What CIV do you miss?

[Sava]

I miss all of the Civs not included from past games. The Vikings were great opponents (naval builders, expansionist). The Mongols were very tough (land units, expansionist). And the Carthaginians were like Southern Romans .

I definitely miss them all

[ranskaldan]

Arabs.

I've always wondered why Civ calls itself Civ without the Arabs.

[Gangerolf]

I miss the civs from civ2 that didn't make it to civ3. Well, I can't say I miss the Sioux though. I guess they got permanently replaced by the Iroquois, so we won't see them again.
Other civs:
Arabs
Incas
Dutch
Portuguese
Mali (or some other W African civ)
Australians
Boers
Khmer

[Ribannah]

The Boers were Dutch settlers (most of them that is, there was a percentage of Germans among them and even a few French I think). Didn't do enough to be called a separate civ IMHO, not even when compared with the Australians

[Gangerolf]

Well, I miss them anyhow

[ranskaldan]

lol!

You know, I wish we could play any civ in the world, then we'll automatically be able to design our own UU's by imagining its form and having the computer telepathically read our brain waves and translating it into a 3D object.

In fact, I wish we could build scenarios by simply imagining it and having the computer do the rest, thus making it possible to create complicated scenarios with multiple-branching techtrees in fifteen minutes.

Ah well, ..........

I'll just settle now for the inclusion of Inca, Arabs and the Hebrews.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
the FLEMISH

Eigen schuld... hadden jullie je maar niet af moeten scheiden

(Geintje; wat mij betreft gaan onze landjes morgen weer samen)

[Sava]

Mongols, Vikings, and Carthginians... they were all great! But we get shafted and stuck with the Iroquois (super lame)...

[Ribannah]

So many great posters, and we get stuck with you

[The Pioneer]

Incas, Mongols, Celts, Dutch (I always played them with Colonization) and why not Phoenicians.

[suomalainen]

I miss finnish

[Rasbelin]

As a Celtic warlord I'm of course missing the Celts.

*the warlord rises and swings his sword in the air because of his anger*

[MIK_IZ_WAK]

i miss the celts. they rocked, and were always good to beat up if computer controlled.

[Fighter]

Gotta say, I love Carthage and the Vikings, miss them both greatly. I also doubt Carthage will be in the expansion.

[Wernazuma III]

Well, Fighter: The new PTW screenshots proove you wrong

[LordOTMorn]

Um, the Bablylonians ARE Arabs. They are the culture that gave rise to all of the current Arab Nations. There is no true 'Arab' Nation, unless you count Saudi Arabia, and they are hardly a history changing empire. All modern 'Arabs' are descended from the Persians, who were originally Babylonian, so I see no reason to add Arabs at all. I cannot recall off-hand if the Sumerians were before the Babylonians, but I suppose it doesn't matter. The Babylonians have probably had more impact historically (thanks to Hammurabi) even if they did come later.

I miss the Vikings and Celts the most. European nations would not exist as we know them without these two civs!

[ceroomaster]

Celts, Celts, Celts! The first civilization to kick the Romans' a**es (RL), although they did then conquor most of Celtic Europe (call it 1-1?).
erm, not prejudiced, honest! Hopes nobody is looking at the flag to the left...

Civ2 Civs I miss:
Vikings (another historical enemy of the Celts)
Spanish (one of history's finest)
Mongols (I mean, HELLO?! they been there since the beginning, my first TRUE enemy which I absolutely hated and HAD to destroy)
Carthaginians (any emeny of Rome is a friend of mine!)

Civs which should be included:
Dutch
Portuguese
Italians would prob be a bit stupid since the Romans are included (and were never quite as powerful as the French, Spanish, British or Dutch)
Phoenicians
Mali
Inca
Maya

Also I disagree with the point of not being able to have Arabs, because Babylonians are in the game and the Arabs would have been desceded from them. The English are descended from a mix of the Germans (Angles, Saxons), the Celts (native Britons) or to a lesser degree the French (Normans) and the Vikings. So because these exist English cannot?
Perhaps they should exist as the Ottomans? The Ottoman Empire was pretty big, another enemy for the Greeks then too

Also no taking the mick out of CTP's inclusion of 'minor' nations, remeber that some super-powers could never have existed without the support (either through cooperation or conquest) of some of the little guys.

S~

[OS84]

hey hey, dont forget us great Austrians!
We did soo much in history and we were so often attacked by important people!
Cheers!

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by OS84
hey hey, dont forget us great Austrians!
We did soo much in history and we were so often attacked by important people!
Cheers!

If that is all, I think making the Austrians a barbarian tribe enough .

[Panag]

hi ,

Hebrews / Israelites and the Inca

, there should be a poll , ....

have a nice day

[Az]

Um, the Bablylonians ARE Arabs

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azazel

hi ,

, indeed , .......

okay maybe in the real world today , .... but back then , .....

have a nice day

[XarXo]

me = ((Thai || Khmer) && (Incans || Mayans)) ? "happy" : "unhappy" ;

[Ikarus]

Many people miss civs from the good ole civ 2 edition, and many were disappointed in some that came with civ 3. I, for example, despise the Iroquios, and do not accept them as a civ(Their special unit is the mounted warrior and there weren't any horses in the New World. I dislike this because I am a fan of playing the world maps), so I replaced them with the Incas just to fill up space in South America. I was also disappointed to find that some of the Civ 2 civs were discarded, especially ones that should not have, like the Spanish, Vikings and Mongols. The civ I miss most of all are the Spanish. They were always my fav in the civ 2 games.

On the other hand, I would like to try playing as many civs that haven't been in any civ series. For example, the Phoenicians, one of the first civs around, a civ that branched into the Carthaginians. Other civs include the Yugoslavians, Polish, Czechs, Portuguese, and many other European countries.

Europe is cool!!!
WW2 scenarios rule!!!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ikarus
I, for example, despise the Iroquios, and do not accept them as a civ(Their special unit is the mounted warrior and there weren't any horses in the New World.

I agree, but the justification was that horses did exist in the new world, but became extinct a few (tens of?)thousand years ago, in the Americas.

So if history were slightly different the argument would not hold - and given the game is about rewriting history what is the problem with such a minor alteration.

Additionally, when horses were reintroduced to the Americas, the native population quickly utilised them.

Fair enough argument I say, but I'm not convinced it justifies choosing that option over other more suitable options.

[Ikarus]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I agree, but the justification was that horses did exist in the new world, but became extinct a few (tens of?)thousand years ago, in the Americas.

So if history were slightly different the argument would not hold - and given the game is about rewriting history what is the problem with such a minor alteration.

Additionally, when horses were reintroduced to the Americas, the native population quickly utilised them.

Fair enough argument I say, but I'm not convinced it justifies choosing that option over other more suitable options.

The native population did quickly utilize horses, however, in civ 3, the Mounted Warriors replace simple horsemen, which rapidly go obsolete. By the time the New World encounters the Old World (on the world map of course), why build them when better units exist.

You make a good point, but the Iroquois are still, in my mind, an unacceptable choice of a civ. There were many native American tribes on the North American continent, yet the Iroquois are the only ones worthy to be in the game(why not the Cherokee or Apache). I just can't imagine choosing a native American tribe over a more obvious civ like the Spanish, Vikings or Mongols to be in the game.

I agree with your statements, but I'd rather see some other civ in the game than the Iroquois.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ikarus


The native population did quickly utilize horses, however, in civ 3, the Mounted Warriors replace simple horsemen, which rapidly go obsolete. By the time the New World encounters the Old World (on the world map of course), why build them when better units exist.

You make a good point, but the Iroquois are still, in my mind, an unacceptable choice of a civ. There were many native American tribes on the North American continent, yet the Iroquois are the only ones worthy to be in the game(why not the Cherokee or Apache). I just can't imagine choosing a native American tribe over a more obvious civ like the Spanish, Vikings or Mongols to be in the game.

I agree with your statements, but I'd rather see some other civ in the game than the Iroquois.

but waht about for non earth games? whos to say an iroqois like civ wouldnt have horses on some ficticious continent on some ficticious world where there is no, or at least different neww and old worlds.

Kman

[Ikarus]

Originally posted by Kramerman


but waht about for non earth games? whos to say an iroqois like civ wouldnt have horses on some ficticious continent on some ficticious world where there is no, or at least different neww and old worlds.

Kman

Ok, Ok!

I know many people don't enjoy the world map, but even still, why Iroquois when more apparent civs are out there to choose from. I guess what I'm really getting at is that they should not have been put in the game to begin with. Especially since some of the civ 2 civs were left out. Spain, Carthage, Mongolia, and the Celts were all better choices that existed in civ 2.

[Ikarus]

Originally posted by Ikarus


Ok, Ok!

I know many people don't enjoy the world map, but even still, why Iroquois when more apparent civs are out there to choose from. I guess what I'm really getting at is that they should not have been put in the game to begin with. Especially since some of the civ 2 civs were left out. Spain, Carthage, Mongolia, and the Celts were all better choices that existed in civ 2.

Oops i forgot the Vikings. And there was the Sioux. Why switch from Sioux to Iroquois?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Ikarus
I, for example, despise the Iroquios, and do not accept them as a civ(Their special unit is the mounted warrior and there weren't any horses in the New World. I dislike this because I am a fan of playing the world maps)

I don't think it's fair to blame the Iroquois for the stupid UU they received from Firaxis!

Still, you are mistaken. The Iroquois Confederacy dates from 1451
and soon after there were horses in the Americas. They even had some, but didn't use them for warfare.

The reason the Iroquois are in the game is because they surpassed all other nations in the region in power (kicked the Sioux onto the plains, for one) and had some nifty advances that were a great inspiration to the European tribes that came visiting. They were also the only local civ that grew in power after the Europeans arrived.

The Inca empire otoh did not last very long. They built some nice roads, but that's basically it. My suggestion is to see them as one dynasty of the Tiahuanaco civ. Then we have a civ that is worthy. We do the same with Egypt and China, after all.
I don't see them as a competitor to the Iroquois though, they were far apart.