Which civs, if included, would you never use?

[Mikhail]

2 things mentioned in this thread that make me want to stab myself:

19% of the game's sales are NOT Canadian. Maybe if EVERY SINGLE PERSON (all 10 million of them) in canada bought a copy, it might be a significant number. But I'd bet that Germany, Korea, UK, etc., have all sold more copies of Civ 3 than Canada.

Also, Tokyo doesn't have 35 million people. it has 25 million. Hey, thats a difference almost the size of canada!

Miznia: Well, seeing as how Firaxis was able to come up with an exact number (8), they've probably already decided on them, and are working on programming them in before the XP is released.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Sioux, Hebrews, Canadians, Khmer, Ethiopians, Nubians, Dutch, Polynesians and Koreans. Pretty uninteresting civs all of them when you can play Vikings (Röde Orm) or Celts (Slaine)

If "arians" was a choise, would you play as them?

You seem to dislike non-north-european civs.

[Zoid]

Not dislike, I just don´t find them interesting. Yet my favourite Civ3-civ is Babylonians or Persians. They´re not from Northern Europe

Poor trolling attempt, Siro...

[Mr. President]

This whole thread is one gigantic troll.

[Zoid]

Yes, I suppose it is...

[Sirotnikov]

Yet my favourite Civ3-civ is Babylonians or Persians

Ah, two civilizations known to enslave Jews in the BC era, huh?

Anyhoo, I think the whole point of this thread is stupid.

Today, what means anything is the traits and not the name and so on.

[Zoid]

Yes, this is also why I always play the Nazis in Civ2´s WWII scenario... Did I mention I also like the romans?

Extremly stupid thread this...

[Andrew_Jay]

This is rather un-important, but I figure I should back my country up Mikhail, while true that 19% of Civ3 sales aren't in Canada, our country has a population of 30 Million, not 10M. Our country has a population about that of Tokyo's, not a small fraction of that city's population.

And back on topic, yes, all that matters is the civ specific traits. I'll play the "Watermelons" if they are Scientific and Religious and their unique unit is a Rifleman with extra attack. The name is really unimportant. They might as well just let you pick two traits at start up, or have a random civ generator.

[Mikhail]

10 million, 30 million, it's all the same

Ukraine has 50 million, and the 20th largest military in the world. Larger even than the United Kingdom. Gemany, France, and Russia are the only European countries stronger than we. They're all considered 'great civilizations' by Firaxis too.

Well, that's my nationalistic pride there. Ukraine should be a civ.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Mikhail
10 million, 30 million, it's all the same

Ukraine has 50 million, and the 20th largest military in the world. Larger even than the United Kingdom. Gemany, France, and Russia are the only European countries stronger than we. They're all considered 'great civilizations' by Firaxis too.

Well, that's my nationalistic pride there. Ukraine should be a civ.

Large poorly trained and equiped armies almost always lose to smaller armies that are better trained and equiped. Did Iraq's million man army help it in the Gulf war? Did Argentina's 4 to 1 advantage allow it to keep the Falklands?

No offense but, I'd bet my money on the Brits any day. I can't say the same about the Ukrainian army...

[Signa]

I know its been awhile, but the first comment bashed the Hewbrews because they would be stuck with the worst UU in the game: how about a improved Swordsman, the Zealot @ [3.2.2]?

[dunk]

Originally posted by Miznia
As far as useless, I think the results have just proven uninteresting. I'm really surprised that only two civs clear 10% (if I recall).

I found all the discussion on this thread to be really valuable. I hope Firaxis takes note. I am grateful to all participants so far.

Miznia

I've seen this same discussion many times before. There have been numerous threads in this forum with the topic... "America doesn't belong" or "Why isn't Canada in the game?" or "God, the Iriquois are a stupid choice" or "Why can't we have the Arabs?" or "What were they thinking when the Zulu were included?". And then one of my "countrymen" comes in and proclaims US superiority from the rooftops and I want to punch him in the nose.

I don't object to the discussion of civs, but the poll is rather flammable.

[Ecthy]

any civ whose history doesn't interest me

[Rust]

Originally posted by TheBigTurkey
Let's go Canada! Make sure to add the French-Canadians too. I'll make sure to play them, and screw them over for a good laugh. But, on a serious note, Celts, Vikings, Sioux, Hebrews, Canadians, Khmer, Dutch, and Polynesians shouldn't be included, because they are RELATIVELY unimportant for the world. Peace out.

Actually anyone that's into the conspiracy stuff, know the Hebrews have already won and it's not even 2050

[kring]

I would use them all. I don't think I have played all the civs yet, but I am getting there. I think it can be educational, esp. when MP is coming out, to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the various civs and UU's/other units to help better plan strategies to be used to increase your odds of victory.