Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[Alexander I]

She need not be President. In CivII, the female leader was Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin Roosevelt. And in CTP (I know it's a bad ripoff) the female American was Susan B. Anthony, of all people! The lack of female presidents is not a lack of female American leadership.

[Sabre2th]

I didn't say anything about a lack of female leadership, I'm just saying that it is extremely unlikely that this portrait is of an American leader, mostly because of the style. It is certainly possible, and even resembles America's victorian era, but it doesn't fit with the rest of it. I also think that Firaxis most likely only included one animated leader per civ, which means the slot is already taken by Abe Lincoln.

[Kassiopeia]

Maybe she's Queen Isabella of Spain, or some other leader?
And the American female leader should IMO be Hillary Clinton. Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't a senator, remember that

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by kassiopeia
Hillary Clinton

Bleh.

[monkspider]

Isabella of Spain seems like a real possibility, which would bring back Spain as one of the civilizations.
After sitting down and reading this whole thread, the main problem with this debate seems to be that several civilizations that I consider to be "must-haves" are in question of making the final cut, and if the 16 number is indeed accurate, there are going to be at least 4 or 5 "must-have" civilizations not in the final version.
Let's look at the Civs in question right now
14. PERSIANS - ?
15. BABYLONIANS -
16. AZTECS -
17. MONGOLS
17. JAPANESE
17. SPANISH
18. VIKINGS
19. ISRAELIS
There are 8 civilizations here that are, by most people's definitions, must-haves. Who do you possibly cut out?
I Guess maybe you could theoretically group Babylon and Persia as one civilization (which I disagree with) but you are *STILL* left with some very tough choices.
We can only hope this 16 number isn't accurate! I think the sheer number of "must-have" civilizations is the strongest piece of evidence against it.

[Alexander I]

I'm sorry to diappoint you, but to me it appears that Firaxis has eliminated the "barbarian" civilizations from CivIII.
That eliminates the Mongols and the Vikings from the running.
Also, we are about 99% sure the Japanese are in because we've seen their animated Shogun and samurai unique unit.
The Israelis are another matter because of their unique culture. Don't ask me why, but someone might get offended if they were included (or excluded for that matter) - it's just not the politically correct thing to do. (Even though I'd like to see them in too). And yes, CTP included the Hebrews, but they also ripped off Sid Meier's idea, right down to names like Shakala that were invented. This leaves Persians, Babylonians, Aztecs, and Spanish. One of these four will be left out.

[Locutus]

I don't have much time tonight, so all I'll do is post the summary and say that if Firaxis really put in 2 or even more leaders per civ (which I personally think is very unlikely), I think that's just plain stupid. In that case it would have been much better to reduce the number of leaders per civ to 1 and add more civs instead. The amount of work remains roughly the same, the added value for the game is greatly increased IMHO.



So far, based on our evidence, we know that (no changes):

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names (capital), Unique Unit (F15) -> Light blue
2. GERMANS - Leader? (Catherine the Great, Maria Theresa or someone else?), Unique Unit (Panzer), city names (capital), multiple text references, video reference -> Dark blue
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed), city names -> Light blue
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar), city name (capital), Unique Unit (Legion), video reference -> Red
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), city names (capital), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?) -> Pink
6. RUSSIANS - Leader? (Catherine the Great, Maria Theresa or someone else?), Unique Unit (MiG), city names -> Grey
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names -> Yellow
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed), (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference, city names (capital) -> Yellow
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. JAPANESE (95%) - Leader (Tokugawa Ieyasu - Hat and characters on collar are Japanese), possible Unique Unit (Samurai) (see 17)
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (Hiawatha; 100% confirmed), city names, text references, Unique Unit (75% Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) -> Grey
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great, city names (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplite), text reference, video reference -> Green


EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS (which means they could be in or not):

14. PERSIANS - City names (capital) -> Brown?
15. BABYLONIANS - City name -> Red
16. AZTECS - City names -> Pink
17. MONGOLS (5%) - There's a small chance Firaxis made some mistakes with the Leader; if so, it is a Mongol rather than a Japanese Leader (see 11)


SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):

18. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca, but it was once a Roman city and there's also an Iroquois city with that name.
19. VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
20. ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.
21. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.
22. CONFEDERATES. As refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


----------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:

Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.
-> Color= Indicates in which color(s) the civ has been seen in in-game screenshots.

-------------------------FACTS & POINTERS-----------------------

* Firaxis officially stated that the number of civs that is playable per game will officially be 8. However, it will be possible to increase this number to 16 through the editing tools. Firaxis made no official statement on the total number of civs that will be included in the game but this aforementioned statement and the fact that all previews agree on this issue make it very likely that this number will be 16.
* Based on this info and all available screenshots it can be concluded that the Civs are very likely to be tied to color. There appear to be 8 colors in the game, with 2 civs tied to each color. Note that none of this is official.
* The city names in the screenshots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots don't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan and Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[Admiral PJ]

how long is this silly topic?

I think the Spanish should have their unit as the Spanish Galleon,
or perhaps for later times the Guerrila Rebel.
The spanish must be in..

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Alexander01
I'm sorry to diappoint you, but to me it appears that Firaxis has eliminated the "barbarian" civilizations from CivIII.
That eliminates the Mongols and the Vikings from the running.

Oh yes, the Iroquois and the Zulus were much more civilized than those barbarian Vikings. Damn Firaxis.

When I get hold of civ3 I'm going to make some changes:

Zulus -> Mali
Iroquois -> Vikings/Norse
Japs -> Mongols

and maybe:
Aztecs -> Incas

[Alexander I]

Locutus -

You have the English Unique Unit as "Man-at-Arms," which would be an infantry unit.

However, we have already seen the English unit -- the "Man-of-War" which is a large warship. I know the names are similar and might be confusing. Just thought I'd let you know.

And Gangerolf, I think you may be forgetting that the Zulus and Iroquois are the token African and Native American civilizations in the game. Sorry if there weren't expansionist civilizations in their regions, but "all races are represented".

[jsw363]

I've been doing some research on the Spanish.

First, the city of Salamanca was known as Salamantica under Roman rule, so I don't think that this shouldn't be counted against them. It is unlikely Fireaxis would include this minor provincial city or use the modern name for a Roman city when there is a perfectly good Roman one.

Secondly, I confirmed earlier reports that Salamanca is an Iroquois city. (I admit, I was a bit skeptical) and have indluded the link below....

http://wnyrails.railfan.net/sal_home.htm

Salamanca is located within the land of the Seneca Indian Reservation and until the early 1860s its only inhabitants were Indians. When the Erie built its line though here, there was but a single water tank representing "civilization." Salamanca was originally named "Bucktooth", after the crooked teeth of an old Indian who provided fish to the early settlers. The names was changed to Salamanca in honor of the Sig. Don Jose de Salamanca, the Marquis of Salamanca Spain and an early investor in the Atlantic & Great Western Railway which had its eastern terminus in Salamanca.

Finally, I don't think that this portrait could be Isabella of Castille. She lived from 1451-1501 and would not have been dressed in this victorian garb. Compare that picture to the one below.

So as much as I would like to see the Spanish, it still seems unlikely at this point.

[Kassiopeia]

You are quite right, because I also thought that she would have a darker tone of skin then that. Options seem exhausted currently, and like Sherlock Holmes said, when all possible choices have been ruled out, the remaining choice, how impossable it might be, has to be the right one. Now, we must find out why there are two British FEMALE leaders animated.

[Ecthy]

the reason for this might be changed minds

seriously, they possibly changed their mind on the english leader and created a new animation. someone might have been slightly discontent with the first choice, so they decided on a new one

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
the reason for this might be changed minds

seriously, they possibly changed their mind on the english leader and created a new animation. someone might have been slightly discontent with the first choice, so they decided on a new one

Well that is the general opinion, but it is hard to think that they would go all the trouble of animating a leader for nothing.

[jsw363]

They didn't animate the leader (the alleged Catherine/ Maria Theresa/ Victoria) as far as we know, so they didn't invest that much effort into the portrait. While the animation might take quite a while, a portrait shouldn't have been that hard to pull together.

I agree, I think that the portrait is Victoria, and Fireaxis changed thier minds later because perhaps Victoria is a bit unPC for this day and age.

So I don't think that this picture alone can provide any information about whether or not any civs are included. Until there's more info (hopefully on the website) guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Ecthy]

2 replies, 2 statements....

kassiopeia, even if they had already done the whole animation, it might be possible they changed their minds and decided on a new one... if there are significant reasons to change the leader (like those already counted by other posters), a lot of already done work won't be a hindrance for dumping it and creating a new animation..... quality has its price

[Alexander I]

Now we're getting somewhere! So if this theory is correct, the English leader is either Elizabeth I or Victoria. Do we have any proof to certify either one as the choice? All I know is that the Elizabeth portrait seems to be far more widely circulated.

[Ecthy]

yeah, any proof? maybe we should engage some specialists on european history... reminds me, didn't some other posters already recognize the ladies?

[Alexander I]

No. All I'm saying is that if anyone has any evidence about whether the English leader will be the Elizabeth portrait or the Victoria portrait they should tell us. How would European history specialists be necessary in this instance. Or did you misunderstand what I wrote?

[jsw363]

All indications point to Elizabeth since she's the leader who's animated. It would be much less likely that they would dump a leader after animation. As for the alleged Victoria, all we have is a portrait, so as I said above it's much more likely that Fireaxis dumped her since they had less time invested. Also Elizabeth appears in more recent previews/ reviews and the other portrait is many months old.

All of that is contingent of course on the fact that the picture in question is in fact Victoria. While I think that it looks most like Victoria (more than Catherine or Maria Theresa), I don't think that we can safely assume that. Obviously anyone who has more information or who can make out the figure should contribute.

I for one would like some art history major/ European historian to clarify the issue, but I don't think that it's possible. All this stuff about multiple leaders, multiple female leaders is pure speculation and should be disregarded. I think that we should drop this for now and focus on some other civs.

[Ecthy]

I never knew Deutschland befindet sich in the USA.

[Alexander I]

jsw363- I am a history major and I can't clarify it any more than I already have. As I originally said, it looks like Victoria. But I agree, let's move on.

and Ecthelion-

I am merely referring to the fact that I am both a German and a US citizen. And frankly, I didn't know they had started the 4th Reich over in Germany, or that they'd made YOU emperor!

[SerapisIV]

Firaxis' webpage lists their leader screenshot as Elizabeth, and I doubt there are 2 animated leaders per civ, especially two female leaders in the same civ.

[Gangerolf]

I'm pretty sure the portrait is of Catherine. I don't think they would replace civ1&2's Elisabeth with Victoria, and I doubt Maria Theresa will be the German leader.

Ich wusste nicht, dass Germany is situated in den USA.

A bit OT: Have you finally quit using the ß in German(y)?

[Kassiopeia]

As a student of German, I can tell you that yes, it has been taken out of use.

[Gangerolf]

That sucks. This happened recently? Why??
I mean, "daß" looks way better than "dass".
Ich weiß, daß ß macht spaß.

[Kassiopeia]

It's mainly because people were confused, where to use that Beta character and when to use "ss". But I'm sure it was easy with two-part words, so that there wouldn't be three "s"'s in a row like they have now.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
The spanish must be in..

Absolutely. If Firaxis are even considering excluding the Spanish, then they are an absolute joke!! The Iroquios is bad enough, being included purely in order to be politically correct. However, the Confederates being included would be even more ridiculous.

Why doesn't Firaxis make each of the U.S. states a civ, and include the English as a token gesture so they can still sell the game in the U.K.? Go the whole hog, Firaxis! Make Civ3 a complete farce!! I mean, what's the point of having a civ game if facts are considered to be so bothersome?? If it's so important to have these so-called civs in, then they should have more civs! But if they're going to restrict the civs to 16, then they must restrict the civs to civs which had a profound bearing on human history. The very thought of including civs for no other reason than for commercial gain is absurd!!

If the Iroquios must be in (and they will be), the Zulus can make way for them, as their empire was flaky in terms of world impact, at least compared to the other civs. Considering that they're considering excluding the Mongols and Vikings, surely the Zulus are on shaky ground!!

[Alexander I]

In regards to the ess-zet "ss" vs. "Beta" problem in German, unless they've changed it in the last two months, words where the ess-zet follows a short vowel have two s's, while words with a long vowel have an ess-zet.

But back to civs! I believe that Firaxis is attempting to include many major civilizations while still including token minority civs from different races and regions. Hence, Zulus are in because there's no one from Africa besides them, (unless you count Egypt, but that probably wouldn't satiate the NAACP) and the Vikings are not because the English, French, and Germans already are.
That's also why the Iroquois are in. Does anyone know why they changed from Sioux to Iroquois? That would be interesting!

[Alexander I]

I just saw one of the semi-new screenshots on one of the website previews. It was a worldview of the Roman civilization during a diplomatic meaning with Alexander of the Greeks. The name in the lower right hand corner of the screen said "Emperor Connor of the Romans." I suppose that would be an edited name for the playing civ's leader. It looked to me like Connor or Comitor though I could be going nearsighted and it said Caesar. check it out for yourselves at gamespot.com (I think).