Which of the following 10 Civs NOT included in Civ II do you most want in Civ III?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

The Arabs have had the most influence out of those, by far. I'd go with them.

If not the Arabs, then perhaps the Turks, Byzantines, Mayans, or Koreans. The Sioux and Vikings I can do without.

[Beckdawg]

Well in my opinion the US has to be in. Not only cuz it is the biggest market for the game but it is also the birthplace of democracy. Yes i know it had help from a bunch of other Civ's but the democracy that most governments are using now is directly from the US. On top of that you have that we basically started the U.N.(it is basically part of Wilson's 14 points). There are many other reasons. But i mean what game company would be stupid enough not to. No offence to any romans but how many romans are gonna buy the game? None because the civ is now 3 or for contries. I can understand not putting the confederates in it. Although i think who ever said that revolutions should be in is right. I think it would be cool that even if u can only have 7 civs at once that if a revolutions occurs you can play with 8 or more. And it happened sooooooo much in history. That aboslutly has to be in the game. And in a greater effect then Civ 2. That was kind of lame. I think it will be w/ the cultural points and all. But going back to the topic i think that you should be able to have 500 civ's if you want. It makes sense to me. Why disclude a country? I alson think that you should be able to set the number of contries that play at one time. I realize 100 is unrealistic but at least 20. And if you don't like 20 u can put 7 like in Civ 2. Any ways that is my thoughts on the situation.

[Cyclotron]

I don't understand how anyone could not consider putting the Vikings or Scandanavians in. The Vikings created a huge area of infuence over Northern Europe, and their Norman ancestors became the dominating race in Britain for many years. The Vikings were the first to voyage by sea to "The New World." Viking traders and settlers in modern-day Western Russia and Finland were called "Rus" from which we get "Russians."

So I demand that if the Vikings are not in, the Russians have no reason being in either.

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I don't understand how anyone could not consider putting the Vikings or Scandanavians in.

Vikings were in CivII, the topic of this thread...

[Lung]

Originally posted by Beckdawg
Well in my opinion the US has to be in. Not only cuz it is the biggest market for the game but it is also the birthplace of democracy.

Since when?!! Sounds like another case of history reinvention by the Yanks! (The Patriot, U-571

[SIZE=1]Yes i know it had help from a bunch of other Civ's but the democracy that most governments are using now is directly from the US.

Namely?

Canada? No
Australia? No
India? No
New Zealand? No
Phillippines? No
Germany? No

So, let's see.....Europe? No. Africa? Nope? Asia? Nosiree! Oceania? No way! Maybe Antarctica has some?

I'll be buggered if i can think of any!

[samurai]

[SIZE=1] . Yes i know it had help from a bunch of other Civ's but the democracy that most governments are using now is directly from the US

Well, obviously this democracy isn`t working right. After what I`ve heard, the president of this great government wasn`t the presidents who got the most votes And besides, in US you have to be a millionaire to become president

Just wondered about something else, Who is the Austro-Hungarians? And when did they do anything great?

And, I think the Incas should be in the game. They were, after all, not very aggressive, and was maybe the most civilized civilization at the time. Until the Europeans came and destroyed it all

[Urban Ranger]

I voted for the Incans.

Originally posted by Arator
Uh, try 3500 years. They are both an Ancient and Modern civ, with great civilizational influence. They should be included.

The problem is it ceased to be a country for 2000 years. Also the Israelis didn't have much cultural influence. The Jews don't and have never believed in Christianity, which was in fact spreaded by the Romans.

[Kropotkin]

Including Confederates would seem like a coldminded PR stunt to attract rednecks. It only existed for a few years as a independent country. Sure it did have some things that distincted them from the so called yankees as Arator pointed out but If such things would count then we should also divide a number of other empires, like china really should be divided into a number of different groups and cultures. The difference and history of the confederates might mean a lot to a large portion of potential buyers but I do think it's stretching it to far imho.

As for 'Scandinavians'; I can't agree with the name for starters. The fins have very little in common with the rest of the cultures (besides, it's a part of Sweden anyway ). There where times where most of scandinavia was more or less united under one crown but there has never been such a country as Scandinavia. Vikings where never a united country either. If any of the countries should be included as themselves it should be Denmark and/or Sweden since Finland was under swedish rule and Norway mostly under danish rule.

[Provost Harrison]

Well what about the Portuguese? At one point they were a major colonial power (a long time ago mind you) so they get my vote. I also think there are good grounds for including the Dutch as well in this one...

[Kropotkin]

Don't really see the problem with including all civs that are wanted as long as they could be considered civs (thus not confederates and scandinavias) as long as there's no special graphics etc for each individual civ. All one need is a list of names for cities, titles and kings. How hard can that be compared to programming a entire computergame for a bunch of wiseguys like us?

[Gangerolf]

If any of the countries should be included as themselves it should be Denmark and/or Sweden since Finland was under swedish rule and Norway mostly under danish rule.

Don't forget that BEFORE it came under danish rule the Kingdom of Norway ruled most of the North Atlantic: Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes, Shetland, Orkneys, Hebrides, Isle of Man and parts of what is now western Sweden. They even had settlements in Newfoundland (Vinland) in North America.

Conclusion: 1) Rather Norway than Denmark or Sweden.
2) "Scandinavians" as one civ - don't think so
3) Stick with Vikings!!



BTW: I voted for the Arabs. But I also want Incas, and maybe even Portugal and the Dutch.

[Kropotkin]

I see, the usual historical revisionism of norwegians

I have nothing against Norway but saying that it has had a greater impact on the world than Denmark or Sweden is somewhat absurd. Probably the best solution is to include neither, don't want to step the mighy norweigans on their feet.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I have nothing against Norway but saying that it has had a greater impact on the world than Denmark or Sweden is somewhat absurd.

Oops I'm sorry... Obviously I forgot about the enormous impact Swedish phenomenons like meatballs and ABBA have had on the world...

[Eli]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem is it ceased to be a country for 2000 years. Also the Israelis didn't have much cultural influence. .

It is quite obvious that if Israel is included than the meaning is Jews. But they have the regular "Religion or Ethnic group" confusion, so they will write Israelis.

No cultural influence... pah...

The Jews don't and have never believed in Christianity, which was in fact spreaded by the Romans

Formed by Jews, but that doesnt matter...

I voted for the Israelis btw(Doh!).

[ancient]

yet every one ignores my post arabs are in civ2!