8 new civs to appear in expansion pack

[siredgar]

I wish they'd just come out with a better editor so I don't have to care.

I'm sure a Firaxis interpretation of any of these civs will be lacking in research, etc. But it would be interesting to see how they portray the Arabs, Koreans, Ethiopians, and Vikings.

By the way, who was the leader for the Vikings civ before and which game were they in? I don't even remember them any more. And what about the Celts and Carthaginians? I kind of remember the Mongols in Civ I and II, but I don't recall the details on these other civs.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I just want someone from Firaxis to ruin our speculatory fun and post what the 8 new civilizations actually are.

[monkspider]

Edgar: I don't recall the Viking Leader (Eric the Red? Leif Ericson?)
But I think the Celtic leader was Veltcygonix? Veltcyonx?....ya know, that guy that fought Caesar in Gaul?
And the Carthage leader HAS to be Mr. Hannibal Barca.
Mongols will of COURSE have to have Genghis.

Dimorier: But that would just ruin all the fun! I have never actually owned a Civ game, I just come here to speculate.

[monkspider]

Guys, something hit me that will throw ALL of our speculation off. What if they consider Spain.....*choke* MEDITERRANEAN!!!!!!!!! I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier!
That will throw all of our speculation COMPLETELY off, and open the door to another European civ!

[monkspider]

I gotta formulate another list now
This one is the Spanish-mediterranean variable
1. Spain (mediterranean)
2. Vikings (europe)
3. Mongols (asia)
4. Inca (america)
5. Carthage (mediterranean)
6. Celts (europe)
7. Korea (asia)
8. Arabs (middle-east)

That list would actually please me very much, the Celts are one of the two or three civs I would want to see back most!

[jasev]

I agree with monkspider's list, but I'm not sure about Korea. Maybe they include Ethiopeans after all, we need more african Civs. Sioux or Aztecs could be an option, too.

Siredgar: Viking leaders on Civ2 were Canute (Knut) and Gunhilda. Celt leaders were Cunobelin and Boadicea. Carthaginian leaders were Hannibal and Dido.

[Dimorier Maximus]

If I recall correctly from the Civ2 text files, it appeared that the reason the Inca and the Arabs weren't used in Civ2 is because the politically correct makers of Civ2 couldn't find any female leaders for them.

Since they only use one leader in Civ3, and it doesn't matter whether it is female or male, this should not be a problem. The Inca should be in it. Hopefully! Not so sure about the Arabs though.

I would personally be surprised to see both the Arabs and the Turks in the same game; however, they might both be added. I do think that the Arabs are kind of a waste when you already have the Babylonians. Essentially, Arabs are just descendants of Babylonians for all practical intents and purposes. Now, I know they are not COMPLETE, 100%, pure blood line descendants of Babylonians, but you get the picture. Same region and all. Baghdad is only miles away from Babylon.

Now the Turks, on the other hand, are an entirely different race, although still of the Mediterranean culture. It makes sense to add them. Their leader would obviously be one of the great men from the Ottoman Empire, take your pick of which was the one you consider the greatest. Also, there is no civilization currently in any civ game that represents control of Asia Minor by the indigenous. Sure Rome and Greece controlled it, but they were both foreign rulers.

Not to mention that Arabs to this very day aren't united. Their loyalty is first to tribe (sub-race), then to nation. Most Saudi Arabians don't consider themselves Arabs above all else.

So I hope that Firaxis put the Turks in, and left the Arabs out.

As far as the Inca, they best be in the game!

There is no civ in the game that was actually based in South America. There never has been, and this is a gap that needs to be filled. Who better than the Inca to fill it?

[siredgar]

Jasev, we already have the Aztecs! Anyhow, if they picked the Sioux over the Koreans I would go bonkers! I already think the Iroquois were almost unnecessary. Why add another underdeveloped "civilization" (if you can even call it a civilization) next to what is already a space filler?

We need to judge the civs by their merit, not by which spaces they can fill nicely. It seems so Eurocentric and hypocritical to ignore the fact that there are already five European civs in an area half the size of China and yet people say there isn't enough "room" for the Koreans in Asia. So, they say let's put the Khmer, Ethiopians, Inca, or friggin' even the Sioux and Indonesians in. These are barely civilizations compared to the Koreans. Okay, breath now...

Anyhow, they're NOT putting in the Sioux unless they're complete idiots.

By the way, thanks for the names. Did they have images of the leaders, too? I can't believe I don't remember anything from even Civ 2 anymore. I really loved Civ 1 and 2. I don't have that seem feeling with Civ 3 though. I don't know why.

Also, why do people prefer the name the Carthaginians? I know they used that in Civ 2, but isn't the Phoenicians more accurate? After all, Carthage was a colony established by the Phoenicians. I guess since Carthage had more military conquests, but still the Phoenicians had incredible inventions.

I think Spain will be treated as Mediterranean, but in my mind they are another civ crowding Western Europe. Not that I'm against it, but it's a fact. PLEASE STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!

[Jay Bee]

Not to spoil your fun guys, but I can anticipate with a 100% certainty that the Spanish are indeed one of the eight.


PS. Somebody must be crying a river

[jasev]

Originally posted by siredgar
Jasev, we already have the Aztecs!

Oops, my fault.

Anyhow, if they picked the Sioux over the Koreans I would go bonkers! I already think the Iroquois were almost unnecessary. Why add another underdeveloped "civilization" (if you can even call it a civilization) next to what is already a space filler?

I haven't said it was my wish; I just wondered what would firaxis do. Please don't kill me

Anyhow, they're NOT putting in the Sioux unless they're complete idiots.

Can I quote you?

Also, why do people prefer the name the Carthaginians? I know they used that in Civ 2, but isn't the Phoenicians more accurate?

That's it. People prefer Carthaginians because they were in civ2.

I think Spain will be treated as Mediterranean, but in my mind they are another civ crowding Western Europe. Not that I'm against it, but it's a fact. PLEASE STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!

What hypocrisy? Calm down, man, otherwise you're going to suffer a heart attack.

[dunk]

Originally posted by siredgar
Also, why do people prefer the name the Carthaginians? I know they used that in Civ 2, but isn't the Phoenicians more accurate? After all, Carthage was a colony established by the Phoenicians. I guess since Carthage had more military conquests, but still the Phoenicians had incredible inventions.

Then rename the Carthaginians to the Phoenicians. You can do that in the editor already.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I would personally be surprised to see both the Arabs and the Turks in the same game; however, they might both be added. I do think that the Arabs are kind of a waste when you already have the Babylonians. Essentially, Arabs are just descendants of Babylonians for all practical intents and purposes. Now, I know they are not COMPLETE, 100%, pure blood line descendants of Babylonians, but you get the picture. Same region and all. Baghdad is only miles away from Babylon.

What about Mecca? It was the first arab Capital, and it was located on Arabia. And Damascus? The second arab Capital is today the Capital city of Siria. Arabs have no direct relation with Babylonians; they conquered the old babylonian cities and stablished their capital there a few centuries later. Arabs took a lot of Babylonian culture, even more than greek culture (through the conquest of a big part of the Byzantine empire) but the roots of the civilization are in Arabian peninsula.

And I think we've discussed about this topic a long time ago.
The arabs are one of the most important civilizations in the history of the world. Even more than (I think I'll regret this) spanish, mongols or french. Their conquests, their scientific advances, their cultural legacy, etc. makes them much more important than a lot of those civilizations nobody are argueing about now.
Babyloneans were an ancient civ that appeared between Tigris and Euphrates rivers and spread through the middle-east, reaching the eastern mediterranen coast.
The arabs were a middle-ages civ that appeared in the arabian peninsula (where the Babylonians never reached) and spread through the middle-east, conquering the ancient babylonean and Byzantine cities, and the sourthern mediterranean coasts, conquering northern Africa and almost all the Iberian Peninsula.

I think there are enough differences between them.

[siredgar]

Jasev, it's not a "wish list" thread, but "what do you think will be in the expansion pack" thread. Why don't you go and just play a scenario with all native American civs and Spain? Have all you want. I don't care.

I think they prefer Carthaginians because of Hannibal. Anyhow, the term Phoenicia is a Greek one coined after Napoleon III's commission of an excavation of that land, right? So, I guess names don't really matter for this civ.

[jasev]

Jasev, it's not a "wish list" thread, but "what do you think will be in the expansion pack" thread.

That's what I was trying to say. I prefer Koreans before Sioux or Iroquis, but I'm not sure the guys at firaxis will agree. I was just trying to wonder what they will do, nothing else.

Why don't you go and just play a scenario with all native American civs and Spain? Have all you want. I don't care.

What are you talking about? Sorry, I don't understand you

[Ribannah]

Expectations, expectations.

My best guess at this moment is:
Arabia, Celts, Inca, Mongolia, Spain, Vikings (these six almost 100% sure), Israel, Korea.

And my wishlist:
Arabia, Australia, Dutch, Ethiopia, Maya, Mongolia, Polynesia, Tiahuanaco.