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

[Kropotkin]

Many civs could be considered post-colonial really so that's no good reason in my opinion. SerapisIV's claims that america would have lasted longer than china and russia is weak but that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be included. Boers ins't a bad idea by the way...

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Many civs could be considered post-colonial really so that's no good reason in my opinion. SerapisIV's claims that america would have lasted longer than china and russia is weak but that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be included. Boers ins't a bad idea by the way...

I never said that America is longer then China or Russia, I said Communist China and Russia. It's already shown that Mao is leader of China. The US is even older then the marxist theory which is the foundation for communism. Besides that if they wanted a true Russian leader, one who wasn't just a butcher, they should pick Catherine the Great, not Stalin. About the Chinese, they were a back-water colonial dumping ground for everyone from the British to the Japanese for 400 years prior to the communists, for a great leader there they should pick one of the emperors, not the pedophile Mao (no relation to the Apolytoner ) All the arguements against the US are bullsh*t. The US was (or is, though 'is' is debatable) one of the strongest nations politically, economically, and militarily that the world has ever known, any Civ game without them would be an insult to the concept of great civilizations..

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Besides that if they wanted a true Russian leader, one who wasn't just a butcher, they should pick Catherine the Great, not Stalin.

Are you saing Stalin is going to be the Russian leader in Civ3??? That's like having Hitler as the German leader. I know they used Stalin in Civ1, and Lenin in Civ2, so going back to Stalin seems a bit STRANGE.

In my opinion, *Peter the Great* should be the Russian leader (the guy who very much created modern Russia and also he built St. Petersburg)

BTW: Catherine the Great is (at least in Civ2) the female leader.

[SerapisIV]

I don't think that the Russian leader has been discovered yet...Damn Firaxis

I also don't think that Firaxis is implementing a male and a female leader, only one leader per civ. This could be wrong, but there haven't been any civs repeated with different leaders. Both of the questions are really just wait and see questions though, hopefully a preview or Firaxis will answer them soon.

[supremus]

If you play World Map it woulb be good to use civs in some large continents like South America and Australia. I think Incas and Brazilians in South America and Aborigineans and Australians (and perhaps Polinesians) in Oceania could offer interesting possibilities in this sense.

[N35t0r]

ARGENTINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DarkCloud]

Comments on the Civs

-Arabs: Good
-Austro-Hungarians: Just group them with the Germans; not necessary for a civ
-Confederates: Not a real civilization
-Dutch: Could do without, but would be nice to have.
-Incans: Useful.
-Italians: Could do without.
-Polynesians: We need more Island nations
-Portugese: Could do without
-Turks: Could do without

-Just make the Israelis the Hebrews for the Hebrews have been around longer than the Israeli Nation, for the Hebrews are the Jewish peoples before they had their own nation.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Incans! A once great Civ that is very different from all the others.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Dugrik


Your leader would be Sundiata Keita (aka Sogolon-Djata), the Mandinka warrior-king who united a weak and scattered people and ushered in a glorious period of peace and prosperity.

I think Mansa Musa is much more known as a ruler of the Mali

[Eli]

Re: Comments on the Civs

Originally posted by DarkCloud
-Just make the Israelis the Hebrews for the Hebrews have been around longer than the Israeli Nation, for the Hebrews are the Jewish peoples before they had their own nation.

Israelis = Hebrews = Jews

This has changed a little bit lately thogh.

[Kropotkin]

I never said that America is longer then China or Russia, I said Communist China and Russia. It's already shown that Mao is leader of China.

Yes I know you said that, that just the reason why your argument is weak. One have to pick one leader and thus some/most episodes of a countries existance falls in the background. We could as well start to divide america into different timeperiods in the same way. Should the leader be John F Kennedy or G. Washington for example. It's not like the america of late 18th century has much in common with america in mid 20th century when it comes to culture and social conditions. But all this is really academic, France, Russia, China and America should be included.

[K.J.H.]

Originally posted by Czar Szychowski
8.) Dutch - Not sure..maybe William of Orange? ...these guys should definately be included...greatest trading empire in 1600's.

William of Orange is correct (yes, i'm dutch). He was a leader in the 1600's ('The Golden Century' for the Dutch (actually 50% of this century was about war against Spain, but the economy increases)). The national anthemn of the dutch is even about William of Orange. If there are too many male leaders of the civs you can always choose Queen Wilhelmina. She had to flee to London during WWII, but was afraid to go into history like a chicken, so she supported the Dutch resistance against the Germans by radio.

I'm very honoured of all the attention the Dutch get in this forum. In modern ages we are nothing but the poo of a fly on the world map.
However, in the ancient ages a north dutch tribe - the Frisians - resist stronge against the Romans.
In medieval times (500-1500) the Dutch haven't got very much influences. Well, they had a trading pact (Hanze Pact) with scandinavians but that meant nothing.

But didn't firaxis do 16 or 20 civilization in the game. In that case we can forget our dutch, portoguese, incan, arab, hebrew etc. dream

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand why more people don't vote for the Turks. After all, they did stick around as the Ottoman empire for almost a thousand years. The Arabs are good, too.

[King Richard]

Originally posted by paiktis22
A few comments:

Italians are covered my the romans as far as I am concerned.

Austro-Hungarians. Hungarians might have a problem that you have put them together with the Austrains. A hungarian acquintance of mine never stops telling me how opressed the hungarians were under austrian rule.

Which Arabs? Everybody sais Arabs but which ones? It's like saying «Europeans» I think.

Other than that that's a nice list I think.

I agree with you! There's nothing called "the Arabs". The arabs everyone is talking about is really a bunch of people who believe (is forced to believe...) in Allah, they formed multiple empires, though.

The problem is that a civilization like the Mongols also consisted of multiple empires (following the death of Ghenghis Khan). Furthermore; The Greeks didn't have an empire at all, they had about 400-600 city-states which frequently warred with each other. By the way; Alexander the great was macedonian, and shouldn't count as the leader of the greeks...

You can't have something as vague as "The Arabs", since they would consist of already implemented civs like the egyptians and the babylonians (persians if they're in...)

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by King Richard


I agree with you! There's nothing called "the Arabs". The arabs everyone is talking about is really a bunch of people who believe (is forced to believe...) in Allah, they formed multiple empires, though.

Not all Arabs are Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Islam was the impetus that caused Arabs to unite and spread out throughout the mid east, north africa, and spain. Maybe Turks would be a better choice since they've been unified longer, they were even in Civ1 until up to the last minute (the Germans replaced them).
Arabs are a very worthy civ, and yes, probably similar to the mongols in that their unity broke down after a while, but still Arabs were the "enlightened civilization" during the middle ages.

Also, the Egyptians in the game aren't modern muslim egyptians, but ancient ones, FAR before islam