Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Several points:
First of all, the empire I'm describing, Arab or not, was ruled by Arabs, and at it's greatest reach was divided into four(i think) kingdoms that adhered to a single ruler.
Also, if you start an Arab civ, you'd start it from Baghdad, not Mecca. Then there would be competition with the Babyloneans, that have the same capital, but who cares Have the Persians instead. Now Baghdad is located in an extremely fertile land between the two great rivers. Iraq, Syria (incl. Lebanon), Iran are all fertile and mostly non-desert countries. The two major Arab desert states are Saudia and Egypt. And both Saudia and Egypt have very fertile regions.
And Lord, don't be silly. Like there aren't enough Jews already
This discussion is pretty futile, I guess - and after all, we'll be able to make our own civs. I only regret that it would be virtually impossible to make the leader portraits with these nifty cool animations. I hope they'll release leaders once in a while, for free download
(I don't even know if I have money to buy the game itself... It'll cost something like eighty to a hundred bucks for me. And Civ is one game I don't wanna copy.)

[Locutus]

Gramphos,
You have a point. It is done.

JellyDonut,
Ah, what the heck! We don't have much else to discuss anymore so I'll just keep track of colors as well. I can't imagine anyone will be bothered by it (other than me, it's just more work for me ). Anyway, I must admit, now I looked into it, there's a surprisingly large number of civs of which we already know the color (it indeed looks like they are tied to color). Let me know if I missed anything...

LotM,
True, but the same goes for the Greek. But IIRC in the very next sentence after the paragraph you quoted I also said that this was a controversial issue and that other people could well disagree. You're language argument is a valid one and there are more arguments both for and against it but this is not the place to discuss them, it was merely an example (don't you hate it when people use that excuse? ). Zimbabwe in particular would be an excellent civ to include instead though, I definitely agree on that.

Mark, Kenobi, joseph and others,
I hate to be the bogeyman and cut the discussion short but you are getting awfully off-topic with that Arab discussion. You're discussing a civ that's almost certainly not in Civ3, you're wildly speculating rather than stating facts, throwing around figures that have no meaning whatsoever in the context of Civ3 and - worst of all - Mark is obviously *very* biased on the ME conflict (no offense, Mark) which means this discussion could well lead to Jew- or Arab-bashing (in fact, some or Marks comments could already be insulting to the Jews among us). Though I agree that the heart of the discussion is very interesting, this is not the place for it so I would very much appreciate it if you guys could continue it elsewhere.

One little nitpick though (): zero was 'invented' by Indians, not by Arabs. The Arabs just brought it to Europe.


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 (capital), Unique Unit (F15) -> Light blue
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer), city names (capital), multiple text references, video reference -> Dark blue
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed), city names -> Light blue
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar), city name (capital), Unique Unit (Legion), video reference -> Red
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), city names (capital), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?) -> Pink
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG), city names -> Grey
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names -> Yellow
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed), (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference, city names (capital) -> Yellow
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%) or JAPANESE (50%) - one of these two is certainly in but which one is still open for debate, evidence consists of a Leader (Genghis Kahn or not?) and a possible Japanese Unique Unit (Samurai(?))
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (Hiawatha; 100% confirmed), city names, text references, Unique Unit (75% Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) -> Grey
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great, city names (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplite), text reference, video reference -> Green


EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS (which means they could be in or not):

14. PERSIANS - City names (capital) -> Brown?
15. BABYLONIANS - City name -> Red
16. AZTECS - City names -> Pink


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

17. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca, but it was once a Roman city and there's also an Iroquois city with that name.
18. VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
19. ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.
20. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.
21. 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.
22. 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.
-> Color Indicates in which color(s) the civ has been seen in in-game screenshots.

-------------------------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 and 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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The civilization that the Moghul Emperors ruled over was Indian, not Mongol.

was it? my understanding is that the language of the moghul court was Persian, and that moghul culture was as much Persian as Indian. That they may have brought with them some Mongol elements as well would not be surprising (though i am not aware of any)

See thats the problem - thinking of civilizations as homogeneous entities - so that say the moghul empire is EITHER mongol or Indian or Persian - civilizations in reality were complex blendings, especially in cases of conquest.

my suggestion - chuck out the whole civ specific unit idea, and have generic civs, and lots of them.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mark_Lipovrovskiy
Several points:
First of all, the empire I'm describing, Arab or not, was ruled by Arabs, and at it's greatest reach was divided into four(i think) kingdoms that adhered to a single ruler.
Also, if you start an Arab civ, you'd start it from Baghdad, not Mecca.

Baghdad, home of the abbasid caliophate - islam at its height, but with al- andalus independent

Wouldnt it make more sense to start them in Damascus, home of the Omayad caliphate?

LOTM

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
my suggestion - chuck out the whole civ specific unit idea, and have generic civs, and lots of them.

YEAH!!! Just mass-produce out the portraits!

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Baghdad was THE Arab capital - both the first one (of the empire, I'm not counting whatever it was before they got out of the Peninsula, prob. Meca or somethin), and the most important (I think). Although Damascus is a viable option too.
Who'd you make the leader? Not Mohammed, surely That one died long before there was an Empire.
What's his name... um.. I forgot. The one from a Thousand and one Nights...

(I smell a mod lol. Call it "the Real Civilizations Mod"... )

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, the Arabs should be represented as some kind of civilisation which hasn't been represented in the past. Although I think the fear is that they overlap too much with the Persians.

I would like to see the Incas however, I think they should be made into a civilisation...

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Arabs, Incas... There are so many civilisations around that the average European-minded individual will be surprised... I'd just compact the Europeans a bit by using the ancient tribes that incorporate several of today's nations. Or something... Then the Celts would revolt into French and Irish Identical in all the special civ things but different in name and portrait and such.
Hey, that's a genuine good idea! I'm surprised!

[Colon™]

The French are a lot of things, but I'd say they're far less Celtish (or Gaullic) than they are Germanic and Latin. Beside the Irish the Welsh and Scottish would have been better examples.

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Weirdly, I've just noticed Locutus' post. Have to answer to that.

I'm a Jew (secular traditionalist), I live in Israel, I am totally biased, yes. Not for the Arabs, of course Although I do not hesitate to ponder and consider (and talk about) the other POV, I'd never carry it beyond idle speculation. So there.
I thought people would notice the thingy at the left of my posts and not be mistaken on that account. Oh well.
Just like any honorable warrior, I have great respect for my enemy - esp. for such a formidable one.
In fact, at the time-period I'm talking about, the Arabs were the Jews' greatest friends. Jews were all over the place - govt., culture, etc. Just look at what was going on at Kordoba (sp?)... Or in Egypt or wherever the rambam was located. He was the Kaliff's personal physician and one of the greatest Jewish philosophers.
And just like any Jew with a sense of humor, I laugh at antisemistic jokes (at, not with, with all due respect)... They don't offend me since I don't consider them worthwhile enough for that.

Well, yes, we're getting off topic. But I'm afraid that the topic is much less... useful than the discussion that sprang from it

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Colon, I guess that you are right somewhat, but the French, Welsh, Scottish and Irish (and more) all belong to the large framework of Celts. Gauls is the Roman name for French Celts. And the French are very much Celtic.
The Germans would encapsulate lots of central-europe nations, and I guess that the Russians will get their own "name" although you could split them into various other Slavic nations.
The Romans will simply be the Italians (split into.. Etruscans? ), Spanish spanish (I guess that Portugal would have to be related in spite of what the guys say Basque have nothing to do with the Spanish as far as I know but they can split into them as well...)

[Gramphos]

Locutus
How many of the colors are taken from screens before it was stated that there would be 16 civs in one game?

As we have some civs using the same color is either the colors chooseable, randomized or has changed since that screens were taken. I think they have added more colors to the later screens, and given all civs unique colors, but I'm not sure. However, we can't have more then one civ with the same color in a game . So we have to focus on the most recent screens while determining the colors.

Edit: Spelling

[Colon™]

Mark, it depends how you look on it, but you can say one things, the French aren’t just Celtic.
It’s true they have Celtic blood and particularly in the centre and the west people still have Celtic characteristics. However the invasion of the Germanic tribes and the Normans invasion drove away much of the Celtic influence and the French language is a Latin one. Besides, France is multilingual, since you not only have the distinctively different Breton, which is a Celtic language, and Basque, but also Germanic languages such as Flemish and other Latin ones such as Corsican.
And I’m not even mentioning more recent influences such as the Arab one.

Sure, it isn’t wrong to say that the French are Celtic (but only up to an extend), but if the French are Celtic, half of Europe is Celtic, as is half of North America.

Idem dito with the Spanish. Sure they have Roman influences but you have to consider the original population which was mostly Celtic and the substantial Germanic and Arab influx and I’m not mentioning numerous other influences through all ages. (from the Phoenician to the Subsaharan)

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Well, Colon, I won't argue with that - those are exactly the problems you run into when you try to generalise. I said Celts because it has always seemed to me that the French consider themselves of Gaelic origin for the most part, culturally and all. Yes, there is a very strong Norse influence (Normandy) and Latin (you know...). But those troubles are a lot less important I think that non-inclusion of the Maya or the Arabs.

[Colon™]

Mark,
Yeah, identification of a country with their (famous) predecessors appear to be a common theme through the world, the Italians with the Romans, the French with the Gauls, we (Belgians) with the Belgae... Just are MarkG, he’ll be happy to tell you about the excruciating habit of the Macedonians to claim the ancient Macedonians as their ancestors.

Seems cultures just don't like admitting they're immigrants, as if they've always lived there.