Oppositions to Arabs

[JtheJackal]

If the Israelis ever got in they should and most likely would be called the Hebrews as they were actually a civilization.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by JtheJackal
What I want to know is why no one to my knoledge has objected to the Celts?

The Celts were a great early European Civilization and their culture dominated much of Europe. They developed a large trading network and they were the first European civilization to learn the secret of iron working. The Celts were great warriors whom people like Julius Ceaser spent much of their life fighting against and they even succeeded in capturing Rome and pludering Delphi.

The Arabs are one of the great civs of the world, there is no denying it, but the game already has to many middle eastern civs. I'm going to delete the Arabs and mod the Incas in instead. This will improve the game balance and will prevent the Aztecs from having a cake walk.

[Ribannah]

Re: Oppositions to Arabs

Originally posted by Ikarus
I have played the Civilization series for a very long time and consider myself an expert of civ 2 (soon civ 3), but I am newbie here. After browsing around the website I came across many people who were disappointed that the Arabs were introduced to the Play the World expansion. There argument was that the Babylonians and Persians are Arabs, and that, because of this, are not to be considered a civ.

I was just curious if these people felt the same way towards the Americans, as they are basically the English.

Probably, but in both cases these people would be wrong.
Molly Bloom already explained about Arabia, Babylon and Persia in another thread.
I doubt very much that even 50% of the American citizens are of English ancestry (and that was centuries ago).

[roalan]

world map

Originally posted by Ikarus


Oooooo! , Another world map fan.
I'm also a big fan of Incas(and their UU, Inti Warriors) being introduced. In fact I replaced the Iroquois with them just this week in my world scenario.

But you say it would just be too crowded on the world map. Like it isn't already crowded over there in Eupore and the Mediteranean anyways.

Would you object to Arabs on a random map?

For you Incan fans:
-Incan capital: Qosqo or Cuzco
-UU: Inti Warriors: 2/1/1 warriors.
-Inti, I believe, is Quechuan for sun, which is the Incan god.

Does this mean there is a world map included in the new game?

[roalan]

world map

Does this mean there is an actual world map included in the new version?

[Dinner]

Hopefully we will get a world map that is at least marginally correct this time around. Did any of you ever play the other world map Firaxis put out? I never knew everything north of the 49th was covered in glacial ice but I guess it must be; after all that's how Firaxis portrayed it.

[Panag]

Re: world map

Originally posted by roalan
Does this mean there is an actual world map included in the new version?

hi ,

in order to make a good playable realistic map they need to go to at least 320X320 , 384X384 would be better , ......

since they are not going to do it , ....

there are some good maps , and if you mod them a bit they are okay , but the middle east is like always a small place , .....

example ; Japan , make it a bit bigger , ....

have a nice day

[Gen. Maximus]

Currently the with custom map size we can only go to 256x256. Never play such big maps before but it gonna kill an average powered PC. Are they adding more players in PTW or is it still at 16?

[rob.derosa]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Hmm, let's see here....humans originated in africa..so more time for various societies to develop in the surrounding area...might explain some things, no? Though, if anything, I don't see why you aren't complaining that they should just *add* some more civs, why bother removing any? At least they are giving as some of the older European civs, as the English, French, and Germans (as countries) are relatively young (though not as young as the USA). Heck, Egypt (the Egypt in civ III) was gone by the time England, France, and Germany become countries.

It would be nice to have some more civs from all over the world. There were a lot more Civs in Asia, and a lot more in the Americas too. Where are the Mayans? Heck, you could have 60+ good, strong historical civs, I'm sure...quite easily. It is not too hard. It's just too bad you can't have *real* alternative civs....think of the Iroquois who traded with the Incas and with selective breeding had domesticated riding Llamas....ahh...that would be cool. Heh.

-Moose

England is 5000 years old, may not be the oldest, but certainly older than America with only a few centuries. Why not replace the Americans with the Inca, much better.

[rob.derosa]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Heck, what about objecting to Spain? England, France, Germany, and Spain are not only the same area of the world, but those countries have existed during the same time periods. At least the Celts are before this.

-Moose

edit: grammer

The main reason these countries are in Civ 3 is because they all had, at some point, large Empires that affected the world in different ways.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by rob.derosa


England is 5000 years old, may not be the oldest, but certainly older than America with only a few centuries. Why not replace the Americans with the Inca, much better.

Human have been living ther for a long time, but England as a country is far, far younger than that.

[rob.derosa]

My mistake.

[Blue Moose]

An ethnic heritage or place is not the same as a country. England has not been around for anywhere near that long a time. Britain is the island, England is the country. There is a huge difference.

[Gangerolf]

the arabs are a good pick. doesn't matter that the middle east gets crowded when you play on a random map btw.

[Gangerolf]

actually we should have more middle eastern civs, like the Assyrians, Hittites and a couple more i can't remember right now