If real life were Civ III who would have the LOWEST end score?

TheDarkCavalier · March 10, 2002, 10:41

Can't really make a poll on that, but here goes...

Anti Spectator · March 10, 2002, 12:19

The Americans of course

Rotten999 · March 10, 2002, 14:00

France.

KrazyHorse · March 10, 2002, 14:11

Iroquois. Total population probably <250 000, virtually no cities, small area, minimal architecture.

Thrawn05 · March 10, 2002, 14:25

Any of the following (no particular order):

Babylonians
Persians
Zulus
Aztecs
Iroquois

I want to say India, but I'm unsure. So I won't.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 10, 2002, 14:43

Zulu or Iroquois

Scooby_Doo · March 10, 2002, 14:48

I think the Iroquois do stand a chance in that they were going for thousands of years, although admittedly they never really did anything that much.
The Zulu I would have thought would be low middle, not bottom, they did survive right up to the early 20th century, unless I'm mistaken (which I probably am, feel free to correct me)
I would have thought the Aztecs could be quite low but again, not bottom.

After all that ranting, I'd probably have to go with either the Iroquois or the Zulu although I would be surprised if it really was the Zulu.

MrWhereItsAt · March 10, 2002, 15:02

Come ON! It's gotta be the Babylonians. There were a few periods they had some territory, but not much and not for long. They were conquered often. There weren't that many cultural improvements in their cities (not many pre-req techs discovered) and the only wonder they had is the Hanging Gardens. They had it for, oh, 150 years (?) before being conquered by Persia in 539BC. Bam. No more history.

sadistiq · March 10, 2002, 16:20

not trying to be cultuarally biased or anything (or maybe I am)
but to the guy who posted from Iraq: how did you get a game made in America in the first place????

I was under the assumption we had a trade embargo with you....
hmmm may explain why you aren't in the game

Oligarf · March 10, 2002, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti Spectator
The Americans of course

Only looking at culture of course.

player1 · March 10, 2002, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by sadistiq
not trying to be cultuarally biased or anything (or maybe I am)
but to the guy who posted from Iraq: how did you get a game made in America in the first place????

I was under the assumption we had a trade embargo with you....
hmmm may explain why you aren't in the game

My country had embargo form 91-95 and then 97-2000

And you know what?
We palyed all games available at Amrerica.

And for much cheaper price.

Now, these days are over.
After-emargo was lifted, anti-piracy laws made their place.

Rotten999 · March 10, 2002, 18:19

Don't mess with USA, because...

Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!

I thought Yugoslavia had broken up.

Evil Robot · March 10, 2002, 18:21

Somehow I really don't think the trade sanctions were in place to prevent people from playing compute games...

player1 · March 10, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Rotten999
Don't mess with USA, because...

Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!

I thought Yugoslavia had broken up.

Yes it had (old one).

This reffers to Serbia & Montenegro (new one).

Maybe we chage the name in future.

Thrawn05 · March 10, 2002, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

Yes it had (old one).

This reffers to Serbia & Montenegro (new one).

Maybe we chage the name in future.

I'm not that old, but I keep thinking Austro-Hungarian Empire. Oh well, silly me.

DrFell · March 10, 2002, 23:36

Iroquois definitely. Not around for that long (not as the confederacy anyway), absolutely no achievements really. Zulus are fairly close behind, and Aztecs a little further off (at least they had cities). The Babylonians might have been conquered a long time ago, and several times, but at least they managed to build wonders and 'culture', so they're a no. Persians conquered a large empire and were around for a while and they build a 'Forbidden Palace'. India is still around now and with huge population etc. so it couldn't be them.

KrazyHorse · March 11, 2002, 03:10

The Zulus had cities. Isandlwana had a population of ~30 000.

Harovan · March 11, 2002, 05:51

Quote:

Originally posted by sadistiq
hmmm may explain why you aren't in the game

Iraq is in the game. It's called Babylon. Not quite the same, but close.

player1 · March 11, 2002, 05:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Iraq is in the game. It's called Babylon. Not quite the same, but close.

I'm not sure, but doesn't they claim that they are descendents of Persians.
(both Iraq & Iran)

Harovan · March 11, 2002, 06:02

May be because they were conquered by the Persians. This was why I said, that it's not quite the same, all there is a bit messed. Romans also aren't quite the predecessors of today's Italians, but Italians are Romans+Langobards mixed.

Thrawn05 · March 11, 2002, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

I'm not sure, but doesn't they claim that they are descendents of Persians.
(both Iraq & Iran)

Didn't Alexander destroy those civs?

kittenOFchaos · March 11, 2002, 09:32

Zulus...