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

[kinglemming]

I'm new here.
Here are my votes.

Koreans 20
Inca 20
Maya 20
Inuit 20
Polynesians 20
Arabs 20
Mongol 20
Hebrew/Jews 20

[Va-Toran]

A few alterations, although I said I wouldn't use up my spare points I have decided that I will.

Mongols -5

Arabs +10
Mali +5

The altered post reads as follows:
20 points - Arabs, Spanish, Turks
15 points - Hapsburgs, Mongols, Vikings
10 points - Inca, Dutch, Phoenicians, Portugese
5 Points - Assyrians, Celts, Mali,

While a good geographic spread is desirable we must not let this dictate which Civs to include, We should try to Combine Simliar Civs wherever possible, because of this, The Byzantines do not deserve to be in the expansion pack, despite their cultural importance, as they were basically a continuation of the Roman Empire, with a larger greek influence.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Va-Toran
While a good geographic spread is desirable we must not let this dictate which Civs to include, We should try to Combine Simliar Civs wherever possible, because of this, The Byzantines do not deserve to be in the expansion pack, despite their cultural importance, as they were basically a continuation of the Roman Empire, with a larger greek influence.

Couldn´t agree more about the Byzantines. And speaking of similar civs, I don´t think it´s necessary to include the Spanish and the Portugese.

[Jay Bee]

lockstep, understandable and historically very reasonable but, would you like Austria and Germany lumped together? (sorry I could not help it).

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by LaRusso
if i see one more polish vote, i'll go bananas

I'm with you.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
lockstep, understandable and historically very reasonable but, would you like Austria and Germany lumped together? (sorry I could not help it).

Jay Bee, I didn´t assign any points to Austria in my vote.

Seriously, Europe is over-represented in the top 16 IMO. I´d rather like to see the Polynesians, Malians or Khmer in an expansion pack than the Portugese, Austrians or Hungarians.

[Spathi]

My votes

Here are my votes. By the way, what exactly is the difference between Zulus and Zimbabwe?

I agree that, regardless of historical significance, we should try to stay away from Europe in the expansion, so here are my votes.

80 Singapore
80 California

(j/k)

Here are my REAL votes:

20 Polynesia
20 Mali
20 Incas
20 Inuit/Eskimo
20 Ethiopia (or whatever that other name was)
20 Cambodians/Khmer
20 Korea
20 Austro-Hungarian Empire/Austria (Yes, they're European, but they're incredibly cool)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lockstep
Seriously, Europe is over-represented in the top 16 IMO. I´d rather like to see the Polynesians, Malians or Khmer in an expansion pack than the Portugese, Austrians or Hungarians.

Over represented or not I say we vote for the best civ and then let the chips fall where they may. Malians & Khmers just don't compare to Portugese, Dutch, or Austrians. Sad but true.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Over represented or not I say we vote for the best civ and then let the chips fall where they may. Malians & Khmers just don't compare to Portugese, Dutch, or Austrians. Sad but true.

It is true that Europe was, as a whole, more influential in our history. But I don't think Civ has ever been meant as a historical game; it is a game that allows history to be rewritten. If you set time back to 4000 BC and started it up again, the Khmer could very well end up as a world power. That's what I like about Civ, you get the chance to change history. Realism is good to a point, but when it starts to encroach on the actual fun of the game then it has gone too far. 10 civs in Europe would not be fun, IMHO, but civs spread out all over the world would be. It it's realism vs. fun, I'll take fun any day.

[JellyDonut]

Drake's right. Civilization is one big "What if?" Being a fan of AH (alternate history), I like that Civ gives me a chance to see what might have been but wasn't. What if the Zulus took over the world? What if the Aztecs conquered interstellar travel? What if the Sioux took over the United States? These notions are entertained by a game like civ. If things had gone a very different way, the Europeans may not have ended up the most influential group of civilizations in the world. The Polynesian empire may have settled the entire Pacific Rim and used Taiwan to launch the first spacecraft. Or the Malians could have established a huge African Empire and taken over Eurasia with a massive army. With Civ, you establish what would have happened, not what did.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Over represented or not I say we vote for the best civ and then let the chips fall where they may. Malians & Khmers just don't compare to Portugese, Dutch, or Austrians. Sad but true.

I'm austrian, I like Austria. NTL, Austria was never too important , even less an own civilization. The Habsburgs were important more in Spain or with the combination Austria/Spain. And, although there are certainly cultural differences with germany because of the Multiethnicity of the Empire, but it seems to be a variant of german culture to me.
Yes, Austria was a political power in europe for centuries, but so was Mali in Africa. The Khmer maybe in comparison weren't so politically important, but both Mali and Khmer have far more unique culture as Austria has.
Remark: I'd like to have both Austrians and Mali in, personally I don't care for the Khmer (yes, I know Angkor-Vat)

[Locutus]

Guys,
I wanted to update the summary but just before I was about to safe the changes my computer crashed As you can no doubt understand I don't feel like immediately doing the whole thing all over again but I think I'll update later tonight.

Spathi,
The difference between Zulu and Zimbabwe is quite simple. The Zulu were a small tribe that lived in villages and lived off the land, like hundreds of other insignificant tribes. The only thing that made them stand out is that, just around the time when the English and the Dutch arrived, they happened to have conquered a few neighbouring tribes and occupied a territroy somewhat larger than that of the average African tribe (they controlled an area perhaps as large as Switzerland or Portugal, not quite sure) and for a while they formed an quite an annoyance to the colonists, but nothing more. Zimbabwe OTOH was a full-flegded civilization that for centuries controlled a large empire (roughly the same size as Nazi Germany just before the invasion of Russia) deep in the inlands of Africa, they lived in large cities, built magnificent structures (most famous example: the Great Zimbabwe) and traded intensively with Swahili, Indians, Chinese and Arabs. In short, the Zulu were a tribe, Zimbabwe was a civilization. Since they both came from roughly the same region of Africa it's IMHO a total joke that Firaxis (and Microprose before that) included the Zulu as a civilization instead of the Zimbabwe and gave them a city list with some cities from Zimbabwe on it.

Oerdin,
You don't know much about the Mali and the Khmer, do you? If so, before you draw conclusions like that, you should keep in mind that your lack of knowlegde of certain civs says a lot more about you than it says about those civs. One could indeed argue that the Dutch, and the Portuguese (like Wernazuma, I'm not so sure about the Austrians) were historically more important than the Mali or the Khmer, but to state that the latter could not even compare to European civs is a severe underestimation of the greatness of these civilizations. I dare argue that both the Mali and the Khmer were in fact greater civilizations than the Dutch or the Portuguese. The only reason why the Europeans are always seen as so important is because they preferred waging war and suppressing other nations over developing a sophisticated society, building magnificent cities and structures and collecting knowlegde (and with 'collecting' I don't mean 'borrowing' it from others). I absolutely agree that war and conquest are important means to achieve greatness but they are certainly not the only ones. Greatness of a civ should not solely be measured by the amount of territory it occupied and/or the amount of time that is dedicated to it in the average highschool (or even college) history class...

[Gramphos]

Sad to hear that

How's the progress convincing Mark to add those codes? I've PMed him, he have read the PM, but nothing more.

[Droximus]

I've been lurking for about two weeks now, and this is the first thread that I've found that actually might be worthwhile....(good job Locutus)

All my choices get 10 points...

Arabs
Dutch
Etruscans
Hungary
Inca
Iroquois-revised
Israelis
Mayans
Mongols
Ottoman
Phoenicians
Polynesians
Portuguese
Spanish
Sioux
Vikings

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


It is true that Europe was, as a whole, more influential in our history. But I don't think Civ has ever been meant as a historical game; it is a game that allows history to be rewritten. If you set time back to 4000 BC and started it up again, the Khmer could very well end up as a world power. That's what I like about Civ, you get the chance to change history.

I don't disagree; Civ3 isn't a historical simulator and I have never implied that it should be. I simply feel that if we are going to choice 32 civs to represent all of humanity we should choice the 32 that where most influential in history, that created the largest cultural legendcy, and contributed most scientific advancement. I see little point in trying to be politically correct and balancing so many civs from this continent and so many from that continent. Let us simply find a criteria which we can use to fairly and evenly judge the accomplishments of one civ against those of another. That way we won't have the injustice of a 1st or 2nd rate power being bumped so that we can include some petty 3rd rate power who happens to come from the politically correct geographic area.
We should judge based on accomplishments and geographic distributions should be an after thought.

Realism is good to a point, but when it starts to encroach on the actual fun of the game then it has gone too far. 10 civs in Europe would not be fun, IMHO, but civs spread out all over the world would be. It it's realism vs. fun, I'll take fun any day.

The vast majority of games will not be on a world map so this is a false dilemma. I am not sure but I suspect the game will only support eight civs at a time any way so trying to play all of them at one time on a single map won't be a real concern.