Expansion Pack Civs (Part 4): A never-ending story?

[Dessloch]

Poles 20
Spanish 20
Mongols 20
Turks 20
Austrians/Austro-Hungarians 10
Native Americans/American Indians 5
Inca 5

[Dinner]

How about a few more votes for Celts and/or Scots?

[vonholl]

Locutus,

I really don't know yet. If I find time, as I managed to do for a last few days, I intend to visit the site frequently. But, you see, playing Civ and talking about it is not my only past time activity..

...was the sole purpose of you registering here to be able to vote in this poll?

And the answer to your question is: no, it was not. Although it was a reason, and a big one. Because I really would like to play Civ as Poles among other nations. I'm just tired of creating a custom Civilization every time, and playing against the Tartars for example could be interesting.

[Locutus]

Internationalist,
Good to hear that. As far as the importance/fun of this thread goes, I guess it is fairly interesting and its success by far surpassed all my expectations, but I personally wouldn't go as far as calling it the most interesting thing in the history of Apolyton. It still (rightly) stands pale in the shadow of The List and comparable projects in other (non-Civ3) forums...

vonholl,
Hmm, I see a very familiar pattern developing with you that many other Apolytoners might also recognize: first you're not sure how interesting it is and whether or not you'll come back, then you find yourself returning on a regular basis and before you know it you're completely addicted and can't have a day go by without visiting Apolyton

"Apolyton: You can join anytime you want, but you can never leave" MUHAHAHAHA!!!


Edit: BTW, I started a new thread with the promised 'Civ of the Week'-like feature that I promised last week, look here.

[Gramphos]

Locutus,
could you speak to Markos. He tend to listen more to you then he listens to me.

Hmm, I see a very familiar pattern developing with you that many other Apolytoners might also recognize: first you're not sure how interesting it is and whether or not you'll come back, then you find yourself returning on a regular basis and before you know it you're completely addicted and can't have a day go by without visiting Apolyton

You got me there.

BTW - I updated the bars up to your last update.

[jdd2007]

nice thread, locutus
by the way, I myself joined apolyton for the sole reason of voting in this, well the other, thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

Replace the Poles, Koreans, and Byzantines with the Polynesians, Mali, and Khmer and the top 16 would be great. Three great civs are so close, lets get them up there.

[orange]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Replace the Poles, Koreans, and Byzantines with the Polynesians, Mali, and Khmer and the top 16 would be great. Three great civs are so close, lets get them up there.

I agree Khmer and Mali would add diversity and (for Earth map) a wider range of starting positions (better than Poles Koreans and Byzantines anyway) but the Poles and Koreans are certainly worthy civs. The Byzantines would be, if it wasn't a Greek continuation of the Eastern Roman epmire. We have a Greek, we have a Roman...Byantines should be ditched for Mali

Polynesians - lets get Khmer and Mali in first...Polynesians...eh...not as worthy as the Poles.

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree that the Polynesians have a questionable worth as a civilization, but I think that they are very important in terms of balancing the gameplay on an Earth based map. The East Indies and Australia are completely empty right now and I think the Khmer and Polynesians would help fill in that area. The Poles are slightly more worthy than the Polynesians, but the fact that they are located in an already extremely crowded area makes them a bad choice IMHO.

[Trifna]

my vote

Arabs 20

Spanish 20

Mongol 20

Goths 20

Celts 18

Viking 15

Algonquiens 12 (they are the other cultural type of native Amerindians with Iroquois)

Carthage 11

[Melloj]

My first post here at apolyton, although I have read it for quite a while.

Here are my votes:

Poles: 20
Vikings: 20
Dutch: 10
Swedes: 10
Byzantines: 20
Arabs: 20

[Trifna]

little change

I was woundering if I wouldn't put Khmers and Aborigens. Still not sure if I should...

What is called "Polynesians" is basically pretty ressemblant to Zulus or Iroquois culturally speaking I think. That's the reason why I think they shouldn't be in.

For Khmers, I hesitated. I'm not sure if in fact, they aren't simply a mix of all around influences. They have India near, Japan, China. Don't know if Khmers is a distinct culture or if it is in fact a mix of all, without distinctive factor really. That's why I wont put Quebecois or Canadians. Us Quebecois and Canadians are more a mix of all around factors. Of course we developed difference reliated to the environment, but we're still an extension of many cultures that passed here. As many other cultures.

And for Aborigens, I am not sure if it isn't like the Polynesians' case. It's a little like eskimos, that I prefer class as beeing in-classed in "Algonquins" that I chosed and would maybe fit the Aborigens too. Or maybe Aborigens are distinctive?


I don't matter myself about having a whole in the terrestrial world map. I don't think we should consider such a factor to add civs.

[Boney]

Mon

Hi Locutus

Firstly the Mons are an influential ethnic people of SE Asia, at one time their empire was spread from Burma through Siam to the Cambodia. Ethnically their are very close to the Khmer. There are still enclaves of Mon In Thailand, but they mostly now live in Southern Burma.

Geordies was actually a joke for my friend from Newcastle who visits visits this site. Geordie is the nickname for people from the Newcastle area in England. Most English regions have their own nicknames, such as Cockneys from London, Scousers from Liverpool, Brummies from Birmingham etc. etc. These people also speak English with their own regional accent, thus it is possible to know where a person comes from as soon as they start to talk.

But If you don't want Geordies I will change to Mongols.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have to disagree with you, Trifna. I think the location of a civ on the Earth map is a very valid concern and should be considered when thinking about the XP civs. You may not play on the Earth map very often, but I sure do and I hate it when one civ goes almost uncontested on a large land mass (Americans anyone?). Location is also a much less subjective reason for picking a civ for the game. The "worthiness" of a civ usually reflects the bias of the individual making the decision.

I agree that the Khmer can be viewed as a mixture of other cultures, but the same is true for many other civs. Korea is heavily influenced by China and Japan. Poland is influenced by numerous other civs, especially Germanic and Slavic. I guess I really don't care what civs you pick to fill the holes on the Earth map, just as long as they are filled. Khmer, Mon, Thai, Vietnamese, whatever you want to fill the gap. Replace the Polynesians with the Aborigines if you prefer it. Or Mali could be replaced with Ghana or the Songhai. I just want to fill out the map, so the game will be more balanced. Now I just need to think of a civ to place in eastern South America.....

[Boney]

I cannot understand why an influential culture such as the spanish is not in the original game. Yeah okay, many have pointed out why Iroqois should be there, but the Spanish, or even Portuguese influence on the world is surely far greater. I did not vote for Spanish though, because they already have plenty of votes.

I wonder how many votes the Iroquois would have received if they were not in the original game. I really don't think they would have even made the top twenty. But commercially we have to take into account where the game is produced and where are most of its sales. Maybe their inclusion also helps to appease the consciences of the non native americans who are producing the game.