Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[KrazyHorse]

That's not true, paiktis; the WWII and Rome scenarios which came with Civ II both had altered civs.

[Bereta_Eder]

Krazyhorse,

You are right of course. Thank you for your correction. But on the other hand the other civs were actually built - in civs with different names.

But still since a lot of the suggested civs in civ 3 (that are not the ones that are 100% confirmed) are based on screenshots of city names then the point of Kestrel is valid and stands.

The city names can very well be from senarios which include civs with their names and city names changed to fit the needs of the senarios.

I think that a note about this should be included in the bottom of our list.

[Locutus]

Martinus,
The first time I saw the Mongol/Japanese leader I thought it was a Chinese leader too. When I realized this couldn't be because Mao already is the Chinese leader I (as well as many other people) concluded it had to be Genghis Kahn, but basicly there's no hard evidence for this yet. All we really know is that another Far Asian civ will be included and Mongols or Japanese are the most likely choices (based on Civ1/Civ2) but it could theoretically be a Korean or other leader as well. As paiktis already pointed out, the exact historic details aren't always as accurate as they could be, so regardless of the inaccuracies the Mongols or otherwise the Japanese are still the most likely choice, though we should in this case definitely remain open for other alternatives when new clues are found.

paiktis,
LOL, well I suppose it could have been worse, you could have quoted the entire works of Homer You're right about the number of civs, it could well be until Civ3 actually hits the stores (or right before that) before we'll know for sure how many civs will be in, both in total and per game.

On the scenario issue:
First of all, I find it hard to believe that Firaxis will actually include 12 scenarios. Activision had similar plans with CtP2 (and maybe CtP1 too) but soon realized that this wasn't very realistic with the schedule and resources they had to work with and dropped this number to 3 (0 for CtP1). But even this was only due to strong lobbying from Harlan and some of the teammembers, at some point it was actually seriously considered to drop scenarios altogether. Granted, Firaxis isn't Activision (far from it), but I think 12 scenarios would even for Firaxis require too much extra resources. Remember, every scenario would need to be thoroughly debugged and playtested to ensure the high quality standard Firaxis is aiming for. The only way to safe time on this would be to keep the scenarios very small and simple, but that would make them boring and add little value to the overall product. So all in all, I think no more than a handful of scenarios will be developed.

More relevant to this discussion, scenarios very much depend on the rest of the product. I had the honor of helping out Harlan with the SLIC part of his Alexander the Great scenario for CtP2 (both for the 'official' version that went with the game and for the 'improved but unofficial' version that we're still working on) and we talked a lot about his experiences with making scenarios for a game still in development. To make a very long story very short: it's extremely frustrating. Basicly you have to start all over again every time a new build comes out (which in Activision's case happened once a week). Only when the game was far into beta, close to gold even, some real progress was made and the scenario really started to shape up. Again, Firaxis isn't Activision and Civ3 isn't CtP2 but I think the same will go for Civ3, at least to some extend.

Also, very little to no new graphics will be used for scenarios (Harlan had to lobby very hard to get some new units and eventually he only got 2 or 3) and this graphics work has the lowest priority so it's done at the last moment. Also, since scenarios are the most 'dynamic' part of the game (most likely to change radically during their development), screenshots and stuff are unlikely to be released until the game is almost completely finished. And if something Firaxis releases is scenario-specific, it's also likely that they will mention this, even if it's just to prevent that fans would be disappointed when they actually buy the game.

All in all, I think we have little to fear for our discussion (for the time being at least). Citynames alone are not enough evidence and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all). Of course, this is speculation and it could indeed turn out that some of our evidence is actually from a scenario, so I will add a note to the 'pointers' section to stress this.


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

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi)
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (90%)- or JAPANESE?(10%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese)
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American, any ideas on who? Hiawatha?), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.

** 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.
*** 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. <>

23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


--------------------------------------------------------
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
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are visible in screenshots 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.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.

--------------------------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.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[Fidel]

It'll be interesting to see how they will strike a balance. CTP had some pathetic civilizations like Polynesians, etc, and it was really boring to compete with Welsh, Scots, Indonesians and Polynesians for world supremacy.....
It is interesting that Zulus and NAmericans seem to be almost inevitable. At the same time, Persians, Turks and Arabs are nowhere to be seen. Israel would be fine, a rare example where a marketing ploy would really bring something good to the game.

[KrazyHorse]

Compare and be convinced. The picture seems fairly evidently one of Genghis Khan.





Note the moustache, goatee, and the fact that he's always wearing a little hat. Also, I think that the fact that the man in the infogrames picture is missing some teeth is indicative of the fact that he's the leader of the barbarians (or minor civs, or whatever else you want to call them).

[Martinus]

Note the moustache, goatee, and the fact that he's always wearing a little hat. Also, I think that the fact that the man in the infogrames picture is missing some teeth is indicative of the fact that he's the leader of the barbarians (or minor civs, or whatever else you want to call them).

Ok, I will agree that this images do really look similar, although I would expect someone looking more like Genghis Khan of civ1 and civ2 to be there for the Mongols.

But I do not see a reason why some of you people are so stubborn about Mongols not being a great civ, but barbarians or a small civ. After all they created one of the largest empire ever, that has lasted (albeit in parts) for few centuries (e.g. Golden Horde).

I would more likely expect Attila the Hun as the barbarian reader (if there is anything like this in civ3).

BTW: I do really think that lack of some teeth is a 100% proof of someone being a barbarian.

Martinus

[Locutus]

LaRusso,
Actually, I don't think the CtP civs are pathetic at all. Granted, maybe a handful of them could/should have been replaced (like the Nicaraguans, the Nigerians or the Cubans) but most civs are in fact historically important, even though not all of them have that reputation among most people with a Western perpective (like the Polynesians, Indonesians or the Polish, to name but a few). The Turks and Persians are there; in fact, the only major civs from world history that are missing in CtP are the Arabs, the Khmer and maybe the Bantu, which is a lot less than all the civs that are/will be missing from Civ1/2/3. And those players who don't like to play certain civs in CtP can simply play one-player Hotseat or change a few names in a simple text-file.

KrazyHorse,
Thank you very much very providing those pictures, those make for a good comparison. The leaderpic does indeed look like the Genghis Khan in those pictures. It's no solid evidence but it makes it more likely that the leader is indeed Genghis Khan. The missing teeth thing IMHO only indicates that dental care wasn't quite as sophisticated back then as it is today (and maybe that Genghis was an tough warrior who may have lost some teeth in the heat of a battle). I agree with Martinus that it's just silly that some people refuse to see the Mongols as a full-flegded, advanced civilization and I also agree that if there is such a thing as 1 barbarian leader it's most likely to be Attila the Hun, IIRC he figured in a similar role in every civ game so far (but I could be wrong about that).

[KrazyHorse]

The problem is, there are going to be five fewer civs than there were in past games. Let's look at this rationally. For various reasons, the Americans, English, French, Germans, Romans, Egyptians, Zulus, Native Americans, Aztecs, Chinese, Spanish, Indians, Greeks, Russians and Japanese are going to be in the game. You can call this simple speculation on my part, but these are the must-haves. That leaves two civs. Since there's such a dearth of truly ancient civs, either the Persians or the Babylonians are going in. It's possible that both are, but improbable. My bet goes with the Persians, but I'm not locked on it. Finally, the Vikings. Why? Because of this picture.



You can claim it's just a trireme all you want, but it won't fly. The stripes on the sail give it away, along with the fact that I can make out the stylized dragon's head on the prow. This leaves no room for the Mongols. Whether or not the Mongols were highly cultured is one question. Whether or not they were a great "civilization" is another. I've mentioned it before, but the word "civilization" comes from that for city. The Vikings were raiders, but they set down cities. Dublin is the most important example. The Mongols were fundamentally nomads.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Locutus

Actually, I don't think the CTP Civs are pathetic at all. Granted, maybe a handful of them could/should have been replaced (like the the Nigerians ) but most Civs are in fact historically important, even though not all of them have that reputation among most people with a Western perspective (like the Polynesians, Indonesians or the Polish, to name but a few). The Turks and Persians are there; in fact, the only major Civs from world history that are missing in CTP are the Arabs, the Khmer and maybe the Bantu, which is a lot less than all the Civs that are/will be missing from Civ1/2/3.

If I remember my history correctly the Nigerians had a large Empire in Africa before the White man showed up.
Do we know how long the Polynesians where in the Pacific Island before the European found them?
And Locutus I do thank you for that small change.

[ancient]

that could just be an example

[TVA22]

The Japan/Mongol issue

I can honestly say I have no idea about the leader picture, Japanese vs. Mongol or Korean. However, there is stronger evidence in picture of the "samurai unit." First of all, unless firaxis was just playing around with graphics, that IS a samurai. No doubt about it. His clothing is characteristic of samurai in the late fuedal period in Japan- The sandals and curved sword at his side are examples of the very unique and characteristic costume of a samurai, not to mention the kimono he's wearing. Finally, if thats not enough, notice his hairstyle, it's shaved on top of his head, with the sides pulled into a ponytail in the back. That was very characteristic of the samurai class. Now since most of these assumptions are based upon screenshots (which civs will and will not be in), I think the samurai unit, which could not possibly be identified as anything else, carries more wieght than random city names on screenshots that may have been created out of the players mind when prompted. So that takes us back to the leader... He could be Japanese or Mongol or Korean, who knows, but the architecture in the background looks east asian, and there were plenty of famous Japanese during the European Dark Age and early Industrial Age, some of whom may or may not have ever had a likeness captured by an artist, Ex: Musashi, Minamoto, Miyamoto just to name a few.

[Locutus]

I apologize in advance for the length of my post, I didn't have much time (wasn't it Orwell who first said that?)

Yes, KrazyHorse, that is indeed sheer speculation and you have of course every right to speculate like that (hell, you might just be correct) but, as I and others have said many times before, this thread is about facts so we should stick to the facts. I can name you at least half a dozen more civs (Arabs, Dutch, Khmer, Byzantines, Mayas, Incans, etc) that are must-haves but I just know that none of those will be in Civ3.

As far as that screenshot goes, I have seen that same ship in several screenshots (apparently) owned by several civs so it looks like a non-civ specific unit to me. The stripe-patterns aren't necessarily unique to the Vikings (esp. not since the Firaxis artists have made other historical mistakes before, it's called artistic license) and I think the picture is way to vague to recognize any part of it as a dragon's head. That screenshot is the only evidence we have on the Vikings so it's way to weak to count them as 100% certain.

Actually, the Mongols both built and lived in many cities, so if you define 'civilization' as a culture that built/lived in cities the Mongols are still one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed. Don't be fooled by the image that the general public has of the Mongols but look at the historical facts. Military conquest was indeed achieved by having a mobile army of mainly horse archers that lived in yurts, but the Yuan dynasty in China and the Golden Horde in Eastern Europe/North-Western Asia are excellent examples of Mongols living in cities and ruling an empire in the same fashion as the Romans, Chinese and all other major civilizations did. As one Chinese historian (IIRC) put it: "I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback". Who do you think Marco Polo worked for when he was in China? Who do you think pretty much founded Beijing and established it as the capital of China? The answer on both questions is Kublai Khan, the greatest Mongol that ever lived, after Genghis Kahn. Once he had finished off Genghis' work of conquering the whole of China (Genghis only conquered the North), he founded a bunch of cities and built a bunch of great palaces and ruled his empires from those. He never saw most of his empire with his own eyes but instead sent out embassaries and ambassadors (like Marco Polo) on fact-finding missions. The most important pilars of his power: trade, diplomacy and, to some lesser extend, science. The Golden Horde too covered a vast territory and that was ruled from (conquered or self-founded) cities, not from horseback.

That's true, joseph, but the way I'd like to see it is that the Nigerians were just a subgroup of a much larger civilization, the Bantu, a civ that pretty much lived in the whole of Africa below the Sahara. I'd like the see the Bantu in as a single civ; one could argue that including the Nigerians and not the Bantu is like including the Texans but not the Americans. The only difference is that we know fairly little about Bantu culture and the connections between various tribes were probably much weaker than the connections between American states. But then again, we also view the Indians as one civilization while in fact there were dozens of seperate nations that each in their own timeperiod ruled over (different parts of) the subcontinent of India. Maybe not an entirely undisputable example but IMHO the Nigerians shouldn't be in as a seperate civ while the Bantu should.

I must admit don't know too much about Polynesians but IIRC they already knew how to sail halfway across the globe while the Romans were still figuring out how to cross the Tiber. But also, they lived in a territory that ranged from below New Zealand to Midway and from the Philippines to Easter Island. You can say whatever you want but I don't think there has ever been an empire that was larger than that. The fact that 99% of their territory consisted of water might make it seem less impressive but to me it only says something about their incredible survival skills. Also, I happen to know that their culture was, esp. when you consider the harsh conditions in which they lived, very complex and fairly advanced. The main thing that makes us view them as primitive is that they didn't know any form of metal working but it's kinda hard to work metal if the nearest metal ores are hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

Anyway, I'm getting awfully off-topic now, back to the evidence. I think TVA22 could have a point. I don't know too much about Japanese history or culture myself but it sounds like TVA22 does. If that unit is indeed a Samurai then that makes it much more likely that the Japanese are in. However, in most cases we had several clues before we included a civ on the 100% certain list and that samurai unit could be a non-civ specific unit as well (CtP also had a Samurai as regular unit) or a Military Leader or another case of artistic license. Also, with most other Unique Units we have confirmation from a text reference that the unit in question is indeed a Unique Unit, in this case it's sheer guesswork. My suggestion: I will adjust the percentages of Mongol vs Japanese to 50%/50% and move the Japanese to the 'evidence about other civs' list while we await further clues before making a final decision on this one. Comments are welcome of course.


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

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi)
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%)- or JAPANESE?(50%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese), possibly Japanese Unique Unit
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American, any ideas on who? Hiawatha?), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.

** 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.
*** 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
18. JAPANESE - instead of the Mongols; open for debate, please see the Samurai(?) unit here
* Also see this picture: Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (Most votes go to Genghis).


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

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.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


--------------------------------------------------------
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
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
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.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.

--------------------------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.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Locutus
Actually, the Mongols both built and lived in many cities, so if you define 'civilization' as a culture that built/lived in cities the Mongols are still one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed. Don't be fooled by the image that the general public has of the Mongols but look at the historical facts. Military conquest was indeed achieved by having a mobile army of mainly horse archers that lived in yurts, but the Yuan dynasty in China and the Golden Horde in Eastern Europe/North-Western Asia are excellent examples of Mongols living in cities and ruling an empire in the same fashion as the Romans, Chinese and all other major civilizations did. As one Chinese historian (IIRC) put it: "I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback". Who do you think Marco Polo worked for when he was in China? Who do you think pretty much founded Beijing and established it as the capital of China? The answer on both questions is Kublai Khan, the greatest Mongol that ever lived, after Genghis Kahn. Once he had finished off Genghis' work of conquering the whole of China (Genghis only conquered the North), he founded a bunch of cities and built a bunch of great palaces and ruled his empires from those. He never saw most of his empire with his own eyes but instead sent out embassaries and ambassadors (like Marco Polo) on fact-finding missions. The most important pilars of his power: trade, diplomacy and, to some lesser extend, science. The Golden Horde too covered a vast territory and that was ruled from (conquered or self-founded) cities, not from horseback.

The Mongols founded no great cities during their brief period of dominance. The greatest of the "Mongol" cities were Samarkand and Bokhara, both of which were captured from the Persians. The Mongol Empire was a miliary one. If there's any doubt, look how short its unified existence was. Once the Great Khan died, it fell apart. If the Greeks' only contribution to world history had been the empire of Alexander, I would by no means support their inclusion in this game. The fact that Kublai Khan was Mongol does not mean that the civilization he ruled over was Mongol; it was Chinese, and remained Chinese. The civilization that the Moghul Emperors ruled over was Indian, not Mongol. The Mongol way of life was nomadic, the only way which was viable on the vast steppes of northeastern Asia. They were horsemen and herders and excellent archers, and they swept across a third of the world in under a generation. The Great Khan and Tamurlane united them for two brief, glorious moments, and they were unstoppable. They would amass upwards of three hundred thousand men (along with their wives and children) in a single body which could sweep aside any opposition, but they didn't set down a civilization; they ruled over others'.

[Jaguar]

I think that all these 16 civs previews mean 16 in the game at once. I think 32 or something.

[hetairoi22]

Hi!

About the English. I read somewhere that the English unique would be the Man-of-War, wich they would be able to build instead of the Frigate.

If you look at this picture you can see two Zulu city names.