quote: Salamanca was also a Roman settlement in its Luisitania province.

True, but it was called Salamantica in those days. Also, it wasn't a particularly important settlement, there's probably well over 100 other Roman citynames that would be more likely to be used for the Roman civ. I'd love to hear that the Spanish aren't in the game, not because I hate them or anything but because that would solve the one-civ-too-many 'problem', but Salamantica was fairly unimportant for the Romans while Salamanca was/is a very important city for the Spanish, it would be silly to use as a Roman cityname. I tried to find other town called Salamanca, but only came up with Mexican and Puerto Rican alternatives, not likely that the name refers to either.

Edit: never mind my second point, my mistake...

Look at your globe today. Civ II properly included all of the largest ethno-cultural blocks which are still forces in our world today -- the English, American, Celtic, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Zulu (for Black Africa), and Aztec/Sioux (for Native American) -- except ONE: the ARABS!

Please, Firaxis, this must be corrected in Civ III! You can't have too many built in civilizations. I hope that the CELTS are still included and that the ARABS, at least, will be added.

How easy will it be to customize your own civilizations if Firaxis should omit these or other very significant ones? I would hope that you could add custom civs and save them for you could always play with them if you want. I would also hope that Multiplayer permits a player to play with Custom Civs.

Finally, please design Civ III so that any of the Civs can be played together and not restricted by color groups! I could never have a game with the Celts and the Russians in Civ II because they were both arbitrarily defined as WHITE. Let us pick ANY civs to play with FIRST and then assign colors AFTER.

Arator,
Well, no matter how many civs you include, people will always keep complaining they want more or different civs. I mean, in one CtP mod we indcluded 64 civs and still got complaint that certain civs were missing! I agree that the Arabs should definitely be included and the Celts would be a good addition too, but what about the Byzantines, the Dutch, the Bantu, the Mayans, the Incas, the Ottomans/Turks, the Kmer, the Jews, the Slavs, the Armenians, the Italians, the Portugese, the Parthians, the Polynesians, the Apache/Navajo, the Ethiopians, the Sumerians, the Minoans, etc, etc? There are so many civs, every selection you make is an arbitrary one. Because if you have not 16 but 32 civs, to include all/most of these, don't slightly 'less important' civs like the Belgians, the Mexicans, the Canadians or the Swedish 'deserve' a place as well?

"...option that allows chosing between 16 different nations(including Israel)..."

"...option that allows chosing between 16 different nations(including Israel)..."

Eli this is very very importand. So, to make sure I understand correctly does this site says that:

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

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

quote: Originally posted by Locutus on 05-18-2001 06:28 PM True, but it was called Salamantica in those days. Also, it wasn't a particularly important settlement, there's probably well over 100 other Roman citynames that would be more likely to be used for the Roman civ. I'd love to hear that the Spanish aren't in the game, not because I hate them or anything but because that would solve the one-civ-too-many 'problem', but Salamantica was fairly unimportant for the Romans while Salamanca was/is a very important city for the Spanish, it would be silly to use as a Roman cityname. I tried to find other town called Salamanca, but only came up with Mexican and Puerto Rican alternatives, not likely that the name refers to either. Edit: never mind my second point, my mistake... paiktis22, Oh, ok. Close, I asked since when people in Greece spoke Dutch [This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 18, 2001).]

Brrr... I hope Spanish will be in Civ3! Resolving the debate about Salamanca and Spanish, there were two little Iberian settlements in the place where nowadays Salamanca is, called Helmantica and Salmantica, that were conquered by Carthaginian Hanibal armies around 220 a.C. Romans invaded these settlements 100 years after.

I think that, avoiding the official promises, Civ3 probably will have more than 16 civs. One of the problems of Civ1 and 2 was the limited number of countries to make realistic scenarios (remember the "neutral countries" in ww2 scenario or "Greek cities and allies" in the Roman scenario).

Or, may be, I will be able to eat my words.

Poldavo,
I do think the Spanish *should* be in as they were once the biggest empire on the planet, but the 16 number is the only solid number we heard so far and the evidence on Spain is weak, so I fear the worst.

Yes, I'm aware of the history of Salamanca, I didn't see the other settlement and Hannibal's conquest as very relevant in this case but you are right of course.

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 ŤOPLITESť 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

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

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?

Dan cant spell "Israelis".

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

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.

So i'd say Japanese ARE IN.

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?

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 ŤOPLITESť 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)?