACIVS PACK.

[ranskaldan]

Ok, i think this thread can be un-topped now...

Wernazuma III, can you start a new thread that is devoted to nothing but keeping track of all the properties (leader, UU, abilities, city list etc.) of all the civs? We can still have the separate threads on each civ going on all over the place, but we need a centralized location where everything is.

[LoD]

Again, sad to hear you are leaving Locutus.
As for the guys that are making the graphics for the Polish civ - sincerely I don't know, I'll ask them once they produce a unit prototype.
As for the legal issue - I honestly hope this thread (by myself) will lead to the clarification of the matter.

[alskdj80]

Hey, this idea sounds really great! It's quite clear that Firaxis really didn't do their homework (from 2nd grade, I believe someone said?, lol) on any of the civs... or the world map, for that matter... besides, the number of civs available really isn't cutting it...

Adding new civs will really balance the game, and add a greater sense of realism there. Also, er... while you guys are at it... could you fix the existing civs? I mean, some of the info is really inaccurate or inappropriate, such as the great leaders, the choice of rulers, cities, etc.

Can you guys make an ancient leader for the Chinese? One of the Dynastic Emperors of China maybe

The exact question I wanted to ask, hehe. I mean, Mao was a terrible ruler, and it really doesn't do China justice.

I'm pretty sure someone must have mentioned Napoleon? (I haven't actually read the entire post, sorry) Well, I sort of miss him... kinda makes me lose incentive to play as French... sorry Joan of Arc, but its the truth...

For the info on the civs, it's probably always best to listen to the people that have actually lived or are from the place. I always trust locals more than foreigners on local info. Even if the foreigner is a certified expert, I don't believe that the locals will be any less knowing on their own subject. So, ignore everyone except the locals, it's the only fair way... damn... I guess my request on Napoleon won't be put in then... *sigh*, LOL.

But, anyways, I was serious about the locals, because I've seen too many posts from pretentious foreigners on another nation, when in actual fact, they know nothing on the country. But, I guess we're all culprit to that to a certain degree... I'll admit to it. Like Napoleon... he's easily the most important French ruler I know, but any French person may say that he isn't (I dunno). So, definitely listen the French on that argument.

[Gromit]

I had a thought on the issue of the whole 'playerrs choose thier own civs' thing. In may spare time (when not playing civ games), I also play FIFA soccer games. The best U.K. site has a 'TV station selection' mod, which enables you to choose the graphics for the in-match score, popup display (and a few other things) before you load the game. If someone could adapt this principle to a 'civ chooser' I think that would be a good thing.

Just a thought anyhow.
Here is a link:-

Soccergaming.co.uk

Oh, and don't listen to grizzly.

[Wetherell]

I would love to help with the development of the animations of the leaders, all I would really need though is the software to do it. Any sugestions....I love a chalange. I've got skills in computers and think I could tackle this beast. I just need a little guidence.

Sugestions for what leader head to start with?

Oh btw if anyone has already voluntiered to help with this aspect ok then, I just couldn't read all of the input already posted on the thread.

Anyway give me some input, and I'll be happy to help....

Wetherell

[Olle Wiman]

To whoever makes the "Viking" extra-civ:
Have not bought CivIII yet. Will get it in
some weeks...

But, please do not copy/paste from CivII.
There are errors there

Example: Viking Republic Leader is LAGMAN
(Yep, such a title does exist. Ruling
style was more Republic-lookalike than
despotism).

City list needs a re-make... Another
female (default) leader?

Special unit: Of COURSE Dragon-Ship.
An ancient unit which can sail "beyond
Horizon" (Vikings landed in Now Foundlan
in A.D. 1002, a "few" years before
Columbus).

I could be of some assistance (but I can
not make any graphics). Post an e-mail
to sm6hcj@seaside.se

Rgrds, O

[Signa]

I'm a avide militarly historian and would like to add a dozen or so civilizations that I think should be in...

Lets start by anilization of the current ones...

Americans
Abe Lincoln: F-15E Strike Eagle: Ex/In: Washington
The choice of Abe Lincoln as the leader was probaly the best. However, Washington, FDR, and maybe even JFK (joke) are breathing down his neck. The F-15E is OK as the UU. A improved Riflemen called the "Minutemen" to pay tribute to the miltas of the revolutionary war would be my choice (gotta love "The Patriot"), but any modern units could work (Abrams, Rangers, F-22, B-2) would work. The Expanionist trait is very well picked. The Industrious one as well. Should they be in, yes. They've owned the since WWII and have a very distinct culture. They are young, but deserve a ticket in CivIII.

Aztecs
Montozuma II: Jaugar Warrior: Re/Mi: Tenochtitlan
The Aztecs were put in the game simply as a placeholder and their fame due to their loss to Cortez. The leader choice is good considering Monty is the only Aztec leader the general public is knowlegable to. The Jaguar Warrior should be the Eagle Warrior considering the "chief god" of the Aztecs was an eagle. The traits are also we picked. Do they deserve to be in? The Spanish would of been better, but we can make do.

Babylonians
Hammubri: Bowman: Re/Sc: Babylon
The Babylonians are a good choice to represent all of the Mesopatamin cultures through ancient history (Assyrians, Sumerians). The Bowman is a good but not great idea for a UU. I personally prefer a "Siege Tower" replacement for the Catapult (drawing off the Assyrian love of siege warfare). Hammubri is one of many good leaders for this civilization, but I would prefer Nebacanzzer (him and his gardens kicked off the golden age. The traits are good for a culture victory, but a little unrealistic (Mi/Ex would be more historical) but it works.

Chinese
Mao Tse-Tung: Rider: Mi/In: Beijing
China is more than deserving to be in the mix. With 6000 years of culture and history, they are probly the most deserving. The traits are a little off, China should be a Scientific civilization over Militaristic. The UU of the Rider is absolutly bogus, a "Fire Machine" (name sucks) an improved cannon would be my choice. Using Mao as the leader of the civilization is a good bet. This is one of the tricker civilizations and some mistakes where made.

Egyptians
Cleopatra: War Chariot: Re/In: Thebes
The region around the Nile is one of the most disputed in history, no less than 10 empires have controlled it. But from time to time it has been independant, so it gets in and rightfully so. The War Chariot, however useless in the actual game, is the perfect UU for the Egyptians. The traits are fairly well defined, but I would ditch the Industrious for Commerical. Cleopatra as a leader is a gut call. Besides being histories greatest slut, she only managed to get the wrath of the Romans (specifically, Ocativin/Augustus). Ramases or Kufu would be better.

English
Elizabeth I: Man of War: Co/Ex: London
Another one of those automatic berth nations. The traits are very soild (but if needed Industious could be used). Elizabeth is probably the best for leader, but Victoria and Henry VII (love the war of the roses) are good too. The Man of War is a great UU from a historical prespecive, but should be way thoughened up to show it's once domination of the seas. However, the Longbowman was only used by one civilization in history alot. If the Man of War is cut, then a improved regular Longbowmen (perhaps a Welsh Archer) could be used.

French
Joan 'D Arc: Musketeer: Co/In: Paris
If it wasn't for the witch of a 13 year old girl the French and English nations would be one. I like Napoleon either way. Charlemagne is also kinda there, but would probaly be classified as a German. The Musketeer is a joke for a UU in the game, but the historical premise on it are good. A Trebucet would be more historical and in the game might perform better. Choosing traits for France is hard, so pick your favorites. Commerical/Industrious is the best combo in the game and the French get it. Darn.

Germans
Bismark: Panzer: Mi/Sc: Berlin
I know for the sake of politcal corectness Hitler was not made leader of this civilization, but from a historical perspective he deserves it. The Panzer was a powerful Tank, and is a good UU. The Militaristic trait is good, but Scientific is a little sketchy. I'd rather see Industrious (modern Germany) or Religious (the Christians in the Holy Roman Empire, and the Nazis in the Third Reich).

Greeks
Alexander: Hoplite: Co/Sc: Athens
The Hoplite ties with the Legionairy for "Most Historical UU" and is perfect for the domestically oriented player, considering you are basically immune to assault till Knights exist. The traits are good, if not great. Alexander for the leader might or might not be good, add in that he was Macedonian. Percilus or King Leonidus each would be good. Probaly Percilus due to his peaceful nature.

Indians
Ghandi: War Elephant: Co/Re: Delhi
Using Ghandi as the leader is cool, but his policies of "non-violent resistence" I still love. The traits are rather well concieved. The War Elephant is interesting. In the game only bad luck (no horses or iron) really make them truelly useful, and i'd rather see the War Elephant return as a normal unit in the game. India has been a important force in the game, and should be included.

Iriquois
Hiawathia: Mounted Warrior: Ex/Re: Grand River
The Iriquois were probaly the most powerful group of Native American tribes ever (which shows how weak they really were). Despite this, they should be in. The expansionist quality is off it's mark, considering once the 5/6 tribes banded together they didn't make much war. The religious is good, but they were avide buisnessmen with the Europeans and so the commerical trait seems more well suited. The Mounted Warrior is just plain old crap, a Brave would be perfect however.

Japanese
Tokugawa: Samauri: Mi/Re: Tokyo
The Japanese are sometimes classified with the Chinese from their oriental cultures, but that is false. Japan has made it's own name for itself. It's UU, the Samuari, is a historical and powerful. The traits are good, but Industrial might fit in better than religious. Tokugawa is a good leader, overall they did a nice job trowing together this one.

Romans
Ceasar: Legionairy: Mi/Co: Rome
"Hail Ceaser" indeed. This is one of the coolest and another really well made civilization. The traits are perfect for a war mongor, and the Legionairy has a good mix of both offenive strenght and defensive power. Of course the use of Julius Galius Ceasar is perfect for this popular Civilization III civilization.

Russians
Catherine: Cossack: Ex/Sc: Moscow
Personally, i've always hated Catherine. She wasn't even a Russian (we all know she was Prussian). Joseph Stalin or VI Lenin would much better represent the Russian/Soviet empires. If spies where still units, then the obvious thing would be a KGB agent but thats not in the cards. The Cossack sucks in the game but if it was to be given a boost in attack or movement it would rock. The traits are well fit.

Persians
Xerxes: Immortal: In/Sc: Persepolis
Using Xerxes the Idiot for the leader here makes no sense. All he managed to do was waste 70,000 soilders fighting Hoplites. Either Darius or Cyrus should lead the Persians. The Immortal UU is just perfect. The traits I don't excatly like. The one thing the Persian empire was know for was size! Expansionist all the way baby. Another thing is their location and road system. Both of which point to a Commerical attribute.

Zulus
Shaka: Impi: Mi/Ex: Zimbabwe
Even thought Africa is unrepresented in the game, Zulus fits in well. Shaka is absolutly blood-thirsty in ever way, the more power to him. The Impi is a good UU from a historical and game perspective, and the traits fit right into them. Overall, another perfect match for the character of this civilization.

Now on to the new ones....

Aksumites
???: ???: ???: ???
Africa needs more say in the game. Aksum or perhaps Nubia are good candiates.

Arabs
Saladin: Camel Warrior: Re/Co: Mecca
Representing the origonal Arabs, Sejicks, and Ottomans. Saladin sounds good for a leader. Religious off of their Islamic faith and Commerical if you know Muslim culture.

Byzantines
Justantin: Cataract: ???: Constantinople
Justantin was the greatest Byzantine emperor, no doubt here. Plus there infamious knight units, the Cataracts, and traits I have no clue

Carthagians
Hannibal: War Galley: Mi/Co: Carthage
Hannibal is good, but maybe Dido for a leader. Indian already stole the Elephant, so they get the War Galley following their Phoecian roots. The traits fall into place.

Celtics
Arthur: Beserker: ???: ???
He may be legendary, but King Arthur is just to good to pass up. The Woad covered warriors shall be represented in the Beserker.

Hewbrews
???: Zealot: Re/??: Jerusalem (perhaps...)
David, Solomon, or any other leader is good. A Zealot swordsmen or something fits the Religious trait. The other trait is up in the air. I haven't spent enought time on them for a capitol.

Incans
???: ???: ???: Cuzco
The first only South American civilization in the game. Besides that, i'm blank.

Khmerians
???: ???: ???: Khmer
Somebody needs to hold down Polynesia for all of us.

Macedonians
Alexander: Companions: Mi/Ex: Pella
This one is the icing on my cake. The Greeks and Macedonians were differnt. Alexander is the obvious leader, and his companion calvary (improved horsemen) the UU. The traits are obvious, and so is the title.

Mayans
???: Jaguar Warrior: Sc/?: ???
Must be scientific, and trades the Eagle Warrior with the Aztecs for the Jaguar warrior.

Mongols
Genghis Khan: Mounted Archer: Mi/Ex: Khartoum
The great Genghis Khan leads these guys. With their tradmark Mounted Archers and the mean attitude in their attributes, these should definatly be in there.

Sioux
Sitting Bull: Mounted Warrior: Mi/Re: Little Bighorn
The great plains native americans are well represented with the Sioux. They get the Mounted Warrior instead, nothing out of the ordinary.

Spanish
Phillip II: Tercio: Ex/?: Madrid
Another old Civilization II civilization, nothing out of the ordinary except the inproved Musketman/Riflemen in the Tercio.

Vikings
???: Longboat: Mi/Re: ???
"Going aviking?" Grab a longboat, a sword, and a attitude and you get the good old Vikings.

Lets review...

Aksumites
Americans
Arabs
Aztecs
Babylonians
Byzantines
Carthagians
Celtics
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Hewbrews
Incas
Indians
Iriquios
Japanese
Khmerians
Macedonians
Mayans
Mongols
Persians
Romans
Russians
Sioux
Spanish
Vikings
Zulus

30 in all...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Signa
Iriquois
Hiawathia: Mounted Warrior: Ex/Re: Grand River
The Iriquois were probaly the most powerful group of Native American tribes ever (which shows how weak they really were). Despite this, they should be in. The expansionist quality is off it's mark, considering once the 5/6 tribes banded together they didn't make much war. The religious is good, but they were avide buisnessmen with the Europeans and so the commerical trait seems more well suited. The Mounted Warrior is just plain old crap, a Brave would be perfect however.

They are called Iroquois (French version of the Algonquin name of Iroqu for the People of the Longhouse), not Iriquois, thank you.
http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html
The military strength of the Iroquois in their Golden Age surpassed anything that the Europeans could muster on their continent; they were lord and master in the region.
Expansionist, which is not the same as militaristic, is not off the mark because, while being small in numbers, they created a large empire. But it's true that commercial would fit them just as well. Their special unit should IMHO be a musketman that uses all squares as road.

30 in all...

Which leaves room for the Dutch.

[Signa]

Sorry about the numerous typos above. The point about expansionist being able to work is correct, but i would prefer militaristic non the less.

I did leave 2 slots open, most likley to be filled by the Dutch (which were a puppet of Spain for a good while, but eventually they became indepentant and colonized a large amount of territory, and today have great culture and economic infulences, so they should be in). The other one is a ? mark to me, but the Koreans look good, Polynesia, Maori, Aborigonal, and maybe even Atlantian .

PS Im making my own amatuer XP, and will be nothing to the Aployton version, but will still be somewhat interesting and have a few new things to offer.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Signa
Koreans look good, Polynesia, Maori, Aborigonal, and maybe even Atlantian .

Atlantians (Religious, Militaristic)

Leader: Jeff Foxworthy / Ted Turner
Capital: Atlanta
Special Unit: Monster-truck mounted rifleman (with Stars n' Bars on the hood) A/D/M: 8/6/3

[Gromit]

Originally posted by squeeze truck


Atlantians (Religious, Militaristic)

Leader: Jeff Foxworthy / Ted Turner
Capital: Atlanta
Special Unit: Monster-truck mounted rifleman (with Stars n' Bars on the hood) A/D/M: 8/6/3

That IS a joke... right?

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Gromit


That IS a joke... right?

Mmmmmmmmmmaybe.

[Aqualung]

Well, this is all very interesting. Be nice to see once it gets done. Problem is, with only 16 slots on the player selection screen, how could YOU play one? I'm assuming that picking them for AI opponents would be easy, you've got that drop down menu. But how could you redo the whole screen to fit in another 16 civs for the player to pick?

As far as previous comments on Civs:

Americans: Expansionist works well, but I think Commercial fits better for our capitalist nature. THAT'S what fueled our expansion.

Inca: Religious would be mandatory. And then either Militaristic or Expansionist. Scientific? They didn't even have the wheel!
Atahualpa, like Montezuma, would be the obvious choice, simply because he's the only Emperor (actually, his title was Inca, it's like Pharoah, the "god-king") any European ever met. Manco Capac was the first Inca, who founded the empire.

[LoD]

Originally posted by Aqualung
Well, this is all very interesting. Be nice to see once it gets done. Problem is, with only 16 slots on the player selection screen, how could YOU play one? I'm assuming that picking them for AI opponents would be easy, you've got that drop down menu. But how could you redo the whole screen to fit in another 16 civs for the player to pick?

One word - Civ3CopyTool .

[Graeme the mad]

I really think that the vikings should be replaced by the norweigans or something - it's sort of like having bolsheviks for russia (not a perfect analogy but you get the idea) - the SU can be the longboat though

I badly think a civ has been overlooked that is very important - Austria-hungary/ the hapsburgs. They were one of the major powers in Europe for about 900 years and the top power in Europe for a large time. I suggest taking the Khmer out and replacing them with the Austro-Hungarian, no suggestion on what the SU should be.
I know its late in the day but seriously consider this would you, just look at European history Austro-Hungary was very powerful and influential

[G(R)EEK]

Signa,

You are sadly mistaken. You claim to be an avid Military Historian, but you are dead wrong to assume that:

Greeks are different from Byzantines. Or that Macedonians are different than Greeks.

Let's set the record straight once and for all!

Macedonia was one of the Many Ancient Greek Kingdoms. As Northern Greeks they were in hostilities with the Southern Greeks (and that continues to this very day! even on soccer level), and as hostilities grew, the Southern Greeks (whom you know as Athens, Sparta, Thebes) well, just named the Northern ones "Barbarians" or "Ungreek". Well that tradition also carries to the present day, where the Southerns call Northerns well... names.

If you research some History you will find this out for yourself. The fact that there is a "Macedonia" on Greece's Northern frontiers is a ridicule of history. Modern day "Macedonians" are Slavs that descented on the Balkan Peninsula 1000 years post Alexander the Great, and are just trying to steal some light off the greatest western Conqueror. To call someone a Macedonian is the same as calling someone a NYorker. He is an American coming from NY. A Macedonian is someone coming from Macedonia, Greece.

As for Byzantines, well they are the "MIDDLE AGES' GREEKS" for TOO MANY reasons to count. You could find them all if you did bother to check ANY reference available to you. If you don't, please post the links that formulated your opinion. I am very interested to find out why/how such a distrotion of truth took place.

As for the other civs you mention they are fine. I just hope you took more time with them than you did with the Greeks, Ancient, Middle Ages and Modern, such as myself.

Thanks for your time,
Kostis Papadopoulos, A Greek.

[Rosacrux]

Signa, you really deserve the prize for the most unhistorical history buff I have ever heard of. Military historian? No ****, yeah, as much as I am an astronaut, you are any kind of historian (not even an amateur).
G(R)EEK has right all the way and so does Ribanah and I am quite surprised no other people have stepped forward to ridicule your civilization "analysis"... gosh, where did you get those "facts" (!!!) from, they suck from head to toes...

OK, I shall leave the respective countrypeople (or admirers) of the others civs you molested (or just made fun of to teare off your statements, and I'll join the former poster into the defense of Greece and Macedonia.

Originally posted by Signa
Greeks
Alexander: Hoplite: Co/Sc: Athens
The Hoplite ties with the Legionairy for "Most Historical UU" and is perfect for the domestically oriented player, considering you are basically immune to assault till Knights exist. The traits are good, if not great. Alexander for the leader might or might not be good, add in that he was Macedonian. Percilus or King Leonidus each would be good. Probaly Percilus due to his peaceful nature.

OK, the fallacies listed: First the names. You probably never heard of them, but the two leaders you mention were not Roman, so their names shouldn't end with an "-us". They were Greek. And, unless your facts come from Xena or Hercules, their respective names are Pericles and Leonidas. And... Pericles of peaceful nature? Yeah right... he didn't started the Peloponesian war... oh, he did? Shame!

Secondary, even an idiot as you should know that Macedonia was a Greek kingdom with a large Greek population (the actual Macedonian people, the largest portion of the people of the kingdom, were of Dorian ancestry... you are familiar with the term? Dorian? One of the Greek tribes... the same the Spartans derive from) and some "barbaric" minorities (Molloses, Thraces, Illyrians and others).

Macedonian people spoke the Greek language, used Greek currency, their art is of the fine Greek tradition and they were accepted into the Olympics - a honor reserved only for the Greeks back then.

Need more facts? Check a history book - todays "Macedonian" (bah!) are of slav-bulgaric mixture, and if you are really a "military historian" you should know that slavs migrated into the balkans after the 4th century AD and Bulgarians (of Altaic origin the latter) even later.


btw I cannot resist to point out the obvious ignorance presented by you clearly, by altering allmost every name to your liking. Let's see:

Your Hammubri is Hammurabi.
Your Iriquois is Iroquois
Your... Khmerians (good lord!) is Khmer
Your Incans is Inca
Your Celtic is Celts
Your Carthagians is Carthagenians
Your Phoecian (ROFL) is Phoenician
Your Cataract (HAHAHAHA) is Cataphract
Your Justantin is Justinian
Your Sejicks is Seljucks
Your Samauri must be Samurai
Your Hiawathia should be Hiawatha\
Your Ramases is Rameses
Your Kufu is Khufu (Heops for the western)

... and the list goes on, I am really too tired to include all your blunters here... listen, frankly, I think you should get another hobby. History needs some accuracy...

[Q Classic]

i just don't understand...

Aksumites
Aztecs
Byzantines
Carthagians
Celtics
Hebrews
Incas
Iriquios
Khmerians
Macedonians
Mayans
Mongols
Sioux
Vikings
Zulus

what did these people do that the Koreans didn't?

Koreans look good, Polynesia, Maori, Aborigonal, and maybe even Atlantian

why are the Koreans on the level with Polynesia, Maori, and Aboriginies? what didn't the Koreans do here? aside from getting a good PR department, which is why apparently NOBODY knows ANYTHING about korean history...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25219
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33965
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=38340

it's as simple as that. koreans were just as advanced, if not more advanced, than any of the civilizations above in the column; and quite definitely more advanced than those in the other quote.
culturally, scientifically, and politically...

and look, Atlanta's no longer a southern city. just because atlanta has Ted Turner and Jeff Foxworthy, it's not a hicktown. it's one vast urban agglomeration (NOT a real city) that yankee carpetbaggers end up in because they like the weather and want large, expansive yards while still pretending to live in a city (which Atlanta isn't). Atlanta's quite cosmopolitan these days... unfortunately, driving in any direction outside of the atlanta suburbs spits you right back into south georgia. thing is... no atlantan really thinks he or she's georgian these days.

boy, do i love chicago, but boy, does it irritate me when people assume that atlanta's filled with hicks.

[Signa]

Well that the problem. You can't even post ideas. I'm not here for historical accuracy, its all just dumb ideas. Well, I'm sticking to the Story forum from now on.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i just don't understand...



what did these people do that the Koreans didn't?



why are the Koreans on the level with Polynesia, Maori, and Aboriginies? what didn't the Koreans do here? aside from getting a good PR department, which is why apparently NOBODY knows ANYTHING about korean history...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25219
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33965
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=38340

it's as simple as that. koreans were just as advanced, if not more advanced, than any of the civilizations above in the column; and quite definitely more advanced than those in the other quote.
culturally, scientifically, and politically...

What's your hangup about the Koreans? I don't think anybody said the Koreans were culturally inferior.

I know plenty about Korean history. If you know your Korean history past before 500 AD, you know that the Japanese and Koreans were essentially the same ethnic group. The same group as the the Mongols and Manchus.

To me at least, this is enough to justify having only ONE of them (Japan or Korea) represent both countries in a game.
So if its a question of adding another far-Eastern Altaic country like Korea, or adding a civ to represent a cultural and linguistic group that is not in the game at all (like the Austronesians,) I say be a good sport and give the Austronesians their one civ.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
I really think that the vikings should be replaced by the norweigans or something - it's sort of like having bolsheviks for russia (not a perfect analogy but you get the idea) - the SU can be the longboat though

I badly think a civ has been overlooked that is very important - Austria-hungary/ the hapsburgs. They were one of the major powers in Europe for about 900 years and the top power in Europe for a large time. I suggest taking the Khmer out and replacing them with the Austro-Hungarian, no suggestion on what the SU should be.
I know its late in the day but seriously consider this would you, just look at European history Austro-Hungary was very powerful and influential

To paraphrase the great English historian Eddie Izzard: "The Ausria-Hungarian empire, famous for F*CK ALL! All they did was slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Seriously, don't we need Huns before we can have Hungarians?

[macaskil]

In military terms the comment is fair, although the Austrians (with help) stopped the Turks. 1866 (defeat by Prussia) was the beginning of the final collapse.

However for CULTURE the Austrians deserve a place

- Vienna - a beautiful city. Prague and Budapest as well (both were in the Austrian empire until 1918)

- Music. Mozart! enough said.

- Science. Mendel, Freud.

Unfortunately the Austrians also produced Hitler. However from the civ3 point of view this is an argument in favour, since despite his appalling views and methods undoubtedly is one of the greatest politial/military leaders in history. An untalented, unwashed, unemployed, homeless, friendless, lazy drifter in 1918 to ruling Europe in 1941.

[sargon2]

What language do u think did and do the Austrians speak. Its German. Though they got their own Country these days, do they not belong to Germany but to the German Civilization - I guess even an Austrian could accept this. And Civ is what we all mean.
Its about the same point like Macedonians and Greeks. Prussia and Austria were the most powerful Countries of the german middle-age and early modern time - until Prussia and tens of other little german states created the German Empire (1871). The Austrians got a place offered but they had must give up their Slav country-parts. 1918 they lost them and did want to join with Germany but that had made it to powerful so it got forbidden by the victory-powers of WWI.

The fundamental problem of this debate is that national countries, countries that are ethnically limited on one nation (culture, language, sometimes religion and so on), just Nationalism in its neutal meaning, started not until 1789 when the French people kicked of their king.
All countries before didn't define themselves on a people (exceptions confirme the rule) but on a Leader.
That means that many old empires are part of the history of more than one Nation.

Adding to the spelling problems of some posts. Its not easy to know espacially the original names in history in Englisch. We not-native-speaker learn these names in our language.
But we are no less experts in History

[Olle Wiman]

Originally posted by Signa
I'm a avide militarly historian and would like to add a dozen or so civilizations that I think should be in...

--snip

Arabs
Saladin: Camel Warrior: Re/Co: Mecca
Representing the origonal Arabs, Sejicks, and Ottomans. Saladin sounds good for a leader. Religious off of their Islamic faith and Commerical if you know Muslim culture.

--snip

30 in all...

I am not a military historian, But I know for sure that
Saladdin was NOT, repeat NOT Arabic. He was a Kurd.
You know, the Indo-European people living in e.g. East
Turkey and Northen Iraq. Better chose one is Abu Bakr
or one of the kaliphs, Harun-al-Rashid for example.

And, the Macedonians were a hellenic triebe. To separate
them from the rest of the hellenes means You have to
have at least a dozen of Hellenic triebes. All Greek civ,
interesting idea for a scenario, but not in an
"international" CivIII. Or ???

O.W.

[Signa]

Everyone, i am very sorry that I am a terrible speller. It's just a weakness of mine. Sorry I'll try to work on it.

The main reason I choose to "distunguish" from the Greek (southern Hellas) and Macedonians (northern Hellas) is simply this, one of the greatest military units of the ancient area, Alexander's elite bodyguard cavalry, the Companions, where left unrepresented. Now, ditching the Hoplite is dumb, in the game it rules and without them Greek would of fall to Xerxes in 400 or so BC (sorry, I'm also not a big date person, unless it truely means something in my everyday life [December 7th, September 11th, etc]). Now that leaves me this choice. Split the Greeks into two smaller factions, giving the Companions a chance to be in the game. Now, my logic is probly flawed big time, but at least I had good intentions (but what does that truly give young, some people say Stalin had the best of intentions, but we all know what he ended up doing).

Sorry again, but just try to accomidate while I might start to learn.

[Solmyr]

To anyone who thinks all the Habsburgs did was collapse, I recommend reading this page:
http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#hapsburg

Bet you didn't know about the Austrian NAVAL victory over Italy

[burak]

There was one funny thing about Austrian Navy. It was cmmanded by admiral Horthy, a Hungarian, who became Hungary's dictator after fall of Habsburg Empire.
So Hungary, that hadn't access to sea, was ruled by Admiral, as he still used that title.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Signa
I'm also not a big date person, unless it truely means something in my everyday life [December 7th, September 11th, etc]).

dec 7th was in your everyday life? How old are you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Solmyr
To anyone who thinks all the Habsburgs did was collapse, I recommend reading this page:
http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#hapsburg

Bet you didn't know about the Austrian NAVAL victory over Italy

Anyone who plays Diplomacy would know about Austria-Hungary's fleet starting at Trieste.... and possibly the battle of Lissa, too...

http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/lissa.html

I might also recommend Istvan Szabo's fine film, 'Colonel Redl', in this regard.

[orange]

Sure, battle of Lissa...

F Alb S F Tri - Adr