Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[Eli]

Yeah, Andy, grow up and stop spamming.

[Sava]

That "confirmed" list is irrelavent guys... Firaxis can do whatever they want, and unless they confirm the list, it's all rumor.

Just use your head, will the Russians be in? DUH Yes!

Will the Greeks be in? DUH YES!! This is "The First Greek Civilization" site. Firaxis knows they'd have 10,000 people stalking them if they didn't include the Greeks.

As for other Civs? I don't really care because if I wanted the "your civ here" in the game, I'd create a custom civ.

Less than 5 months guys... and I'll probably fail at least one of my classes due to this game.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
Yeah, I noticed that and I too hope that paiktis decided to return. Quite frankly, it's a lot harder to moderate this thread than to just post in it

I've understood that, and you are doing great

[Bereta_Eder]

Yeah, I'm back. Hi vgriph Too hard to stay away! The forums seem to load faster but may be it's because I had days to show up

Locutus,
You're doing a great job my friend Maybe it seems a little bit hard because you try to satisfy everybody If its not facts or arguments about facts we don't care
You are doing absolutely great and as far as I am concerned you can continue.

Greeks are not 100% confirmed and I don't think they should be 100% confirmed even after the new preview on ign.
Even though we are almost certain the Hoplites will be the unique unit of the Greek civ (screenshot of Athens building this unit) , Firaxis has not speciffically mentioned that yet. We don't have Alexander's portrait yet.

Echelion,
Discussion and discovery of facts makes this thread possible. But if we don't organize our findings in one specific list, we will loose what we have found and in the end would be almost pointless.

Soulassassin,
The terrorization of Firaxis by angry Greeks does not guarantee inclusion of the civ in our list Again what should be in or not is a different matter than what we already know about the civs that are included.

The new pointers are:
_ign says that the civs will be 16 (so that makes 3 sources: ign,gamespot, isreali site)
_ ign reaffirms what we already know about uniques. It aslo adds some new info for example the unique unit of the French will be Musketeers, but as Locutus says it's not Firaxis so it's not conclusive.

[bagdar]

I'd like to see Pericles though... What do you think?

[Bereta_Eder]

Well, Pericles certainlty brings to mind the Golden Century of Athens but considering that all perfectionist civs are most of the times dust in Civ 2, I'd like to have an expansionist figure like Alexander

If the Turks are in (which I hope they will be although I am increasingly worried about having olny 16 civs) which leader would you like?

It might be Ataturk but if the Ottomans are in I'd say Suleiman the Magnificent.

[Ecthy]

that made perfect sense, Eli...

making a spam post in which he tells me to stop spam, what a juvenile bullsh!t

[joseph1944]

[SIZE=1][SIZE]Good point. In fact, I don't know much about the American Civil War but I understand that many of the generals that fought each other in that war were in fact close friends before and even during the war and there was no division between north and south until that very war.

Many of the later Civil War General did fight in the Mexican War and therefore knew each other

Thank you for your excellent explanations on Indians, that clarifies a lot. It does indeed seem unlikely that the Iroquois would rely heavily on horses in the woods. That gives us two small but not unimportant clues that the Native American Civ isn't the Iroquois, the round houses behind the leader and the horse unit, while all other clues indicate that they are. Since 2 Native American Civs seems unlikely (at least to me), no matter what the Civ is, it's not gonna make much sense. I guess Firaxis' artists were at least partially lead by prejudices and cliches rather than by pure facts (unless I'm missing something).

There are two clues that this Native American civ in fact isn't the Iroquois: the houses behind the leader picture are small and round rather than long and square and the unit is a horseman while the Iroquois lived in woods and didn't rely heavily on horses.

The picture of the Indian brave is Iroquois because of the Mohawk hair cut. Plains Indian did not cut their hair for the most part that I'm aware of.


[QUOTE]CONFEDERATES. As referred to in a Swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewall Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American.[/QUOTE

A. Lincoln asked R.E. Lee to become Commanding General of the U.S. Army a few weeks before South Carolina succeeded from the Union.

[me_irate]

I have a fealing that the mongol leader ghangis khan is in fact the barb leader. as was atilla in ctp2. I believe that the mongols did little to add to civ, and lasted only as long as thier leader.(after his death his empire crumbled and the remenants were not even a close resemblance to the empire he controlled.) so with this reasoning i think khan is a barb leader and with this civ removed, we will recieve a much more deserving one in thier place.

[joseph1944]

The new updated IGN report is stating 16 Civs, twice.
Locutus: Without Unique Units how long would it take to add a Civ? And then with one Unique Unit how long would it take to add a Civ? The reason that I ask that question is, they (Firaxis) could wait until a week or so before going Gold to determine how many Civs they will have in the game.

[tniem]

Originally posted by joseph1944
The new updated IGN report is stating 16 Civs, twice.
Locutus: Without Unique Units how long would it take to add a Civ? And then with one Unique Unit how long would it take to add a Civ? The reason that I ask that question is, they (Firaxis) could wait until a week or so before going Gold to determine how many Civs they will have in the game.

I would have to believe it would take minutes to add a civ without unique elements. With unique elements though it will take at least a month to make sure the new civ balances with all the rest of them. So it would seem that the Firaxis team probably has their 16 civs that they have been working with making sure that giving the Romans an ancient unit doesn't allow them to win early and also to make sure the U.S. F-15 does not guarantee victory.

So, I don't think with unique civs Firaxis can wait to decide who is in the game.

[Pilfur]

First let me say that I am Canadian, and I consider my country to be the best place in the world to live.

But a civilization III empire based on Canada?! Um, no. It is just silly. Canada was never a world military power, nor will it ever be. Its just a peaceful little ex-colony of england. It has no long history reaching back to ancient, or even medieval times (same for the Americans but they at least have had some big wars), and doesn't really have a great historic leader. Who will Canada's leader be? Pearson? Trudeau? And then who is the hero of Canada? Joseph Brant? Unique unit to Canada? Geese that poop on you? I don't think Canada will make the cut.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by me_irate
I have a fealing that the mongol leader ghangis khan is in fact the barb leader. as was atilla in ctp2. I believe that the mongols did little to add to civ, and lasted only as long as thier leader.(after his death his empire crumbled and the remenants were not even a close resemblance to the empire he controlled.) so with this reasoning i think khan is a barb leader and with this civ removed, we will recieve a much more deserving one in thier place.

I don't agree. There were some successors of Gengis who still had power over the whole state - Güyük, Berke...
For centuries, China was ruled by mongol emerors and large parts of Asia were mongolized. Yes, the empire fell to pieces, but Mongols had a lasting impact on Asia and world history.
Gengis a barbarian? No way!

[Locutus]

Pot 'n kettle, Eli, pot 'n kettle...

paiktis,
You have a point there.
What? So you're temporary departure was just an elaborate trick to get me to take over the moderatorship of this thread? You sneaky bastard!

I guess you're right about the Greeks. But what about the Russians then? I don't recall Firaxis ever confirming that the MiG would be their Unique Unit, did I overlook something here then?

joseph,
Thanks for all the info, that's very useful. I'll add it to the summary.

Adding a civ without unique elements would still take at the very least a few days: you'd have to do research to find a suitable leader and a proper list with city names (Activision really screwed up in this area with the CtP series but I don't think Firaxis will make the same mistake) and get everything past your lawyers and QA people. With unique elements it would take even longer, as it need thorough testing, playbalancing and the design of lots of new art. Not only would it be time-consuming to add a new civ, it would also be expensive so it's not likely Firaxis will do it.

Designing software is an incredibly complex process and as much work as possible is done well before the actual coding starts. When the actual coding starts all kinds of other issues come up and you'll want to be able to focus on those issues rather than on (at that point) unimportant details that could have been taken care off much earlier. Determining which civs will be in is one of those things that can very well be done early on in the process, so it's most likely that Firaxis has indeed done this early on. Unless there are some serious problems with existing civs (I can't think of anything that could cause this myself), Firaxis will go with whatever civs they decided to put in months ago.

me_irate,
Contrary to what seems to be common believe, the Mongol empire did *not* fall apart after Kahn. It was divided among his four sons (and IIRC later reunited under one leader again but I'm not sure about that) but continued to exist as a single empire for at least another century. It wasn't until the Ming dynasty overthrew the Mongol rule in China and an almost simultaneous change of power in Persia that the Mongol empire really fell apart (I'm not good with dates as far as Asian history goes but check Britannica.com if you need them). Until then the Mongols controlled the largest empire the world has ever known, reason enough to treat them as a seperate civ rather than as barbarians.

Pilfur,

I consider my country to be the best place in the world to live

Doesn't everybody? Of his own country that is

Canada may seem unlikely but evidence is evidence so we have to consider the possibility. I think it's unlikely too but as said a dozen times before, this thread not about "should be" or "shouldn't be" but about facts.


So far, based on our evidence, we know that:

Edit: For your convenience I indicated the changes in red (hope I didn't overlook anything though)

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references
3. CHINESE - Leader (100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion)
5. FRENCH - Leader (100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi)
8. ENGLISH - Leader (100% confirmed)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh ), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (90%)- or JAPANESE?(10%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese)
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)

** There are two clues that this Native American civ in fact isn't the Iroquois: the houses behind the leader picture are small and round rather than long and square and the unit is a horseman while the Iroquois lived in woods and didn't rely heavily on horses. All other clues (text references, hair cut, city names) point to Iroquois.


HIGH PROPABILITY. This civ is almost certaintly in:

13. GREEKS - City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites), text reference.
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 (which means they could be in or not):

14. PERSIANS - City names (capital)
15. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
16. BABYLONIANS - City name
17. AZTECS - City names


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

18. JAPANESE (open for debate plz see the samurai(?) unit at http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_medi...tp%3A%2F%2Fwww .fgnonline.com%2Fmedia%2Fpc%2Fnews%2Funits.jpg
* Also see http://www.infogrames-expo.com/screens/civ05b.jpg Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (All votes except one say Ghengis).

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 and was even asked by Lincoln to serve as Commanding General under him only weeks before South Carolina succeeded from the Union.


--------------------------------------------------------
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
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.

-------------------------CIV FACTS-----------------------

+ Firaxis said the made NO official announcement regarding the number of civs that may or may not be included in the game.
+ In a Gamespot article its says that civs will be 16.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.

--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------

The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.

[JamesJKirk]

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 and was even asked by Lincoln to serve as Commanding General under him only weeks before South Carolina succeeded from the Union.

Robert E Lee was asked to be commander of Union forces before the Civil War, not Stonewall Jackson, but only AFTER several states seceded. South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even elected. Lee didn't do it because Virginia seceded from the Union. But yes many US Civil War generals served together in the Mexican War.

Also has it been confirmed that the Russian unique unit is a MiG? I mean to have MiGs and F-15s as special units in about the same time period...I don't like it. Also I think that Cossacks are a more obvious choice