Civs included. Just the facts madam. - Page 4

Bereta_Eder · May 19, 2001, 13:37

Thank you Serapis,

You were very precise. So, all we know was that these words (minor civs) were found in a preview. Period.

Imran Siddiqui · May 19, 2001, 14:13

Actually no... Serapis is wrong.

Minor Civs being in the game was the FIRST Civ3 announcement made by Jeff Morris on Apolyton. So it is more than some preview...

Eli · May 19, 2001, 14:15

There is a typo in the announcment.

Dan cant spell "Israelis".

me_irate · May 19, 2001, 14:41

[quote]Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-19-2001 12:45 PM

EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS

PERSIANS - City names (capitol)
SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
BABYLONIANS - City name
AZTECS - City names

I personally believe that to have 16 civs both persians and babylonians wont be in the game. while i consider them both more important than the germans, mongols and indians. babylon and persia controlled much the same area. if you mean persian city was the capital,

that would most likely mean that my babylonians are left out. but they were in civ 1 with much less civs while the persians were not. and they contributed much more than the useless persians did. so i am hoping that they babylonians will infact remain in civ3.

me_irate · May 19, 2001, 14:52

I just thought of something. the mongols, one leader empire fell apart after his death. i think this civ might be the barb civ. so that would give us the right amount. the mogols i would hardly call them a civ, but the category of barb they fit much better. so this would get rid of one civ that is "confirmed".

other civs that shouldn't be in the game.

the germans. historys losers. they were the most powerful for a short period of time. lost a war, became powerful again, than lost again. i put carthagains ahead of this civ. and the panzer (unique unit) might just be a early or light versian of the tank. also i believe the game is two europe oriented even more so after the spanish will most likely be in. maybe the spanish could be the moors. both spain and arab in one.

the indians. of the 4 river civs this is the easiest to dismiss. the babylonians and summerians have a better claim to civ than these people.

zulus. why are they in again? they were fairly advanced, but had no contact with other civs to my knowledge. they should be in but not at the expense of arab and some other improtant civs.

ElmoTheElk · May 19, 2001, 15:02

What about this pic? http://www.infogrames-expo.com/screens/civ05b.jpg
This sure is Japanese to me!

So i'd say Japanese ARE IN.

Elmo
[This message has been edited by ElmoTheElk (edited May 19, 2001).]

SerapisIV · May 19, 2001, 15:17

quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-19-2001 02:13 PM
Actually no... Serapis is wrong.

Minor Civs being in the game was the FIRST Civ3 announcement made by Jeff Morris on Apolyton. So it is more than some preview...

I stand corrected, but I know for sure that in the past couple months there's been no mention of minor civs since. Maybe someone at E3 will get some info

Imran Siddiqui · May 19, 2001, 15:19

Well, I was just stating facts. I don't want you to feel I was being harsh in any way by saying you were wrong.

Just that Jeff Morris said it as the first thing. I remember that because I was against Minor Civs in the game

.

LoD · May 19, 2001, 15:36

me_irate:

quote:

the germans. historys losers. they were the most powerful for a short period of time. lost a war, became powerful again, than lost again. i put carthagains ahead of this civ.

I think that's not a very good argument. Throughout the course of history, each civilization had its ups and downs. Using your argument, but with application to another era, I could advocate the apperance of Poles among the first 16, since we were a very significant power in Europe in the 15th-17th century period. Hell, we were the first to conquer Moscow. So, why shouldn't we be added?

IMHO, the most important criteria to consider when judging whether a civ should be in the basic is not the "power level", but to what exctent has a given culture changed the world, or altered the course of global history.
BTW, that's why I'm not very pleased to see that Firaxis has fallen into the PC (not "Personal Computer"

) trap and added a large number of American Indian civs. Also, the Firaxians are tailoring the set for customers - no offense for the Americans, but what is the significance of USA, relative to the entire history of humanity?

LoD
[This message has been edited by LoD (edited May 19, 2001).]

bagdar · May 19, 2001, 15:57

what do you mean the Greeks are 'high probability'??? I won't buy the game if there's no Greeks, it's unimaginable. Better revise that news item.

Besides, I'm always in favor of the original Civ set (Civ I-II)and nothing more. Babylonians have to be in, so are the Celts, they founded half of Europe, and are the ancestors of most European nations, they should have been there in the first game!!! (No more civs please, recall the CTP silliness...)

Bereta_Eder · May 19, 2001, 16:24

DanQ,
Thanks for putting this thread to the CIV III page. Never thought I'd see my nickname there

This thread was made possible because of the interest the research and input of my fellow Apolytoners that have contributed and whom I thank very much. All credits go to them.

Imran,
Thank you very much for your correction. Minor Civs, I'm afraid, will open a whole new ballgame. Strange that we haven't heard anything about them after the comment of Jeff though....

me_irate
LoD,
Guys the discussion of which civs SHOULD be included has been done and done and done again and again. In this thread I would like to ask you to state game facts (such as screenshots with leaders, units, city names etc etc). Argumenets are good; if they are about the evidence we have about the game.

bagdar,
Thank you very much for your strong support of the greek civ

Although I don't know if this is because you like our civ or you like to kick our butt in CIV III

(joking

)

ElmoThe Elk,
This leader has been identified by many Apolytoners and me as Genghis Chan (sp?) of the Mongols. (notice the symbols on his tunic). He was the one leader we had to have new discussion about. If you still believe that he is a japenese leader the list should change.

Everybody,

I realise that after so many posts it's hard to follow. But there have been answers to some of your comments in previous threads. Firaxis has SPECIFFICALLY stated that it has NOT given ANY official announcement about the number of the civs that will be included. Gamespot and an israeli site have said that there will be 16 civs.

Also after Imran's clarification we know that Firaxis has said that there will be minor civs in the game. (what that may be, how would it be implemented etc is uknown). Since then there is no new info about minor civs.

So, so far and based on our evidence, we know:

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3.

AMERICANS - Leader (100% confirmed), city names, unique unit (F15)
GERMANS - Unique unit (Panzer). Multiple text references
CHINESE - Leader (100% confirmed)
ROMANS - Leader, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion)
FRENCH - Leader (100% confirmed), dialogue window of the french
RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (Mig)
ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi)
ENGLISH - Leader (100% confirmed)
EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh ), definite text reference
INDIANS - Leader (100% confirmed)
MONGOLS - or JAPANESE? Leader ** (see bottom of page)
IROQUOIS - Leader (100% indian), city names, text references

HIGH PROPABILITY. This civ is almost certaintly in

GREEKS - City name (capital), possible unique unit (Hoplites*).

*In the screenshot Athens is building Hoplites. In greek «OPLITES» means "men-at-arms". This word is still in use today in Greece and it still means the same thing as it did in Ancient Greece.

EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS

PERSIANS - City names (capitol)
SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
BABYLONIANS - City name
AZTECS - City names

SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES

JAPANESE (open for debate plz see the samurai(?) unit at http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_media.jsp?media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .fgnonline.com%2Fmedia%2Fpc%2Fnews%2Funits.jpg

Also see http://www.infogrames-expo.com/screens/civ05b.jpg
Apolytoner ElmoTheElk thinks he is not the Mongol Leader Chengis Chan but a japanese leader. All other Apolytoners that have participated have said it's the Mongol Leader.

VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?

ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.

[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited May 19, 2001).]

Ralf · May 19, 2001, 17:27

Well, one thing is for sure:

Whatever Civ is in or not, in this first wave of 16 civs, Firaxis are bound to include even more Civs in upcoming scenario addon-packs. So I dont worry about the Vikings for example - sooner or later they gonna add them, and other good left-over civs as well.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 19, 2001).]

Bereta_Eder · May 19, 2001, 18:54

Ralf,
After the announcement of Firaxis, there is no evidence that the civs will be 16.

Even if we don't have add-ons (which I think we will have) I guess we could customize a lot too.

Blueinept · May 19, 2001, 19:15

The lone Candian shakes his head, Damn no more invading my American neighbors. I was hoping there would be a special Mountie unit! * GRIN * or at least a dog sled! Poor Trudeau probably rolling over in his grave.

Geography Dan · May 19, 2001, 19:16

16 civs- does that mean 16 at one time or a total of 16 to choose from? cause civ2 had 21 to choose from, so only 16 would be even less. i'm hoping the 16 refers to civs in a game, not civs to choose from.

May 19, 2001, 20:08

quote:

From the translated Swedish preview:

These warlords have a real history will names like Patton or Stonewall Jackson and they will affect their armies in one way or another by giving them some sort of advantage.

Stonwall Jackson?! I think this is evidence for the inclusion of a new tribe...

...the CONFEDERATES!

I hope so.

ancient · May 19, 2001, 20:52

quote:

Originally posted by me_irate on 05-19-2001 02:52 PM
I just thought of something. the mongols, one leader empire fell apart after his death. i think this civ might be the barb civ. so that would give us the right amount. the mogols i would hardly call them a civ, but the category of barb they fit much better. so this would get rid of one civ that is "confirmed".

other civs that shouldn't be in the game.

the germans. historys losers. they were the most powerful for a short period of time. lost a war, became powerful again, than lost again. i put carthagains ahead of this civ. and the panzer (unique unit) might just be a early or light versian of the tank. also i believe the game is two europe oriented even more so after the spanish will most likely be in. maybe the spanish could be the moors. both spain and arab in one.

the indians. of the 4 river civs this is the easiest to dismiss. the babylonians and summerians have a better claim to civ than these people.

zulus. why are they in again? they were fairly advanced, but had no contact with other civs to my knowledge. they should be in but not at the expense of arab and some other improtant civs.

i had written alot but it never showed up.. rrr... anyways i dont want to write it again so ill sum it up

Your wrong Germans and Zulus were both very important historically.

Germans Caused the fall of Rome, and invaded france 3 time in a time span of less than 100 years.

Zulus were the most advanced african tribes and you cant disclude an entire continent.

France are historically the biggest losers "Can France ever win a war?"

[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 19, 2001).]

Geography Dan · May 19, 2001, 21:32

actually, as pitiful as france is, they did win the hundred years war

JMarks · May 19, 2001, 21:59

quote:

Originally posted by Arator on 05-19-2001 08:08 PM
Stonwall Jackson?! I think this is evidence for the inclusion of a new tribe...

...the CONFEDERATES!

I hope so.

Not too sure about Confederates. Wasn't Stonewall Jackson also in the US-Mexican War? Granted he didn't get his nickname till the civil war. Which brings up another idea, would major unrest possibly result in an empire split and an extra civ (major or minor)on the map?

lord of the mark · May 19, 2001, 22:31

quote:

Originally posted by LoD on 05-19-2001 03:36 PM
me_irate:
Also, the Firaxians are tailoring the set for customers - no offense for the Americans, but what is the significance of USA, relative to the entire history of humanity?

LoD
[This message has been edited by LoD (edited May 19, 2001).]

Uh, largest single market for PC games?

Why they put Koreans in AOK:TC and not say Russians or Incas, IIUC. Big market for AOE/AOK in Korea, lesser market in Russia, none in Inca empire

LOTM

lord of the mark · May 19, 2001, 22:37

quote:

Originally posted by ancient on 05-19-2001 08:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by me_irate on 05-19-2001 02:52 PM

France are historically the biggest losers "Can France ever win a war?"

[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 19, 2001).]

Joan of Arc? Napoleon? Louis XIV? 30 years war? American revolution (arguably a French naval victory as much as an American victory)?

LOTM

Maxxes · May 19, 2001, 22:44

I hope the dutch aren't in, we're already too nationalistic.

Locutus · May 19, 2001, 23:44

Minor civs: Activision announced to implement minor civs in CtP2 as well, even put them in the design documents (I know, I read them, or one of them anyway). But for some reason they at some point just decided to drop them and never mentioned them again. Never gave any kind of explanation for dropping it. Maybe both Firaxis and Activision ran into trouble implementing them? Maybe minor civs have so much problems attached to them, it's just not worth the effort? Takes too much resources, too tough to program, inherently unbalancing, who knows? Noone likes to admit something is beyond their capabilities, so neither company felt much like mentioning it any further in public. It's just a wild guess, but it would explain the radio silence in this area...

Not only did Dan misspell "Israelis", his claim that they were never before included in a civ-game is incorrect too, both CtP1 and CtP2 had them. Yes, I know many people are trying very hard to deny that those games are Civ games, but they are. It's nice to see our work made it in a news item again though, it's been too long for me

Now now, paiktis, don't be modest. You started and moderated this thread from the start, the credit should indeed go to you.

me_irate, no offense, but if you think the Mongol Empire ceased to exist after Genghis Kahn, that the Germans aren't in fact one of the oldest and most important civs in European history, the Persian Empire was meaningless, etc, you definitely need to brush up on your history. But I'm not going into this in detail (though I could do so for hours and hours...

) as I support paiktis' call to stay on topic.

Blueinept, yeah I would have love to see some Canadians too, I have lots of Canadian friends. But he, at least you & Trudeau made it into CtP & CtP2, at least that's something, more than the Belgians got

Geography Dan, read up! As mentioned several dozen times already, here and elsewhere, 16 civs is 16 civs total. Though not in any way official (nor is the 16 btw), the number of civs per game is still 7 for now.

Maxxes, what? The Dutch patriotic? I may be Dutch myself but I've traveled a lot and know a lot of foreingers and if there's any nation in the world that isn't patriotic then it's the Dutch. 'We' (I usually refer to the Dutch as 'they', that in itself pretty says it all) have little to no historic notion, very little knowledge of our own history and carry little proud in the achievements of the Dutch nation (not much to be proud of quite frankly, other than a brief period of economic world domination in the 16th century and getting to the World Cup final in '74/'78

). The only time we get a little patriotic is when our football team plays an important match (preferably against Germany or Belgium

). One of my teachers at Uni is American and when she once said something like "if you are looking for a reason to be proud of your own nation...", we didn't even hear the rest of the sentence as the whole class started laughing! In my experience most Dutch people think of patriotism as plain silly and sometimes even dangerous (and rightly so IMHO).
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 19, 2001).]

Geography Dan · May 20, 2001, 00:07

sorry

i just got back from a few months away from apolyton, so i guess i'm a little out of touch with what's going on.

just 16? that's a step backwards from civ2!

Bereta_Eder · May 20, 2001, 00:45

So, so far, and based on our evidence, we know:

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3.

AMERICANS - Leader (100% confirmed), city names, unique unit (F15)
GERMANS - Unique unit (Panzer). Multiple text references
CHINESE - Leader (100% confirmed)
ROMANS - Leader, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion)
FRENCH - Leader (100% confirmed), dialogue window of the french
RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (Mig)
ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi)
ENGLISH - Leader (100% confirmed)
EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh ), definite text reference
INDIANS - Leader (100% confirmed)
MONGOLS - Leader (100% confirmed)
IROQUOIS - Leader (100% indian), city names, text references

HIGH PROPABILITY. This civ is almost certaintly in

GREEKS - City name (capital), possible unique unit (Hoplites*).

*In the screenshot Athens is building Hoplites. In greek «OPLITES» means "men-at-arms". This word is still in use today in Greece and it still means the same thing as it did in Ancient Greece.

EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS

PERSIANS - City names (capitol)
SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
BABYLONIANS - City name
AZTECS - City names

SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES

JAPANESE (open for debate plz see the samurai(?) unit at http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_medi...ws%2Funits.jpg

VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?

ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.

Eli · May 20, 2001, 00:53

quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-19-2001 09:32 AM

_there will be 16 civs in the game period
_and that the Israelis are in 100%?

It says that you will be able to choose between 16 civs, and that one of them is Israel.

Maybe Israel is one of the minor civs (do they have them in civ3 at all?) and the guy who wrote it made a small mistake.

quote:

Eli, if the article includes any new screenshots can you give us the URL?

Nope...

May 20, 2001, 00:54

quote:

Originally posted by JMarks on 05-19-2001 09:59 PM
Not too sure about Confederates. Wasn't Stonewall Jackson also in the US-Mexican War? Granted he didn't get his nickname till the civil war.

Not only did he not get his nickname until the Civil War, but he was not exactly what you would call a "Great Leader" until the Civil War and he was a "Great Leader" only for the Confederacy!

So, I think his mention as one of the "Great Leaders" in the game is clear evidence for the inclusion of...

...the CONFEDERATES!

[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]

Bereta_Eder · May 20, 2001, 00:56

I too know next to nothing about minor civs. This matter was brought up a lot of times in this thread. Can someone clarify what we already know about minor civs?

Geography Dan · May 20, 2001, 01:16

well now if it's true that they're including the confederates... i find it incredibly doubtful that the confederates would be one of the civs if there were only 16 total to choose from... so hopefully that's evidence that there are more than 16

May 20, 2001, 02:06

quote:

Originally posted by Geography Dan on 05-20-2001 01:16 AM
well now if it's true that they're including the confederates... i find it incredibly doubtful that the confederates would be one of the civs if there were only 16 total to choose from... so hopefully that's evidence that there are more than 16

I think someone already said that there is not necessarily just 16. And I agree, the inclusion of CONFEDERATES indicates that there is probably more than even the 21 of Civ II. I'm hoping for the following 32:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Israelis*
Persians
Greeks*
Carthagenians
Celts*
Romans

Aztecs
Incans
Chinese*
Indians*
Vikings
Mongols
Arabs*
Turks

Germans*
English*
Spanish*
Portuguese
French*
Dutch
Danish
Russians*

Austro-Hungarians
Italians
Japanese*
Polynesians
Zulus*
Iroquois*
Americans (with a "Yankee only" option)*
Confederates*

*My personal top 16
[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]