 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
What do I think will be in the expansion pack? Well, if I'm optimistic, but not expecting exactly what's on my wish list I would say:
1. Spanish
2. Vikings
3. Mongols
4. Inca
5. Turks
6. Koreans
7. Ethiopians
8. Phoenicians
I will be very upset if they do not include the Spanish, Vikings, and Mongols. Those are just givens in my opinion. If they don't add those in, they're arrogant (for not listening to players) idiots (for being just plain stupid). Also, I would hope they add at least one other Asian civ besides the Mongols and it be the Koreans, rather than the Khmer or whatnot. I mean c'mon let's compare the level of civilization here. I hope they don't go into "space filler" mode with it either. Most likely, they will add one civ in the Americas and another in Africa at the very least. I'm just glad they've decided to add eight civs, not just four.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:13
|
|
I've done a little more thinking, and i've decieded that I may have been a little rash in giving the Arabs shoe-in status. I have also come to the realization that the civ picture can be broken down in to three brackets
Shoe-Ins
-------------------------------
1. Mongols
2. Spain
3. Inca
4. Carthage
5. Vikings
From here on out, three further civs will appear in the game
Contenders
-------------------------------
Arabs
Hebrews
Ethiopians
Turks
Koreans
On the outside, looking in
-------------------------------
Polynesians
Nubians
Celts
Dutch
Maya
Cherokee/Sioux
I think the Turks are the most interesting wildcard in all of this. In that, they are very unlikely to be included if the Arabs are included, since I think it is more likely Firaxis will group the turks under the Arab umbrella than the Arabs under the Turkish umbrella. However, they are the once civ that can justifiably considered part of two different culture groups. But in any scenario that they do get in the game, it would almost have to be one where the Arabs are out.
An interesting dark horse in all of this could be Nubia. All it would take is for Firaxis to deciede to that they would be a better African civ to add than Ethiopia/Axum and they are very likely to make it in. Interestingly, Nubia did make it in to the recent Rise of Nations roster. Darkhorse civs Khmer and Polynesia are in a similar situation, however I think Korea is on more stable ground than it's Ethiopian couterpart.
With that said, I'm going to go on the record with an 8 civ prediction for the first time in this thread. I say it will be the 5 shoe-ins, plus
6. Arabs
7. Korea
8. Ethiopians/Aksumites
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
Yes, I agree with your shoe-ins and the Ethiopians are really the dark horse in this all. A strong contender, indeed, I think. But no, I wasn't thinking about political or media factors re: the Arabs. I just think there's a bit of overlap with the Babylonians and the Egyptians. Anyhow, the Turks may have a stronger case.
Of course, the Koreans achieved more during their height than any of these other civs on the list with the exception of the Spanish and Phoenicians. However, I have a feeling they may have been left out entirely.
In my opinion, the Inca and Ethiopians are somewhat like "space fillers". But if they add the Khmer, the Polynesians, or whatnot, those are REAL space fillers and I will be very upset, too. Not as upset if they don't include the Spanish, Vikings, and Mongols though.
Personally, I'd like to see the Dutch and Portuguese added in there instead of the Inca or Ethiopians. But that's because I like playing modern civs and colonization games a lot. Also, I'd replace the Phoenicians with something else like the Khmer because I want to play more Asian civs, too. After all, there are really only TWO (the Chinese and the Japanese) because I consider the Indians more like Middle Easterners than Asians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
I don't think the Israelites (Hebrews) have a chance at all, if they don't include the Arabs. After all, I am suspecting the reason why most people want to include the Israelites is to pit them against the Arabs. It will be difficult to imagine them including both, so I'm not expecting either. But I definitely think the Arabs have a 10 times stronger chance of being in the game than the Israelites. I'd put the Israelites in as a long-shot. Anyhow, all of the other possible contenders are far more deserving and have more "space" reserved for them. |
Actually, having an Arab civ makes a great deal of sense. Starting in the Seventh Century, the Arabs had a glorious and huge civilization; much of it was conquered by the Mongols in the 13th Century (but not to Egypt, or beyond).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nato
|
 |
West Unite
Aug 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
I think the Arabians will be in, for a couple of reasons.
First, as has been argued elsewhere, they are a major civilization that merits inclusion.
Second, the "political and media" factors should actually help them compared to other potential civs. I think this is true whether the political concerns are for or against Arabians!
If political correctness is a concern ... then they should be in. They will be in so Firaxis can prove they aren't "mad at Arabs" or some such. Being PC REQUIRES you to do stuff like that, just so you can prove you aren't not PC.
If political correctness is not a concern, and you are taking the stance that they are too connected with terroism or something ... then they should be in! If people really think the entire civilization is so bad then they should be included as a great opposing civ choice.
I guess my point is, both love and hate have one thing in common ... strong emotions. Whether you love or hate the civ, you have strong emotions towards it, which makes it a compelling choice to include.
It makes more sense to include a civ with strong feelings towards it than one which no one gives a care about. It is certainly more interesting.
So I am saying I think political and media factors should help include the Arabians, not exclude them.
Really, who is going to get really excited over Phoenicians or someone? Who is going to REFUSE to buy Civ3 just because Arabs are in?
BTW, I do not go for either being PC or blaming the entire civ for recent events ... I just want them in because they are such a big, important, and unique part of history!
Thanks for reading, hope it makes sense and is not offensive somehow.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dimorier Maximus
|
 |
of Apolyton
May 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
If I recall correctly from the Civ2 text files, it appeared that the reason the Inca and the Arabs weren't used in Civ2 is because the politically correct makers of Civ2 couldn't find any female leaders for them. 
Since they only use one leader in Civ3, and it doesn't matter whether it is female or male, this should not be a problem. The Inca should be in it. Hopefully! Not so sure about the Arabs though.
I would personally be surprised to see both the Arabs and the Turks in the same game; however, they might both be added. I do think that the Arabs are kind of a waste when you already have the Babylonians. Essentially, Arabs are just descendants of Babylonians for all practical intents and purposes. Now, I know they are not COMPLETE, 100%, pure blood line descendants of Babylonians, but you get the picture. Same region and all. Baghdad is only miles away from Babylon.
Now the Turks, on the other hand, are an entirely different race, although still of the Mediterranean culture. It makes sense to add them. Their leader would obviously be one of the great men from the Ottoman Empire, take your pick of which was the one you consider the greatest. Also, there is no civilization currently in any civ game that represents control of Asia Minor by the indigenous. Sure Rome and Greece controlled it, but they were both foreign rulers.
Not to mention that Arabs to this very day aren't united. Their loyalty is first to tribe (sub-race), then to nation. Most Saudi Arabians don't consider themselves Arabs above all else.
So I hope that Firaxis put the Turks in, and left the Arabs out.
As far as the Inca, they best be in the game! 
There is no civ in the game that was actually based in South America. There never has been, and this is a gap that needs to be filled. Who better than the Inca to fill it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
Jasev, we already have the Aztecs! Anyhow, if they picked the Sioux over the Koreans I would go bonkers! I already think the Iroquois were almost unnecessary. Why add another underdeveloped "civilization" (if you can even call it a civilization) next to what is already a space filler?
We need to judge the civs by their merit, not by which spaces they can fill nicely. It seems so Eurocentric and hypocritical to ignore the fact that there are already five European civs in an area half the size of China and yet people say there isn't enough "room" for the Koreans in Asia. So, they say let's put the Khmer, Ethiopians, Inca, or friggin' even the Sioux and Indonesians in. These are barely civilizations compared to the Koreans. Okay, breath now...
Anyhow, they're NOT putting in the Sioux unless they're complete idiots.
By the way, thanks for the names. Did they have images of the leaders, too? I can't believe I don't remember anything from even Civ 2 anymore. I really loved Civ 1 and 2. I don't have that seem feeling with Civ 3 though. I don't know why.
Also, why do people prefer the name the Carthaginians? I know they used that in Civ 2, but isn't the Phoenicians more accurate? After all, Carthage was a colony established by the Phoenicians. I guess since Carthage had more military conquests, but still the Phoenicians had incredible inventions.
I think Spain will be treated as Mediterranean, but in my mind they are another civ crowding Western Europe. Not that I'm against it, but it's a fact. PLEASE STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jasev
|
 |
of the SCS Forum
Feb 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Jasev, we already have the Aztecs! |
 Oops, my fault.
quote:
Anyhow, if they picked the Sioux over the Koreans I would go bonkers! I already think the Iroquois were almost unnecessary. Why add another underdeveloped "civilization" (if you can even call it a civilization) next to what is already a space filler? |
I haven't said it was my wish; I just wondered what would firaxis do. Please don't kill me 
quote:
Anyhow, they're NOT putting in the Sioux unless they're complete idiots. |
Can I quote you? 
quote:
Also, why do people prefer the name the Carthaginians? I know they used that in Civ 2, but isn't the Phoenicians more accurate? |
That's it. People prefer Carthaginians because they were in civ2.
quote:
I think Spain will be treated as Mediterranean, but in my mind they are another civ crowding Western Europe. Not that I'm against it, but it's a fact. PLEASE STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!! |
What hypocrisy? Calm down, man, otherwise you're going to suffer a heart attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jasev
|
|
of the SCS Forum
Feb 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I would personally be surprised to see both the Arabs and the Turks in the same game; however, they might both be added. I do think that the Arabs are kind of a waste when you already have the Babylonians. Essentially, Arabs are just descendants of Babylonians for all practical intents and purposes. Now, I know they are not COMPLETE, 100%, pure blood line descendants of Babylonians, but you get the picture. Same region and all. Baghdad is only miles away from Babylon.
|
What about Mecca? It was the first arab Capital, and it was located on Arabia. And Damascus? The second arab Capital is today the Capital city of Siria. Arabs have no direct relation with Babylonians; they conquered the old babylonian cities and stablished their capital there a few centuries later. Arabs took a lot of Babylonian culture, even more than greek culture (through the conquest of a big part of the Byzantine empire) but the roots of the civilization are in Arabian peninsula.
And I think we've discussed about this topic a long time ago. 
The arabs are one of the most important civilizations in the history of the world. Even more than (I think I'll regret this) spanish, mongols or french. Their conquests, their scientific advances, their cultural legacy, etc. makes them much more important than a lot of those civilizations nobody are argueing about now.
Babyloneans were an ancient civ that appeared between Tigris and Euphrates rivers and spread through the middle-east, reaching the eastern mediterranen coast.
The arabs were a middle-ages civ that appeared in the arabian peninsula (where the Babylonians never reached) and spread through the middle-east, conquering the ancient babylonean and Byzantine cities, and the sourthern mediterranean coasts, conquering northern Africa and almost all the Iberian Peninsula.
I think there are enough differences between them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:13
|
|
Expectations, expectations. 
My best guess at this moment is:
Arabia, Celts, Inca, Mongolia, Spain, Vikings (these six almost 100% sure), Israel, Korea.
And my wishlist: 
Arabia, Australia, Dutch, Ethiopia, Maya, Mongolia, Polynesia, Tiahuanaco.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2002 01:26
|