Please Firaxis, Include the CELTS and the ARABS!

[Guest]

Of the Civ II civs, my favored one to play with is the CELTS (probably because I am of Scotch-Irish heritage).

The most glaring civ omission from Civ II was the ARABS. I do hope Firaxis corrects this in Civ III.

I am distressed that:

1) I have heard that Firaxis will only include 16 civs in Civ III -- even less than the 21 included in Civ II, and

2) The CELTS and ARABS are not yet known to be among them.

So, my question is about custom Civs. Will customizable civs in Civ III be:

a) possible?

b) easy to do?

c) savable?

and d) multi-playable?

Also, however many civs there are in the end (both in game and custom), can any combination of civs be chosen for a game, are will they be rigidly and stupidly grouped by color as in Civ II? (Example: In Civ II, you could never play a game with both the Celts and the Russians, as they were both arbitrarily defined as WHITE!). Hopefully Civ III will be designed so that we can pick any civ and assign it to any or the available colors up to the maximum number per game. Please tell me this is so.

[St Leo]

The most glaring civ omission from Civ II was the ARABS. I do hope Firaxis corrects this in Civ III.

I agree, the Arabs have done much more for the world than the Celts.

can any combination of civs be chosen for a game, are will they be rigidly and stupidly grouped by color as in Civ II?

Probably custom selection is Firaxis' approach.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[Gammaray fan]

I agree that Arabs should be in the game. As for Celts, there are already too many Euro civs (German French English covers that area pretty well) Here is a list of the 16 civs that should be in Civ3.

1)Russians
2)Romans
3)Greeks
4)Mongols
5)Chinese
6)Zulus
7)English/name change to Americans if revolt
8)Germans
9)French
10)Spanish
11)Egyptian
12)Babylonian
13)Indian
14)Aztec
15)Arabs
16)Japanese

Additionally, on the Earth map, the America's should be packed with Barbarian cities (we know for a fact that Barbarians will have cities), Australia should be packed with Barbarian cities, and Africa between Egypt and Zulu's should be packed with Barbarian cities.
The worst thing about CTP was the ridiculous civs - eg. Ethiopians, Polynesians...

[Guest]

But why limit it to 16? Why not expand it beyond the 21 of Civ II and make everyone happy?

Let's see, what is the minimum number of in-game Civ's that would encompass all the major ancient/medieval/modern ethno-cultural/imperial blocks?

Ancient/Medieval:

1) Egyptian
2) Babylonian
3) Persian
4) Roman
5) Aztec
6) Incan

Ancient/Medieval/Modern:

7) Greek
8) Celtic
9) Israeli
10) German
11) Indian
12) Chinese

Medieval:

13) Mongol

Medieval/Modern:

14) Vikings
15) Arab
16) Turk
17) English
18) Dutch
19) French
20) Spanish
21) Portuguese
22) Russian
23) Austro-Hungarians
24) Italians
25) Zulus
26) Polynesians

Modern:

27) Iroquois
28) Americans
29) Yankees
30) Confederates

There! In a mere 30 civs, you would have every imperial/ethno/cultural conflict possible built in and available to choose from. Firaxis should strive to include them all!


[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 19, 2001).]

[The Rusty Gamer]

Will cicilizations not be customisable then? Won't we be able to create our own?

[Theben]

I imagine the names of the civ and it's cities will be easily customizable, and the cities images and leader pictures much less so.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Arator on 05-19-2001 02:18 AM There! In a mere 30 civs, you would have every imperial/ethno/cultural conflict possible built in and available to choose from. Firaxis should strive to include them all!

The fact that after the very early medievals scandinavia was divided into the nations of Sweden and Denmark isnt reflected by this, the Holy Roman Empire of German nation (could also be called Austria) and Brandenburg (later called Preussia) isn't included in that list either, thus a very significant conflict isnt going to be possible: The thirty years war (and virtually every conflict from around the reneiscanse).
If you really want to have Yankees and Confederates as civs then the above ones should probably be included as well.

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 05-19-2001 03:34 AM thus every significant conflict isnt going to be possible

The key then will be customizable civs which can be ADDED to the built in Civs and be fully integratable with them. This means that they must be:

a) savable

b) choosable,

c) and multiplayable.

Has Firaxis said yet whether this will be the case?

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Arator on 05-19-2001 01:12 AM 1) I have heard that Firaxis will only include 16 civs in Civ III -- even less than the 21 included in Civ II, and

My friend Arator,

Read the thread civs included. Just the facts madam to see about the maximum number of civs. The bottom line is Firaxis said they made NO official announcement on the matter of the number of civs. Everything is open. (although as Serapis has said each civs will take a large amount of effort (uniques, leaders, balance etc) so it cannnot be too many)

[SerapisIV]

I think Firaxis if anything would only increase the number of customization options over Civ2. The ability to customize civ games has only increased with time, I see no reason why this trend would decrease.

[Lenius]

Civ 3 just wouldn't be right without us Celts, we are a MUST for Civ3. Why? Some people might ask, well because we are a people that has a history of over 3000 years, that are still around today in the form of countries such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland. We were the first peoples to settle most of europe well before the Romans our cultral achievements and personal traits are perfect for civilisation games. Civ 3 won't feel right if the Celts aren't there to trade with the Greeks fight with the Romans then to resist the english.

CELTS MUST BE IN CIV3 FIRAXIS !!!

[Theben]

Why Celts SHOULDN'T be in Civ3:

Because the Latin for Celts is Celtoi which basically means "barbarian". In other words, Celts to the Romans were "everyone else", those who didn't have a central government anyway. Many bands & tribes fell under the title Celt.

So it doesn't refer to a single civ.

[Gammaray fan]

If Celts are to be included, the Germans would have to be taken out. Since German's are included for the sake of the Panzer tank, Celts CANNOT be included.
What Firaxis SHOULD do, is not listen to screaming about including 50 billion civs to satisfy everyone, but to add civs that will make for a FUN game. That is civs that spread around the map (ie. not 50 billion civs in Europe!), and civs that are not all conquerers to satisfy perfectionists.
This is how they have always picked civs, and I'm sure they will continue to do so...