How many Civs do you predict will be in the official XP and which civs will they be? - Page 2

Ribannah · April 12, 2002, 20:21

I'm hoping to see Polynesia (capital: Jakarta) or else a big part of the Earth map will remain blank.

My present wishlist for a balanced new set of 8 civs is:

[1] Arabia
[2] Dutch
[3] Ethiopia
[4] Mali
[5] Maya (/Olmec)
[6] Polynesia
[7] Tiahuanaco (/Inca)

[8] Tough choice. Vikings are interesting but European, so are Portugal and Spain. Ottomans: territory already very crowded. Purely geographically, Mongolia or Korea, but neither of them is really a favourite of mine. I guess it will depend on the scenarios.

siredgar · April 13, 2002, 00:53

Ribannah, if the Mongols and the Koreans are going to crowd Northeast Asia in your opinion, then why do you think the Dutch aren't going to do that between the French and the Germans? After the initial 16 civs, I don't think crowding issues should be as important as how important the civ is and how many fans would want to play it.

Beren · April 13, 2002, 02:08

OK, OK! Most important:
1-Arabia
2-Turkey
3-Spain
4-Phoenicians
5-Holland
6-Sweden
7-Mayans
8-Incas
9-Mongols
10-Polynesians

siredgar · April 13, 2002, 03:34

How are the Polynesians more important than the Koreans, Portuguese, or Khmer? Also, about the Israelites, their history is mostly biblical and they lost their land. How much territory did they ever occupy at their height anyhow? Please explain.

Beren · April 13, 2002, 03:56

I would like to include Israel, because of the present world. We should have the UU of this time. But I would not find them crucial enough...
Only on basis of their empire, you might as well include Mittani (ancient Syrian empire) and a million other civs (figurally speaking.)
Just to give you an idea: Who would like to play the Palestines? Based on their 'world ranking,' they'd be around the 200th civ. Of all times about the 600th civ. Still, I bet they are higher on your list than the 600th place.

siredgar · April 13, 2002, 04:18

What do you mean by that?

Anyhow, I think the only reason why people want to include the Israelites is so they can pit them against the Arabs or Arab-like civs (Egyptians and Babylonians). Also, there are a lot of supporters of Israel and they want to include them in.

I don't see why not, but they shouldn't be in the expansion pack if they only include eight or so more civs.

tandeetaylor · April 13, 2002, 15:20

I don't think Israel, historically, was very important. Their importance now shouldn't supersede ancient civilizations that have done important things, like the Arabs. BTW, do you think they would make the leader Muhammed?

Ribannah · April 13, 2002, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by siredgar
Ribannah, if the Mongols and the Koreans are going to crowd Northeast Asia ...

Er, no, that's not what they do, and an important reason why I might put one of them in slot 8.

Beren · April 13, 2002, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
BTW, do you think they would make the leader Muhammed?

I personally have nothing against this. He lead armies, was first to spread the faith and because of him there really is an Arab culture in the Middle-East which is of any importance.
Somebody said something on a forum. (Can't remember who it was, please restate your point.) That it would be an insult to the Islam, because there are no images left of Mohammed.
Until better evidence is given, I disagree, however for one simple reason: Mohammed was not sacred, he was considered to be a simple man, who happened to be chosen by God.
If there are any Arab Apolytoners please reply, so we can learn what we can and what we can't do.

Quote:

Originally posted by siredgar
What do you mean by that?

Anyhow, I think the only reason why people want to include the Israelites is so they can pit them against the Arabs or Arab-like civs (Egyptians and Babylonians). Also, there are a lot of supporters of Israel and they want to include them in.

I don't see why not, but they shouldn't be in the expansion pack if they only include eight or so more civs.

Think of the Iroqouis: nobody considers them a real power. But Civ3 isn't realistic in the first place. Lot of people still like a native civ in Civ3.

BTW: If Israel is set to be only about the ancient civ, I think I would immediately replace them by something else.

Ribannah · April 13, 2002, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Beren
Think of the Iroqouis: nobody considers them a real power. But Civ3 isn't realistic in the first place. Lot of people still like a native civ in Civ3.

Actually, the Iroquois did pretty well as an empire. The territory they controlled at the height of their might (around 1680) is comparable to that of other civs included in the original 16. Their military was the most powerful in the region with thousands of musketmen.

siredgar · April 13, 2002, 18:38

I agree with Ribbanah, the Iroquois are more significant than the Israelites. They held more territory, at the very least. Anyhow, there was also probably a space and cultural zone filling factor involved, too. The Israelites would be squished in between the Egyptians and the Babylonians on a small squat of land.

Grrr · April 13, 2002, 23:54

Spanish, Mongrols, and Vikings definately. Along with probably Aboriginees, Finns, and Apolytonian Greeks

MrWhereItsAt · April 14, 2002, 00:19

I'd say Aborigines (at least the Oz variety) didn't have a civilization so much as they have a culture. Otherwise Grrr, we are of the same mind.

Beren · April 16, 2002, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah

Actually, the Iroquois did pretty well as an empire. The territory they controlled at the height of their might (around 1680) is comparable to that of other civs included in the original 16. Their military was the most powerful in the region with thousands of musketmen.

If Iroqouis would have been an European civ, I'd doubt they'd be included. They wanted a native civ and chose the best one avaiable.

siredgar · April 16, 2002, 01:38

Isn't the term "aborigine" used widely outside of Australia or New Zealand? I know they called themselves the Maori in N.Z., but what do they call themselves in Australia?

Anyhow, they don't deserve to be Civ 3 and they won't be in the game. They're lucky to be a barbarian tribe. Terribly sorry.

Ribannah · April 16, 2002, 07:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Beren

If Iroqouis would have been an European civ, I'd doubt they'd be included. They wanted a native civ and chose the best one avaiable.

If the Iroquois would have been a European civ, they would have conquered / adopted Europe in its entirety and traded with Arab and Inca colonists.

Ribannah · April 16, 2002, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by siredgar
Isn't the term "aborigine" used widely outside of Australia or New Zealand? I know they called themselves the Maori in N.Z., but what do they call themselves in Australia?

They call themselves Koori.

siredgar · April 16, 2002, 08:49

Thanks.

By the way, I just read that New Zealand has decided to break its legal links with the U.K. Interestingly, relating to this topic, the Maori have been particularly using this link to the British higher courts to appeal on cases re: their treaty with the Empire.

monkspider · April 17, 2002, 02:13

come on folks, this thread is starting to stray off track a bit. There are plenty of other threads to discuss personal preferences, but this thread was meant to try to read into what Firaxis is planning. No offense to a fellow Iroquois fan Ribannah Bananna.

siredgar · April 18, 2002, 03:43

Threads always stray from the topic. Stop being a discussion dictator!

Anyhow, I was quite serious about my list. Although I think if there is indeed an expansion pack, there will be eight additional civs, not 10 like I suggested. The order remains the same, however, at least for me.

Signa · April 22, 2002, 22:57

Spanish- Phillip II/Isabella- Madrid- Re/Ex
Tercio (4.6.2) Rifleman/Musketman

Mongols- Batu Khan- Karathroum (sp?)- Mi/Ex
Horse Archer (2.1.3) Horseman

Celtics- Bordicca- Catiff (sp?)- Mi/In
Beserker (2.1.1) Warrior

Carthagians- Dido- Carthage- Co/Ex
War Galley (2.1.3) Galley

Vikings- ???- Trodhiem (sp?)- Mi/Co
Longboat (2.1.3) Caravel

Arabs- Saladin- Baghdad/Mecca- Re/Co
Mamulk (sp?) (5.3.2) Knight

Incans- ???- Cuzco- Re/Sc
Sun Knight (2.2.2) Horseman

Hewbrews- David- Jerusalem- Re/Co
Zealot (3.2.2) Swordman

Lawrence of Arabia · April 24, 2002, 00:40

(1) Incans
(2) Vikings
(3) Mongols
(4) Some African Civ (mb Mali or Nigerians or Assyria or something like that)

Beren · April 24, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Signa
Mongols- Batu Khan- Karathroum (sp?)- Mi/Ex
Horse Archer (2.1.3) Horseman

I would make it a fast knight.

And Lawrence of Arabia, Assyria is not an African civ.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 24, 2002, 22:01

Ya i just realized that. I mean the civ which the Italians invaded in Ethopia

Beren · April 25, 2002, 01:42

Call it: Aksumite, Ethiopia, Abessinnia or something like that.

Signa · May 3, 2002, 22:52

This is a little slow, but...

I would like to make the Mongol Horse Archer a 4.3.3 Knight, but the Chinese Rider forbides that. Unless China slides over the Horse Archer has to be either a Horseman or Cavalry (now which would you choose...).

Boris Godunov · May 4, 2002, 00:54

Ya know, while I generally don't object to any civs being included (the more the merrier), I have to draw the line at the Mongols. Sure, they're cool. They conquered. But a civilization? No. Nomadic barbarian horsemen. The barbarian tribes of the game already got them covered. Let's not waste a civ slot on them.

DarkCloud · May 11, 2002, 17:30

I think they will only have 7, possibly 8 just for the novelty

It will likely be-
1. Mongols
2. Sioux
3. Celts
4. Korean
5. Vikings
6. Arabs or Turks
7. Spain
8. Incans

TheBigTurkey · May 11, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Beren

I personally have nothing against this. He lead armies, was first to spread the faith and because of him there really is an Arab culture in the Middle-East which is of any importance.
Somebody said something on a forum. (Can't remember who it was, please restate your point.) That it would be an insult to the Islam, because there are no images left of Mohammed.
Until better evidence is given, I disagree, however for one simple reason: Mohammed was not sacred, he was considered to be a simple man, who happened to be chosen by God.
If there are any Arab Apolytoners please reply, so we can learn what we can and what we can't do.

Actually it is unlawful for anyone to potray Muhammad (or any other leader, for that matter, but, sadly, it has happened

). The reason is because if there was an image of him, people might follow that, just like what, afaik, Christian's do about Jesus (i.e. the son of God). So, he is out of the picture (plus he shouldn't be a hero either). Should but Salahuddin or Harun al-Rashid (since, afaik, there are pictures of what they looked like).