The most glaring omission...

[Sarxis]

Who?



But truthfully, Isabella isn't a big icon in the Western psychi (well, not in mine anyway), or Saladin for that matter. Though I agree that they were both great leaders in their time, and would be good as representatives in CivIII.

But ultimately it comes down to this: there can be only so many civs in the game, and Firaxis chose what they thought would compliment CivIII most.

[monkspider]

There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game. The only disagreement would come over which would take higher priority over the other, as one could make a very solid case for all four. .

[monkspider]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Spanish: Isabella

Arabs: Saladin

I agree

[player1]

All modern versions of these civilizations:
Babylonians, Persians & Egyptians are Arab nations.
Iraq, Iran & Egypt.
Personaly I would like to have Turks in the game.
They where most powerful Arabic nation in renesanse & industrial time.
Maybe in expansion pack.

[player1]

These 3 nations: Iraq, Iran, Egyptian are all descendents of
Arabs + Babylonians, Persians or Acient Egyptians.

Having Arabs is similar as having Italy & Byzantine as Civilizations together with Romans.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game.

Okay, choose 4 existing civs in Civ 3 to elminate to make room for these so called "glaring omissions."

Difficult, innit?

[KrazyHorse]

I'll get you 2, at least: Zulus and Iroquois. If you wanted an African civ there are better examples, and the Iroquois are a joke.

to Ribannah in dvance.

[Rogan Josh]

The celts are the most glaring omission. The were a big influence in the dark ages.

[player1]

Personaly, I would make expansion pack with 5 civs

I will make explanations for their civ attributes.
Every civ is of different culture:

-European: Spaniards (Militaristic & Commercial)
Major trade power, could be Expansionistic but they where more
conquerors than settlers)
-Middle East: Turks (Expansionistic & Religious)
They controlled very large part of the wolrd & build many Muslim
Temples
-Asian: Mongols (Militaristic & Expansionistic)
They conquered almost half of the world
-American: Incas (Religious & Industrial)
Important Native Americal civilization, Religious, lived on very harsh
terrain (needed lots of irrigration)
-Ancient Classical (that Roman, Greek, Egyptian style):
Chartaginans (Expansionistic & Commercial)
Trade power, descendents of Phenicians, controlled lots of colonies.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'll get you 2, at least: Zulus and Iroquois. If you wanted an African civ there are better examples, and the Iroquois are a joke.

to Ribannah in dvance.

Soon, Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois
I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.
Mongols, Spanish and Vikings (better: Norse) definitely don't belong in the top 16 IMHO. Sure, they had empires, but what did they give human civilization?

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Soon, Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois
I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.
Mongols, Spanish and Vikings (better: Norse) definitely don't belong in the top 16 IMHO. Sure, they had empires, but what did they give human civilization?

Again, and again, and again... will this never stop? People keep arguing which civ deserves and which don't deserve to be included in a game...
IMHO every freakin' god damn civ deserves it, even those which currently aren't. It's like comparing which is better: sugar or salt.

And yes, soon Firaxis will tell us everything about the Iroquois

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by aaglo
It's like comparing which is better: sugar or salt.

Believe me, salt is MUCH better than sugar.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[aaglo]

Salt is better than sugar? In what way? I hope you don't use salt instead of sugar (in cakes, for instance).

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA

[Ubik]

Originally posted by Ribannah
I would replace the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Ethiopians.

No need to rephrase it, Ribannah said it all... I am more fond of the Nubians, though. So, Arabs in for Persia and Nubians in for Zulu!

But - excuse me - certainly the Mongols do belong in a civ game - hell, the "what did they give to civilization" could be said for more than one of the "modern" civs...

...and I'd have to go with sugar

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by monkspider
There may be a lot of disagreement over what civ should be included, but a fact that virtually all apolytoners would agree on is that at LEAST the Mongols, Spanish, Vikings, and Arabs deserved to be in the game. The only disagreement would come over which would take higher priority over the other, as one could make a very solid case for all four. .

Why is this even an issue? Just wait a little while and you'll probably see 100+ civs available to put into the 16 slots. Makes everything discussed here completely moot, imo.

For example, one of my very favorite Civ2 game I played included the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Minoans, Babylonians, Persians (and someone else), plus the barbarians disguised as Libyan raiders. You understand what I'm getting at?

Now in Civ3, whether these new ones include those fancy 3D leaders is irrelevant, imo. As far as civ attributes, those should not be in the regular game, only in scenarios.