IGN Reveals the Six Civs+MORE!

[Willem]

Originally posted by korn469


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.

I'm guessing they'll appear much like they did in Civ 3.

[Willem]

Originally posted by BigFree
OK. I'll dig around here a bit to see if I can find it. I guess it was one of those things left out of the manual.

I believe it was introduced with one of the later patches actually, though I'm not positive about that.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Willem
I'm guessing they'll appear much like they did in Civ 3.

I don't think so. The main distinction between the miltitary/scientific leaders of Civ3 and the great people of Civ4 is that the former spawned based on probabilities (wins of elite units, first one to discover a tech), while the latter spawn on a deterministic basis (great people points). Anybody remember the sheer luck of getting a scientific leader in Civ3 (and the option to turn them off altogether)?

My guess is that great generals will spawn deterministically based on the number of combat experience points your units gain as a whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Solver, Locutus,

Perhaps you know the answer to this. Why no Babylon?

This expansion is based on "Warlords". So they picked Civs that had a warlord leader or Civs that were warlike civs. Babylon doesn't fit.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Solver, Locutus,

Perhaps you know the answer to this. Why no Babylon?

Which civs are included isn't our call in any way. But I would guess that Babylon really doesn't fit too well with the "Warlords" theme. Stalin, Mehmed, Shaka or Ragnar clearly fit the warlike theme, so do the other leaders, at least to a large degree. OK, Nebuchadnezzar would also fit, however.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Locutus


"One could argue"? The Zulu weren't even a civilization at all, they were a small tribe, a tiny blimp on the map of history.

I agree that there are many Afican civilizations that deserve a Civ spot befor the Zulu (expecially Ethiopia!).

But if we refer to Native American civilization--which I think anyone who's learned anything about them beyond stereotypes should--then the Zulu were certainly a civilization.

But not all civilizations are "civworthy."

As for the Native Americans, Sitting Bull supposedly cursed at his audiences as a cast member of Wild Bill's show in his own langauge, which none knew. Irony is, of course, the highest form of human development.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
OK, Nebuchadnezzar would also fit, however.

No kidding. I was wondering there for a second...

[ulyanov]

it's not making me excited... Maybe the Warlord unit. I know a lot of people asked for a "Great General" some time ago, but the rest looks hum-drum to me...

[allybhoy]

Sounds good,

Cummon the Celts

[Willem]

Originally posted by ulyanov
it's not making me excited... Maybe the Warlord unit. I know a lot of people asked for a "Great General" some time ago, but the rest looks hum-drum to me...

The Vassal States is going to be an interesting addition. That's going to change the gameplay considerably. I think unique buildings might add something as well.

[Thedrin]

Settler camps could be good - assuming they're not restricted to the Mongol scenario.

[OzzyKP]

I don't understand why everyone is so hooked on the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians. I have no interest in having them in the game. Maybe the Babylonians, but if I had to choose between the Babs and most other civs I'd choose the others.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I don't understand why everyone is so hooked on the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians. I have no interest in having them in the game. Maybe the Babylonians, but if I had to choose between the Babs and most other civs I'd choose the others.

I'd choose Babylon over Assyria or Sumer. I guess the main reason why I want them is that I consider Mesopotamia to be an integral part of civilization. After all, it was the "Cradle of Civilization."

[padillah]

Originally posted by Alexander01


I'd choose Babylon over Assyria or Sumer. I guess the main reason why I want them is that I consider Mesopotamia to be an integral part of civilization. After all, it was the "Cradle of Civilization."

That, and Bab was a sure win in Civ3 so it got a lot of attention.

I'm looking to India-Asoka or Saladin to replace the surity of Babylon. I'll have to check with Vel though, he's the strategist.

Tom P.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by padillah

I'm looking to India-Asoka or Saladin to replace the surity of Babylon.

Tom P.

It just isn't the same!