Vikings

[Orioles3386]

No Vikings

[tniem]

Yeah and?

Its not new news and there are forums open at this time upset about this.

Besides I would prefer to see the Spanish or Mongols in then the Vikings.

[KrazyHorse]

Spanish beat the Vikings any day of the week. Vikings beat Mongols for me, but it's close.

[red_jon]

I think all the non-included civs should be rolled into one-

The Spanivikingiamongolisioux.

The leader can be Sitting Ghengis Isabella.

Sorted.

[KrazyHorse]

Sitting Genghis Isabella the Red, you mean.

[red_jon]

Of course.

The attributes could be industrious/ scientific/ militaristic/ expanionist/ commercial/ religious.

Talk about multi-cultural

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sitting Genghis Isabella the Red,

ROFL!!!! A damn great leader!!!!!!

[The Mad Viking]

.

Need I say more?

[Bereta_Eder]

(customize - expansion pack)

[DarkCloud]

Civs Needed that were in Civ II
-
Mongols
Spanish

Questionable
-
Vikings

Include it b'cause it's traditional
-
Sioux
Celts

(anything left out?)

-Oh yes, KrazyHorse, thank you for the coherent explanation in the other thread

[Gangerolf]

No Vikings

That's a shame. But hey, don't despair, now we've got the highly advanced and civilized Iroqouis instead.

[Kropotkin]

i don't mind them not including vikings. But what's the deal with north American indians? It's not like any of them really managed much. having civs like the Sioux feels stupid. The same would go for the celts. mainly 'cause I can't even pronounce their city names.

[DarkCloud]

The AmerInds were included because, in the USA the Americans feel sorry about 'oppressing the Indians'

... They also want to reach the AmerInd market... And, in addition, many people in Germany and America want to have their nations fight the 'heathen indians in an old western shootout'

Vikings should have been in! They controlled every nation from Russia, Crete to America!

[EmperorMing]

Does someone have a good explanation to why there are fewer civs in Civ III than in Civ II. I think they could have taken all Civ II civs + some more....

The more civs the better! You can still choose your good old Romans, even if there are 10 more civs...

And I agree that it is a SCANDAL that the NORDIC VIKINGS were excluded! RIOT!

[Swissy]

Originally posted by EmperorMing
Does someone have a good explanation to why there are fewer civs in Civ III than in Civ II. I think they could have taken all Civ II civs + some more....

Looks like we are victims of our own desires. The civ specific units are probably the reason for the limited number of civs. Also the animated leaders created some limitations. But, many out there wanted all the bells and whistles. I would have settled for great game play.