Civs included. Just the facts madam.

[Fierz]

waht about the swiss

[Bereta_Eder]

Arator,
Correct me if I'm wrong. The Confederates were the «south part» of the U.S. civil war against the Northen part «Yankees»! If this is so, I don't see enough evidence to include the Confederates anywhere in the list. The Great Military Leader was after all american and the U.S.A didn't split in two after the civil war. I think it's logical to presume he will be included to the American civ.

Locutus, My tooughts EXACTLY about the minor civs. All this silience is very strange... Were there problems implementing them? If so, GOOD
Also, without the help of you and other Apolytoners finding the evidence I'd still have only 6 or 7 civs

Everybody,
I see a lot of reoccuring questions. In the bottom of the page, after the Civ List, I'll include the most importand facts as we know them by now.


So, so far and based on our evidence, we know:

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
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 bottom of page)
12.IROQUOIS - Leader (100% indian ), city names, text references


HIGH PROPABILITY. This civ is almost certaintly in

13.GREEKS - City name (capital), possible unique unit (Hoplites*).

*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

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

18.**JAPANESE (open for debate plz see the samurai(?) unit at http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_medi...ws%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.

-------------------------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.
_In an israeli gaming site it says the civs will be 16.

[Bereta_Eder]

Please correct me if there is another Montreal that is not in Canada (as the most well known is) and it is relatively well known.

[Lenius]

I think the one thing this thread has proved is that 16 Civs isn't enough. It seems as though Firaxis are going to have to have at least 21 Civs and possibly anything up to 30. Obviously this is gonna take a lot of work if each civilisation has there own leader, special unit etc.

So what I was wondering is how do you think Firaxis should pick their Civs e.g. By cultral significance, age, consumer wish lists or just randomly picking them.

And would you be comftable with them putting back the release date to accomadate more civs?

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-20-2001 10:26 AM Arator, Correct me if I'm wrong. The Confederates were the «south part» of the U.S. civil war against the Northen part «Yankees»! If this is so, I don't see enough evidence to include the Confederates anywhere in the list. The Great Military Leader was after all american and the U.S.A didn't split in two after the civil war. I think it's logical to presume he will be included to the American civ.

But Stonewall Jackson was not a "Great Leader" for the Americans and certainly not for President Lincoln (see screenshot of Civ Leader Lincoln). It would be ludicrous to make Stonewall Jackson a "Great Leader" for any civ but the Civ he actually fought for so brilliantly -- the Confederate South.

Don't be confused by the misnomer "Civil War". It was not a civil war, but a war between two distinct cultures and nations. For the duration of the war, the Confederate States of America was a separate and distinct nation from the United States of America with its own Constitution, Presidency, Congress, etc. A civil war is one fought between two factions over control over the same government. The war between the USA and the CSA was not that. It was a war of conquest fought by one culture, nation, government, and people (USA) against another culture, nation, government, and people (CSA). These were two distinct civs, as distinct as any two civs can be. It took conquest, decades of reconstruction, and a century of forced assimilation to make them one, and they still aren't one quite yet (thank God).

So, I say bring on the CONFEDERATES! This Southern boy would love to whip Abe Lincoln (and everyone else) but good. LOL.


[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by Lenius on 05-20-2001 01:55 PMAnd would you be comftable with them putting back the release date to accomadate more civs?

I would. It's better to get it right than to get it fast.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Arator on 05-20-2001 01:57 PM But Stonewall Jackson was not a "Great Leader" for the Americans and certainly not for President Lincoln (see screenshot of Civ Leader Lincoln). It would be ludicrous to make Stonewall Jackson a "Great Leader" for any civ but the Civ he actually fought for so brilliantly -- the Confederate South.

Arator,
thank you for the information. Can you include the url where it mentions the name of Stonewell Jackson?
Hmm, being in Europe, this creates a dillema for me. Is it really impossible to consider Mr. Jackson as an American Great Military Leader under Lincoln? Lincoln is now the respresentative of all the Americans I think? Or is he not accepted as such?
Anyway, if you really think it's impossible and there are no other obsections, give me the url I'll add the Confederates as a possible civ based on clues.

BTW, if you really want a different country why don't you just vote for intependence? You are democratic right? Or do you KNOW you are better off with the Yankess as one country ?

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-20-2001 02:36 PM Arator, thank you for the information. Can you include the url where it mentions the name of Stonewell Jackson?

Here it is: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/002858.html?9

quote: Hmm, being in Europe, this creates a dillema for me. Is it really impossible to consider Mr. Jackson as an American Great Military Leader under Lincoln? Lincoln is now the respresentative of all the Americans I think? Or is he not accepted as such?

He's not representative of me or many other Southern sympathizers. We much prefer Jefferson Davis. LOL. He is the first American dictator to us, and a very bloody one at that.

quote: BTW, if you really want a different country why don't you just vote for intependence? You are democratic right? Or do you KNOW you are better off with the Yankess as one country ?

Well, we did just that in 1860/61 and got 1/4 of our male population killed and/or wounded, our country laid waste, our economy devastated, and an 11 year military occupation as repayment for the attempt, so we are loath to try it again. But there are groups who would like to do just that. Check this out: http://www.dixienet.org

[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]

[LoD]

lord of the mark:

quote: Uh, largest single market for PC games?

And that's exactly what I meant !

quote: Why they put Koreans in AOK:TC and not say Russians or Incas, IIUC. Big market for AOE/AOK in Korea, lesser market in Russia, none in Inca empire

AoK is different - a narrower timeframe for consideration.


paiktis22: Sorry for going off-topic, but I felt that I had to point out what I did about the real importance of a civilization. Besides, the second part of my post wasn't entirely irrelevant - I listed the 3 main reasons for consideration when pondering whether a given civ will be in the basic set (global-historic, PC, marketing).

...Which leads me to the current topic of this thread - the Confederates. I'm almost convinced that Stonewall Jackson will be simply an American hero - a civ for the Southerners would neither be sensible historically, neither politically correct (obviously), nor marketing wise (that one slot could be used more sensible - "Johny Rebs" already have an American faction to identify with).

LoD

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by LoD on 05-20-2001 03:12 PM ...Which leads me to the current topic of this thread - the Confederates. I'm almost convinced that Stonewall Jackson will be simply an American hero - a civ for the Southerners would neither be sensible historically, neither politically correct (obviously), nor marketing wise (that one slot could be used more sensible - "Johny Rebs" already have an American faction to identify with). LoD

On the contrary, including "CONFEDERATES" is:

a) sensible historically -- Southern civilization was older than the United States is today (Jamestown, 1608 - Appomatox, 1865 = 257 years old!) when she was denied her bid for independence by conquest. That is an historically significant civ by any measure.

b) politically incorrect to some, but FIRAXIS knows better -- after all, FIRAXIS established itself by creating fantastic Civil War battle simulations which did honor to the South as well as the North. FIRAXIS understands the civilizational significance of the Confederacy and laughs in the face of insipid political correctness.

c) marketing wise -- Southern Americans and fans of the Civil War worldwide would eat it up. Recall that Civ II had a Civil War Scenario as one of it's first offerings. That indicates how marketing wise the inclusion of the CONFEDERATES really is. So, in the spirit of building on and improving on past Civs, it would not be surprising for FIRAXIS to include the CONFEDERATES as a built in civ option right from the start in Civ III, now would it?

[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

Well,
Arator made a suggestion and he has a name to back it up. I think this is enough for an inclusion on the Suggested civs based on clues.


So, so far and based on our evidence, we know:

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
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 bottom of page)
12.IROQUOIS - Leader (100% indian ), city names, text references


HIGH PROPABILITY. This civ is almost certaintly in

13.GREEKS - City name (capital), possible unique unit (Hoplites*).

*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

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

18.**JAPANESE (open for debate plz see the samurai(?) unit at http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_media.jsp?media=http%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 reffered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator pointed out that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans).

-------------------------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.
_In an israeli gaming site it says the civs will be 16.



[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Stefu]

quote: marketing wise -- Southern Americans and fans of the Civil War worldwide would eat it up. Recall that Civ II had a Civil War Scenario as one of it's first offerings. That indicates how marketing wise the inclusion of the CONFEDERATES really is. So, in the spirit of building on and improving on past Civs, it would not be surprising for FIRAXIS to include the CONFEDERATES as a built in civ option right from the start in Civ III, now would it?

Um, no. You see, here in Europe we'd look at game and see that instead of old, great civs like Inca or Babylonians, Firaxis has decided to include American political faction, whose grandest achivement was keeping up independent nation for grand of five years, AND Firaxis decides to include Indian tribe that just happened to contribute greatly to American political development, and we'd hit our heads against the wall so hard as result of this Amerocentrism, that we'd knock ourselves off and couldn't buy Civ3.

I mean, it's bad enough that Activision talks about "NATO keeping up peace for 50 years" and Civ2's Modern wonders are all American. There's life out here too, you know!

[Wernazuma III]

Argh, I really hope the confederates are not in. This would make no sense. I'd prefer even a gipsy civilization over the confederates. The confederates as a proper civilization would be more than ridiculous. If it's anything, it's the split up after a civil war. It lasted only 4 years throughout history. What reasons other than american bias could justify the confederates. I'd be heavily disappointed by Firaxis. There are only few Civs which will be included, one american civ is enough. Even including the Iroquois is biased (better include Maya or Inca instead), but OK.

[Wernazuma III]

quote: 21. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.

Sorry to say this (I know how canadians hope they'll be in): Montreal was already a city in Civ1 and Civ2, still they were not included.

[Guest]

quote: Originally posted by Stefu on 05-20-2001 04:10 PM Um, no. You see, here in Europe we'd look at game and see that instead of old, great civs like Inca or Babylonians, Firaxis has decided to include American political faction, whose grandest achivement was keeping up independent nation for grand of five years, AND Firaxis decides to include Indian tribe that just happened to contribute greatly to American political development, and we'd hit our heads against the wall so hard as result of this Amerocentrism, that we'd knock ourselves off and couldn't buy Civ3. I mean, it's bad enough that Activision talks about "NATO keeping up peace for 50 years" and Civ2's Modern wonders are all American. There's life out here too, you know!

LOL. Hey, nobody said the CONFEDERATES would be included INSTEAD of the classic Civs you mentioned. Obviously, if the CONFEDERATES are included, there will be many more built in civs than 16 and all the ones you mentioned and more will also be there. (See my hoped for list of 32 above.)

I would agree with you that if that ARE in fact ONLY 16, inclusion of the CONFEDERATES and IROQUOIS would be a crime. But, if there were 32, 3 "American" civs out of 32 ain't so bad (again, see my list above).