Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[Miznia]

Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

For instance, if you think the Mongols and Dutch belong in the list of 16, then you have to pick at least two civs who should get kicked out to make room for it.

Don't think too hard.

Edit: In other words, how close is the present list of 16 to what it SHOULD be?

[dunk]

Why should I have to kick someone out?

Any more civs should only be added in, not replace current ones.

[Cyclotron]

Well, one consideration is that Firaxis will probably want to balance all the different cultural groups.

Besides that, the only civ I think needs to bite it is the Iriquois. I understand that Firaxis wants to be all-inclusive, but this can be done better with the Incas/Mayans/Olmecs, etc. The Souix and Iriquois are better suited as barbarian villages due to their impact on history.

[Miznia]

I'm talking hypothetically. I'm not encouraging Firaxis to kick out the Iroquois and include an animated Atahuallpa head in a patch, or anything like that...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Miznia
I'm not encouraging Firaxis to kick out the Iroquois and include an animated Atahuallpa head in a patch, or anything like that...

No, but I am.

[Fitz]

Americans of course. The concept of putting in a civ that has existed for only 200 years (a bit more if you want to count the colonial period) struck me as odd right from the get go.

Although given that the game runs from Ancient to Modern times, a counter argument could just as easily be made for any of the most ancient civs (babs, greeks, romans & egyptians). *shrug*

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Fitz
Americans of course. The concept of putting in a civ that has existed for only 200 years (a bit more if you want to count the colonial period) struck me as odd right from the get go.

A post of mine from another forum, paraphrased:

The thing is, in terms of Civilization 3 the game, the Americans are more worthy of being in than say, the Romans.

Why? The Roman civ started (real life here) around the early ancient age, and expired by the late ancient age. Meanwhile, the Americans got their start in the late mideival age, and are still around in the modern age. That means that the Romans were around for less than one age, and the Americans were around for more than 2 ages.

Besides, there are many more units incongruous with the Romans than the Americans. There were no American warriors, bowmen, spear, sword, pike, horse, chariot, longbow... but the list of units the romans historically did not have is much longer.

[Jack_www]

Americans and British could be considered one civ. They are bascily one civ, all though the two countries are different now, in the colonial period there were much more simular to each other than they are now.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, one consideration is that Firaxis will probably want to balance all the different cultural groups.

Besides that, the only civ I think needs to bite it is the Iriquois. I understand that Firaxis wants to be all-inclusive, but this can be done better with the Incas/Mayans/Olmecs, etc. The Souix and Iriquois are better suited as barbarian villages due to their impact on history.

In what way have the Incas, Mayans or Olmecs had more impact on history than the Suoix or Iriquois?

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Americans and British could be considered one civ. They are bascily one civ, all though the two countries are different now, in the colonial period there were much more simular to each other than they are now.

In no way could you call me British.

[bigvic]

Within the scope of the game, the Americans are just a part of it. Unfortunately, civ 3 did not come up with some kind of civil war mechanic to simulate the birth of America, nor many other civs. Unless and until some such mechanic is developed, we just have to deal w/ thse issues. A real scenario editor that allowed placement of civs, victory conditions, etc., would be nice.

[SpencerH]

Zulus and Germans would be gone if I controlled the switch. I also wonder about India. Norsemen and Spanish or Ottoman would be in.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Based on the arguement that the Americans dont belong, then neither do any of the modern nations. The start of the game should consist of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persians, Assyrians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Celts, and a few others not currently included (sorry my ancient history is kinda rusty). All the other nations would be spawned off after revolutions. Or just start with one civ, and you try to break some cities off to form new civs. Interesting concept but half the fun of Civ games are playing the civ of choice.


BTW, havent these type polls about who deserves to be a civ been played to death over and over and over and over and over?!?!?!?!

[dunk]

I agree with ALPHA.

This thread has turned into the stupid "Americans aren't old enough to be in Civ" thread. No one should be removed from the game, only added.

The game could alternately start as a single group of apes in Africa to satisfy the "Only the Original Civilizations Belong in the Game" crowd. The first tech you would discover is "Evolution to Humanity". Until then, you can only run around swinging from trees and eating bananas. Then, you could discover "Nomadicism". Now, you're units can actually move. Then, you can discover "Farming". Now, you can build irigation. Then, you can discover "Settlement Building". Now, you can start Civ as we know it as soon as a revolution happens so we get two civs.

If Civ III were fully editable in this aspect, oh wait, it already is, you could put in whatever civs you like in place of the (this is my opinion of how some people on this board view the Americans or Iriquois) abominations.

Splitting new civs off of old ones as the only way of getting the Americans is simply, well, not Civ.

[Grrr]

The English, even though historically they were really powerful, CivIII has made them a joke.

But I do agree on the American issue.