Which civ for #16 of expansion pack

[Tingkai]

The voting for civs to be included in the expansion pack are settling down with the top 13 pretty well ahead of the rest.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24568&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

But which of the civs that are not in the top 16 would you want included and why? No need to mention civs that are already in the top 16 and no need to say which civ you would want to kick out of the top 16.

As a Canadian, I'd like my country in the top 16, but I recognize we haven't got a great claim to fame... YET.

So I would go for having the Malians in at #16 because they were a significant culture for Africa and had more influence than some of the top 16.

[Stefu]

Koreans, Malians and Sioux. DROP Polynesians, drop them fast and drop them hard, and drop the Byzantines, too. There's already one Roman civ, and having three civs in rather small area of countries currently Greece and Turkey would be a cluster**** nightmare.

[monkspider]

Polynesians are fine, Byzantines definitly need to go though.

[Felch]

Polynesians conducted some of the most amazing sea voyages ever. To drop them in favor of the Sioux, who did little more than effectively employ horses on the North American Great Plains would be a great injustice.

Furthermore they occupy an interesting part of the world map, which is too often empty. If the were given an ocean going vessle as a UU, then they would be quite fun to play on a world map with an extensive Pacific island network.

[jdd2007]

i think it is very very good. i truly think that the top voted 15 civs should be in the xpansion. i dont think they are in the right order for top priority, but besides the byzantines they are well thought out. i would switch the byzantines with either-
a) scots
b) poles
c) austro-hungarians
d) malians

happy rosh hashannah !!!!

[Christantine The Great]

Byzantines and this "Austro-Hungarian" civ people keep talking about belong under a class I like to call Composite. They aren't civs, just a mix of them.

Koreans, Malians and Sioux.

Koreans: I think they are a good idea if just to fill in the void left by the long gone Mongols.

Malians: If they aren't too close to the Zulus then they are ok, I suppose.

Sioux: They would be in a good position to force the Aztecs to expand south instead of north.

a) scots
b) poles
c) austro-hungarians
d) malians

a) To close to the British.

b) Iffy. The Vikings, I think, would be better because they won't be sandwiched between the Russians and Germans.

c) See above.

d) See above.

No one's mentioned the Nubians. They would give Egypt AND the Zulus a problem.

[jdd2007]

well i still think the four that i mentioned were important historical civs that would be fun to play.

nice point

No one's mentioned the Nubians. They would give Egypt AND the Zulus a problem.

GOOD POINT

e) nubians

[TCO]

Austrians

[Christantine The Great]

And Hungarians.

Whoever has an extra settler can just skip up the Danube and kill the other's first city.

well i still think the four that i mentioned were important historical civs that would be fun to play.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to bash your choices. I just almost always take location into consideration instead of importance or interest.