 |
|
Rathenn
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
May 1999 time: 05:15
|
|
Here are my choices:
Spanish 16
Mongols 16
Vikings 12
Incas 12
Carthaginians 10
Arabs 10
Ethiopians 9
Celts 9
Mali 9
Turks 9
Dutch 8
Portuguese 8
Hebrews 8
Polynesians 8
Hmong 8
Mayans 8
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kayalar
|
|
20 Turks
15 Spanish
15 Dutch
15 Viking
15 Inca
10 Canadian
10 Celtic
10 Arabia
10 Mongol
10 Italian
10 Scots
10 Zimbabwe
5 Australian
5 Mayan
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yksi
|
|
My apologies, I didn't recall that (max being 20).
Here is my list:
Italian 20
Finnish 20
Phoenician 20
Maori 20
Navajo 20
Maya 15
Sikh 10
Mongol 15
Portoguese 10
Turkish 10
Spanish 5
Swiss 5
Inca 5
Viking 5
Tibet 5
Carthagininans 5
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:15
|
|
I'll keep it simple
1. Vikings: 20 points
2. Mongols: 20 points
3. Spanish: 20 points
4. Dutch: 15 points
5. Incas: 15 points
6. Mayans 15 points
7. Assyrians 15 points
8. Turks 10 points
9. Slavs 10 points
10. Hebrews 10 points
11. Carthaginians 5 points
12. Arabs 5 points
Some people have some really stupid choices up there. Australia? Australia is not a civilization. America isn't a civilization either, but that's in the game. I really think that Americans SHOULD NOT be in the game, but the game is primarily American, so I don't think that will happen.
This is what I think Civ 3 should have done, and this might be possible in an expansion.
Have a core group of civilizations based on timeline.
Egyptians, Chinese, Norse, Persians, Romans, Greeks, and Babylonians start out early in the game. Then, as the game progresses, there could be minor civilizations that would not be as powerful as the other major ones: Hittites, Sumerians, Magyars, Huns, etc.
Then have other civilizations spawn from the minor ones based upon the time period.
Third, you could have a system where colonies revolt and become seperate civilizations, i.e. Americans, Australians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians
That way the game would be random and different while still being relatively historically accurate.
Also, if you wanted to start out as the Americans, it would be similar to the accelerated start in Civ 2. You would start as the 13 colonies and would have to fight for your independence. If you think about it, that's how the Americans came to be. It would add a new twist to the game, and I think it would add more depth to the game. You're not just starting out in 4000 BC with a settlers unit anymore.
Give me some feedback.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
Locutus- Any possibility of a summary of where the civs are so far?
On the Ottoman/Turk issue. I think that the Ottomans represent a much more significant civ in terms of their role in world affairs. By voting for the Turks, you vote for a modern country which hasn't had any geopolitical importance in relation to the other civs. So my vote's for the Ottomans.
I also would like to see Phoenicia/Carthage in, but I don't know who to vote for. I don't want my vote to get split up from the majority and not have it "count".
Ottomans - 20
Dutch - 20
Portuguese - 20
Austria-Hungary or just Austria - 20
Brazil - 20
Inca - 20
Arabs - 20
Maya - 20
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:15
|
|
I know what you're all thinking: WTF is taking this guy so long to update the ranking? Well, contrary to some of you (or so it seems) I actually have a life and have to work to pay my phone bills and be able to be online in the first place, so I did some sleeping and working and other chores that are part of a 'normal' person's life (you should try it some time if you haven't, it can really be quite interesting )
BTW: OMG! I'm offline for a few hours and look what happened: the thread was topped, moved to a new forums, almost tripled in size and a news item was posted about it (Leave it up to Markos to make news items about (almost) all my threads )
Before I'm off to update the summary (judging at the sheer number of votes casted since the last update this could take me a couple of hours), I'll address one issue (others can be addressed later if needed). Everyone seems to agree that my policy of treating each name as a different civ is a bad idea. Since I'm a reasonable man so I'm willing to change this policy but only if you guys are willing to help me out a bit: which civs should be combined? Israeli/Hebrew, Ottoman/Turks and Phoenicia/Carthage (perhaps Kush/Nubia as well?) are easy but how about others? There's a couple of civs in that list of which I know very little so I have no idea if combining might be in order there (FE Eskimo/Innuit?, Hmong, Tunguz). And there's other problems as well: what do I do with Americans/Yankees/Confederates or Scandinavian/Danish/Viking? How about Polynesian vs Maori/Hawaiians or Native Americans vs Sioux/Hopi/etc? Merge those or keep them seperate?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
redfox74
|
 |
Siberia
Aug 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
Finnish 20
Polish 20
Serbs 20
Dutch 20
Turks 20
Hebrews 20
Polynesians 20
Eskimos 20
Last edited by redfox74 on 14-08-2001 at 00:51
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|