 |
|
|
The Gamespy screenshots from the E3 preview include a city called 'Salamanca' which is in Spain. Spanish are in?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! (He exclaimed in his best Horshack voice)
I'm a warlord!
Sorry.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
SerapisIV,
The fact that we have fairly strong evidence on 17 civs already in combination with the points senowen makes lead me to believe that there could be more than 16 civs. But as I said 16, 18 and 21 are all three still options, I'm not excluding anything yet. But IF, and only IF there are more 18 civs, I think the civs will be identical to those in Civ2 (except for the Sioux -> Iroquois change that is).
Civ1 had 14 Civs BTW, all the above mentioned 'certain' civs minus Persia, Spain and Iroquois.
BTW, someone asked before if anyone knew an Iroquois leader, I found lots of info on Hiawatha, he apparently united the Iroquois tribes in the 15th/16th century. But AFAIK there's no decent picture/painting/whatever of the man available so it's not likely we'll ever be able to confirm that the screenshot of the Iroquois leader is indeed Hiawatha.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
I sure as hell would not object to more then 16, but I thik that 16 require a lot of effort as it is, in turns of giving them leaders, full diplo leader screenshots, city names, possibly unique units or attributes (if we're lucky not) and then playtesting them to make sure no bugs show up or that the uniqueness is balanced. Thats a lot of work. Look at most games with unique civs, AoK, etc., did they have as many as 16? I don't play the game but I don't think they have that many civs to playtest and debug. Debugging especially. 16 civs is a hell of a lot of effort from the start, adding more only adds more effort for a Firaxis team that only has a finite number of members
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
vgriph,
Thank you very much for your correction about the number of civs in Civ 2. I got stuck on the 16 civs number question 
Locutus,
I'm afraid «Dank U» is pretty much all the dutch I know  , although I guess your question is if there are a lot of people speaking dutch in Greece? I'll keep you posted on my new detective business Thanks about all the further information.
Serapis,
Like senowen FIraxis made the clarification about the nnumber of the civs (saying it hasn't confirmed anything) after the gamespot review saw the light of day. I agree with your argument that each and every civ will take a much bigger amount of effort to be included in Civ 3 (uniques  , leaders etc etc). Still the game is in development for 2 years now. Maybe they had time? I cannot possibly know.
Thank you on your observation about Salamanca, this is very crucial.
Another discomforting thing is the Waukegan city. I don't know it. Maybe only Americans know it. Why would they put it in a city name in a screenshot? Is it famous for any reason?
This actually increases my concerns that some city names were «tampered with» and did not 100% belong to the corresponding civ.
Slax, what you say is true. But for the needs of this thread we need concrete info to include a civ in the list.
Due to the new facts, I believe that a complete restructure of the list is necessairy.
Now next to the civs we must have the evidence that maybe proof of their inclusiion in civ. The civs with leaders and/or unique units are 100% in only IF we are absolutely sure about the identity of the leader or the unique.
So, so far we know that:
GREEKS ARE IN - City name (capital), possible unique unit (Hoplites*).
AMERICANS ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed), city names, unique unit (F15)
GERMANS ARE IN - Unique unit (Panzer). Multiple text references
CHINESE ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed)
ROMANS ARE IN - Leader, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion)
FRENCH ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed), dialogue window of the french
RUSSIANS ARE IN - Unique Unit (Mig)
ZULUS ARE IN - Unique Unit (Impi)
ENGLISH ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed)
AZTECS ARE IN - City names
EGYPTIANS ARE IN - Leader (100% pharaoh  ), definite text reference
INDIANS ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed)
MONGOLS ARE IN - Leader (100% confirmed)
IROQUOIS ARE IN - Leader (100% indian ), city names, text references
PERSIANS ARE IN - City names (capitol)
SPANISH ARE IN - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
BABYLONIANS ARE IN - City name
----------
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
Vikings (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
*Why do I say possible unique unit: 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.
[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited May 18, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Salamanca was also a Roman settlement in its Luisitania province.
|
True, but it was called Salamantica in those days. Also, it wasn't a particularly important settlement, there's probably well over 100 other Roman citynames that would be more likely to be used for the Roman civ. I'd love to hear that the Spanish aren't in the game, not because I hate them or anything but because that would solve the one-civ-too-many 'problem', but Salamantica was fairly unimportant for the Romans while Salamanca was/is a very important city for the Spanish, it would be silly to use as a Roman cityname. I tried to find other town called Salamanca, but only came up with Mexican and Puerto Rican alternatives, not likely that the name refers to either.
Edit: never mind my second point, my mistake...
paiktis22,
Oh, ok. Close, I asked since when people in Greece spoke Dutch
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 18, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I really sincerely hope that Firaxis corrects a glaring omission from the civ list in Civ II in Civ III.
Look at your globe today. Civ II properly included all of the largest ethno-cultural blocks which are still forces in our world today -- the English, American, Celtic, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Zulu (for Black Africa), and Aztec/Sioux (for Native American) -- except ONE: the ARABS!
Please, Firaxis, this must be corrected in Civ III! You can't have too many built in civilizations. I hope that the CELTS are still included and that the ARABS, at least, will be added.
How easy will it be to customize your own civilizations if Firaxis should omit these or other very significant ones? I would hope that you could add custom civs and save them for you could always play with them if you want. I would also hope that Multiplayer permits a player to play with Custom Civs.
Finally, please design Civ III so that any of the Civs can be played together and not restricted by color groups! I could never have a game with the Celts and the Russians in Civ II because they were both arbitrarily defined as WHITE. Let us pick ANY civs to play with FIRST and then assign colors AFTER.
------------------
My most wanted Civ III civ which was also in Civ II: the CELTS!
My most wanted Civ III civ which was missing from Civ II: the ARABS!
[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 19, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
paiktis22,
Thanks; so true, so true... 
Arator,
Well, no matter how many civs you include, people will always keep complaining they want more or different civs. I mean, in one CtP mod we indcluded 64 civs and still got complaint that certain civs were missing! I agree that the Arabs should definitely be included and the Celts would be a good addition too, but what about the Byzantines, the Dutch, the Bantu, the Mayans, the Incas, the Ottomans/Turks, the Kmer, the Jews, the Slavs, the Armenians, the Italians, the Portugese, the Parthians, the Polynesians, the Apache/Navajo, the Ethiopians, the Sumerians, the Minoans, etc, etc? There are so many civs, every selection you make is an arbitrary one. Because if you have not 16 but 32 civs, to include all/most of these, don't slightly 'less important' civs like the Belgians, the Mexicans, the Canadians or the Swedish 'deserve' a place as well?
I do agree though that making things customizable and non-color specific would go along way to deal with these problems, just as it has in CtP(2): in that game I (and many other CtP(2) players) adapted the list of civs to my own personal liking. It requires very little work and is very satisfying, esp. since you could choose your opponents with the Hotseat feature. Nothing cooler than to play with the same nations that fought in WW2 and kick some German butt on a random map or to re-enact the Mediterranean Ancient Age but let the Carthagians gang up with the Etruscans(sp?) and Egyptians and teach those pesky Romans a lesson (again, on a random map instead of in a scenario) 
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 19, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Poldavo
|
|
Barcelona, Spain
May 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus on 05-18-2001 06:28 PM
True, but it was called Salamantica in those days. Also, it wasn't a particularly important settlement, there's probably well over 100 other Roman citynames that would be more likely to be used for the Roman civ. I'd love to hear that the Spanish aren't in the game, not because I hate them or anything but because that would solve the one-civ-too-many 'problem', but Salamantica was fairly unimportant for the Romans while Salamanca was/is a very important city for the Spanish, it would be silly to use as a Roman cityname. I tried to find other town called Salamanca, but only came up with Mexican and Puerto Rican alternatives, not likely that the name refers to either.
Edit: never mind my second point, my mistake...
paiktis22,
Oh, ok. Close, I asked since when people in Greece spoke Dutch
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 18, 2001).]
|
Brrr... I hope Spanish will be in Civ3! Resolving the debate about Salamanca and Spanish, there were two little Iberian settlements in the place where nowadays Salamanca is, called Helmantica and Salmantica, that were conquered by Carthaginian Hanibal armies around 220 a.C. Romans invaded these settlements 100 years after.
I think that, avoiding the official promises, Civ3 probably will have more than 16 civs. One of the problems of Civ1 and 2 was the limited number of countries to make realistic scenarios (remember the "neutral countries" in ww2 scenario or "Greek cities and allies" in the Roman scenario).
Or, may be, I will be able to eat my words.
------------------
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
Eli,
No offense, but I seriously doubt that, that must be a mistake. I'm more than willing to believe that there are 16 civs and also that the Israeli (or Jews, whatever) are a civ in the game but both at the same time? I don't think so. Sure, the Jews were an important civ but not as important as Spain, Phoenicia/Carthage, Persia, Japan or even Arabia (I hope that doesn't offend you too much). I think that all Civ2 nations are much more likely to be included than Israel. Maybe Judea or Jerusalem is in as a Roman or Persian city but I'd need very convincing evidence to believe that Israel as a civ is in.
Poldavo,
I do think the Spanish *should* be in as they were once the biggest empire on the planet, but the 16 number is the only solid number we heard so far and the evidence on Spain is weak, so I fear the worst.
Yes, I'm aware of the history of Salamanca, I didn't see the other settlement and Hannibal's conquest as very relevant in this case but you are right of course.
The total number of civs will have no effects on scenario makers, it's the number of civs that can be played with at the same time that matters for us, but that's a different story altogether. Now I'm spoiled with CtP's 32 civs at the same time I sure hope that Civ3 will have at least as many, preferably even more (offically or unofficially). It may sound unbelievable to Civ2 players but in some cases even 32 isn't enough (I came to the conclusion that for a great 20th century world scenario you need 35-40 civs and a really, really big map)
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 19, 2001).]
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2001 23:51
|