IGN Reveals the Six Civs+MORE!

[Aro]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Babylon not in Warlords?

Unfortunately, not...

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Zulus



But why include a pushover "civilization" like the Celts and not the Babylonians? Well it's just a game.

You applaud the Zulus but you think the Celts aren't a worthy Cilivization?

Any comments on the Unique Buildings anyone?

[Gangerolf]

You got me there

Well I just like the Zulus. Civ is nothing without the Shaka and his Zulus

[Last Conformist]

Vikings?!?

And no Babylonians, Assyrians, or Sumerians?

This is looking like a major disappointment on the new civs front.

[Blake]

Unique buildings sound like fun. I guess they'll be upgraded versions of normal buildings. Like the Roman Forum will probably be the Courthouse.
It's an interesting idea and could help to give certain leaders unique tactics, especially if some Unique Buildings (UB?) come with benefits the normal building doesn't, like culture on a courthouse or something.
I also note they seem to make the civs even more extreme by putting the UB being in the same era as the UU. Mall for the Americans, Sacrifical Altar for the Aztecs...

I have a hunch that Korea will be very good. UU siege? Sure to be nasty. Vikings could be fun too since the Berserker will probably be an upgraded city-attack melee unit.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Vikings?!?

And no Babylonians, Assyrians, or Sumerians?

This is looking like a major disappointment on the new civs front.

No kidding. I would have accepted Assyria, SUmer or Babylon, but to reject them all??? Babylon was the number one must demanded civ not in Civ4!!!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Civ IV: The Peaceniks

[Snotty]

no Babylon, Ive been playing them since civ 1, I guess I can wait my turn this time to see my favorite civ added

maybe saving them for release in a great mesopotamia/cradle of civilization scenario I can hope

[korn469]

the new game is including a brand new Warlord unit. Alex explains that these are powerful generals "who emerge as your civilization gains combat experience.

So does that mean that great generals/warlords will appear with GPP or will they appear based on combat victories like in civ3? That description could mean either wayI guess.

[RGBVideo]

If "Turks" are the Ottomans, what are the "Arabs"? Babylon The starting date makes no sense without the cities like Sumer and Ur.

Does anyone know how hard it is to create a leaderhead? Modding Babylon in

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Locutus


Any comments on the Unique Buildings anyone?

Sounds like they are using replacing standard city improvements. (i.e. Greek Odeon replaces everyone else's Theater).

It should be interesting to see how these function, and what they're going to pick for other civs (esp. Mali, Zulu, Russia). It is a little frustrating that they announced Assembly Plant for the Germans, which I assume is a replacement for the Factory, making them even more backweighted.

I think this has more to do with the apparent work done on the WYSIWYG system. Notice the varied warrior and archer units in the pics. With unique buildings this could make for a much more diverse environment.

One BIG question, though... what happens to these unique buildings after you conquer the city? Please, oh please, let us keep our victims' traits...

[armchairknight]

I like every civ they list for the xp. For me, the problem isn't they picked poorly, rather it is that they didn't pick enough! Of course I'm going to gobble this xp up as soon as it hits the shelf. So when does Peaceniks come out?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by VJ
If "Turks" are the Ottomans, what are the "Arabs"?

By the same logic, if the "English" are kingdom of the Tudors, Stuarts, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor, what are the "Indians"?

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by VJ
If "Turks" are the Ottomans, what are the "Arabs"?

The Ottomans are named after their traditional founder, Osman (a.k.a. Ottoman, likewise, sometimes the Ottomans are called the "Osmans.")

Osman and most of his people were Turks from around the Caspian. They migrated into Anatolia/Asia Minor and began their conquest of the remnants of the Byzanntines/East Rome. Eventually, their empire expanded from the Balkans to Mesopotamia to Northern Africa and Egypt. It was remarkably diverse.

After WWI no. 12 of Wilson's Fourteen Points was

"The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees."

This was part of a larger movement to self-determination, the theory that states function best when they encompass only one nation. Thus, the Austro-Hungarian empire was similarly broken up.

The core of the Ottoman empire populated by Turks became modern Turkey. Attaturk I oversaw the transition from the Ottoman empire to the Turkish republic. To this day it is still nominally illegal to portray Attaturk negatively (probably why Firaxis will, sadly, will never make him the Turkish leader.)

Clearly, self-determinism was an imperfect concept. Austro-German Tyrolians were forced to become part of Italy, and Turkey has a large portion of the world's Kurds. In theory, it works based on a sort of "perfect knowledge," like capitalism. But in practice, there are two overwhelming problems:

1. Where are all the people of a given nation?
Many "nations" are scattered or so mixed into a given population that they cannot be granted a geographic space of their own. The Jews were the most dramatic victims of this problem.

2. What determines the identity of a nation?
Sometimes is shocking today how glibbly people spoke of national identity just a century ago. We tend to accept a sort of intellectual pluralism, which holds that no matter how much any given group holds in common, there will be variation among its members, (maybe a borrowed concept from biological evolution). However, it was believed, well after WWII, that a "nation" could be identified as homogenous unit, subsuming any internal differences.

For example, Communism was accused of being anti-American during the depths of the Cold War not because it was but because the essence of American identity, it was believed, was rejection of Communism.

This has only become more pronounced with global transportation. The result is something we take for granted: Not all Germans are Germans. Not all Russians are Russian. Not all Americans are American. But what is for us a question of immigration was for Wilson a question of geo-history.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
Sounds like they are using replacing standard city improvements. (i.e. Greek Odeon replaces everyone else's Theater).

Actually, the Greek Odeon would replace only the Greeks' theatre