New Civs Update from IGN

[civman2000]

korea is not in. I'm now 95% sure the hwacha is one of the units in the japanese pack. n The IGN report calls it a "fireworks cart". It is probably not any uu and just a sample. After all, if the name is changed to simply "fireworks cart" it might be generally applicable to all civs in a japanese setup, though i'm no expert on the history of the region.

This means incans are almost certainly in. I'm 80% sure of it, firaxis isn't that stupid.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Still, I could mod the Gauls into the Celts and use Celtic city names, great leaders and UU instead...

That would be incredibly easy. Nothing to do. The difference between Gauls and Celts is the same like between Japan and Nippon.

[The diplomat]

There are 3 things that bother me a bit.

1) Why were the Gauls included? The Gauls and the French are the same. The French are the descendants of the Gauls! So, unless, the Gauls are meant to replace the French, I don't really see the purpose.

2) I am afraid that the new UU are going to make things more confusing. With the Keshir and the Conquistador, we have even more mounted units. Graphically and from a gameplay point of view, I fear we have too many mounted units, and that they will confuse things.

3) civ3 needs to emphasize the seafaring part of the game more. The expansion pack needs to improve the naval part of the game. We don't need more mounted units. We need more ancient era ships and features that make sea warfare more prominent.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by The diplomat

2) I am afraid that the new UU are going to make things more confusing. With the Keshir and the Conquistador, we have even more mounted units. Graphically and from a gameplay point of view, I fear we have too many mounted units, and that they will confuse things.

And if they make Gallic Heavy Cavalry the Gauls UU..... and even the Arabs and Carthaginians could arguably have mounted UUs; although a naval unit may be in order for Carthage. Speaking of which...

3) civ3 needs to emphasize the seafaring part of the game more. The expansion pack needs to improve the naval part of the game. We don't need more mounted units. We need more ancient era ships and features that make sea warfare more prominent.

With the addition of the Vikings, Carthaginians and Spanish, all of whom were known for their seafaring abilities, I would hope that Firaxis puts more emphasis on naval operations and units. I'm really hoping for a new "Maritime" ability or some such.

[Stuie]

Double post... mea culpa.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

The difference between Gauls and Celts is the same like between Japan and Nippon.

Gauls and celts are not the same. Close maybe, but not the same.

[Capt Dizle]

I started a thread in the Civ3 forum to tell everyone the exciting news that Firaxis was planning a dino tileset for the expansion. MarkG said it wasn't true, essentially calling me a liar so I guess he knows more that Jeff did at the time he made his comments.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Gauls and celts are not the same. Close maybe, but not the same.

Not all Celts were Gauls, but all Gauls were Celts. Gauls was the name the Romans gave the in Gaul (or Gallia, ancient France) living Celts. Here is some literature about this region and its inhabitants.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am VERY happy that they put in both the Ottomans and Arabs. After inexplicably not having either in the original game, this makes up for it . And yes, they are different civilizations, peaking and falling at different times.

Korea was just too, too close to China and Japan, IMO, to be included. So I think the Incas will be in.

And I think the Gaul inclusion means something different than most. We've heard there is a WW2 and Japanese tile set. Anyone think there might be a Roman tileset? We have the Roman, Greeks and Persians already and in this pack we have the Carthaginians AND the Gauls.

[Jay Bee]

I tend to think that the name "Gauls" is a mistake, and the actual one is "Celts". As pointed out above, both words mean the same. On a similar note, it would be great if the Celtic civ included ALL the Celtic tribes of W. Europe, not just a few of them.

[kring]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I started a thread in the Civ3 forum to tell everyone the exciting news that Firaxis was planning a dino tileset for the expansion. MarkG said it wasn't true, essentially calling me a liar so I guess he knows more that Jeff did at the time he made his comments.

Based on one of the numerous things that came out in E3 related news, dinosaur may be one.


Gamespot E3 Report May 23rd,

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2867403,00.html

:

The developer is considering additional sets, such as a dinosaur-themed set.

[monkspider]

I agree, "Gauls" is silly and if they somehow include both gauls and celts at the cost of the incas I would be so mad I could explode.
I'm glad you're happy Imran, but I think that having both is highly redundant, especially with the Hebrews and Koreans not being in the game.
I think Ottomans would be a good fit to be grouped with the Arabs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm glad you're happy Imran, but I think that having both is highly redundant, especially with the Hebrews and Koreans not being in the game.

Redundant? Like having the Germans and French in the game? Both came out of the Frankish Kingdom after the fall of Rome.

And I don't want EITHER the Hebrews or Koreans in my Civ3. Neither of them are worthy.

[monkspider]

I wonder who will be the Arab's leader, Saladin or Muhammad?

[MarkG]

for now, the sets are two, as mentioned in the official announcement

http://www.firaxis.com/company_showrelease.cfm?releasenum=35

beyond that, this is not the place for any trolling....