What Civ Would You Have Included?

[Brutus66]

What civs would you have liked to see included that were left out?

I, personally, don't like the fact that the Iroqois were included and yet Spain was left out. I have heard the reasoning behind why Firaxis did it, but I still don't like it. England needs Spain to fight against, just like it needs France. Oh well, guess I just have to use the editor, but I sure wish Ferdinand or Isabella was there to negotiate with!
"Bring on your armada- I dare ya!"

[nato]

My vote goes to the Arabs. I think they are the largest omission.

Lots of culture and lots of advances/learning. They had a big dynamic impact, conquering a good size area and affecting Europe and India. Most important, they would be the best representative for one of the major cultures still existing today, which I think it is strange it is not represented in Civ3 already.

Spain is a very good choice, but there are so many Europeans. The closest thing to the Arabs currently is the Persians or Babylonians. Spain would maybe be my second choice, at least in the top 4. But I think the Arabs are just too big to not have.

[steelehc]

I agree on both counts. Spain and an Arabian civilization would be very nice to have. However, my vote goes for the Vikings/Norsemen/Normans, or whatever you want to call them. They had a huge impact on western civilization, and were included in Civ2.

Steele

[DarkCloud]

All of Civ II's civs deserved to be in excepting the Celts... and an argument could *possibly* be made for them.

However, about the Arabs- wouldn't uniting them as the Turks be a better idea, as I do not believe that any Arab nation truly existed excepting the Turkish Nations... The Ottomans and Sejiuks.

[Akaoz]

The Smurfs.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
All of Civ II's civs deserved to be in excepting the Celts... and an argument could *possibly* be made for them.

However, about the Arabs- wouldn't uniting them as the Turks be a better idea, as I do not believe that any Arab nation truly existed excepting the Turkish Nations... The Ottomans and Sejiuks.

I see no reason not to include the Celts- especially as they are still around today (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany all have flourishing Celtic language groups, Celtic history groups and host pan-Celtic celebrations). Indeed the Celtic input into Australia, New Zealand and the United States and Canada is particularly noticeable, in music, politics and the trade and industry of those nations.
Celtic Christian Ireland was also responsible for sending missionaries across Western Europe (even sending hermit monks to Iceland) and preserving the learning of the Classical Greeks and Romans during the so-called Dark Ages, along with the Arabs, of course.

As for 'uniting' the Arabs as Turks- cart before horse (or camel) as well as being something of a slight. The Arabs brought Islam to the Turks, not vice versa, and Arabs used Turks as mercenaries/slaves. The Turks were primarily steppe dwellers, the Arabs desert and fringe desert dwellers. The Arab 'civilization' once stretched from Spain's Pyrenees to Northern Persia and the borders of Tang China in Central Asia. The Empires of the Turks were never solely 'Turkish' states, including as they did Persians, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Georgians, and so forth. Let alone Jewish refugees following their expulsion from Spain. Similarly, there was no 'arab' state, given that the area encompassed by Arab civilization included Berbers, Black Africans, Europeans (in pre-Reconquista Spain and Portugal, and Sicily and southern Italy) Persia, Kurdistan, and so forth.

The continuing omission of Arabs and Turks from the Civilization games is something of a mystery to me, as well as the lack of a representative South East Asian civilization- it's not as if that part of the globe is overcrowded with opponents.

[nato]

If you were going to unite Arabs and Turks you might call them the "Caliphate" or maybe simply "Islamic" or something. But that would be similar to making a "Western" civ kind of. Not a bad idea, and might be interesting ... but it seems better to have all the civs on the same level.

The continuing omission of Arabs and Turks from the Civilization games is something of a mystery to me

That is exactly how I feel! You conveyed it better though.

[Alex]

Yes, I also think that the Arabs should be included. Maybe they plan to do it on the expansion pack.

[Deathwalker]

I would of added the Mongols to the game.
Though there are some others I would of liked to have included as well, e.g. The Huns, Turks and so on.
The only other thing I would change is get rid of Joan of Arc and put in a real French leader like Napoleon or one of the Kings.

[MonsterMan]

Vikings, Spain, Mongols and Turks all deserve their place in the game. Each of them have had more impact on the world than say India. I think the Iroquis is there so yankees can play cowboys & indians, no? :-P

There shouldn't be a civ called Arabs, that's just silly. Turks and Persians will do nicely.

[aahz_capone]

Netherlands

What about the dutch? OK, you could complain about there being too many euro countries, but the dutch had colonies in the carabian, africa and the far east and fought the other colonial powers at one point or another. Hell, the dutch invented the marines (not the machine-gun-totting kind, but the swashbuckler kind). They were also the only nation allowed to trade with Japan for a couple of centuries until america opened up japan at gun point.

Many prominent scientists came from holland too: huygens, vlacq, beekman, escher etc.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
Vikings, Spain, Mongols and Turks all deserve their place in the game. Each of them have had more impact on the world than say India. I think the Iroquis is there so yankees can play cowboys & indians, no? :-P
There shouldn't be a civ called Arabs, that's just silly. Turks and Persians will do nicely.

I think I agree with everything you say.
There is no country called Arabia and they don't behave like one nation. Arabians are like Europeans.

What where Firaxis' reasons to put the Iroquois in the game?

Turks: They were planned to be in Civ1 but didn't make the cut.

[Thrawn05]

The Irish of course.

But then, there is the saying:

"God gave the Irish wiskey so they couldn't rule the world."

[Seghillian]

I think Firaxis should have called the Civs "Red", "Green", "Blue", etc etc and given you the option of changing the name to whatever you wanted. Then this interminable subject wouldn't keep coming up.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

hypocrite political 'correctness'

Originally posted by molly bloom
The continuing omission of Arabs and Turks from the Civilization games is something of a mystery to me, as well as the lack of a representative South East Asian civilization- it's not as if that part of the globe is overcrowded with opponents.

I guess it's got something to do with a revival of so called 'political correctness' (after 11/9 muslims are somewhat suspicious in the eyes of certain -American- world leaders). CTP featured Turks, Civ 3 only Persians and BABS, but no real modern life representatives of muslims.

HYPOCRITE!

America, not a major civ throughout eras if you know what I mean, IS included, muslims aren't. Hell, FUNDAMENTALISM is excluded, whilst they got along in CIV2!!!

Too powerful my a..! They could have easily adjusted it, but it's clear they wouldn't. Are the producers/sellers scared that playing civ3 might lead to some ideas for potential terrorists?

Politics influencing on a game ...

Who said only fascists used the weapon of censor?????

AJ