Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[Locutus]

KrazyHorse,
Well, if you think Beijing isn't an important city, I guess you might be right Conquered cities like Samarkand, Bokhara, Baghdad, Kiev, etc. indeed played an important role in Mongol history but cities actually founded by the Mongols themselves were at least as important, probably more important (Karakorum, Ta-tu/Cambulac/Beijing, Shang-tu, Sarai Batu, Sarai Berke, etc). The Mongol empire was much more than just a military empire: trade, science and diplomacy have always been important factors as well. The most obvious example of this is that many Chinese inventions reached Europe during the rule of the Mongols: gunpowder, compass, printing, to name but a few. These and many other advances were also exploited by the Mongols themselves once they had come in contact with them (most notably siege warfare). Caravans could travel freely and unrestricted through the vast Mongol empire (something which isn't as trivial as it may seem, just look at France, Germany and Greece). The Mongols also maintained diplomatic relationships with all major and many minor Eurasian nations, many more than any nation before them AFAIK.

They were no more or less unified then the Greeks. Not even Alexander the Great ruled over all Greeks, many Greek colonies in Spain, Italy, France, Northern Africa and at Cremea remained independent from Alexander. And apart from Alexander, when were the Greeks ever united under one ruler? Greece consisted of many city-states who almost always remained independent from each other, though they felt they were part of the same culture and were often allied. The same is the case with the Mongols: the Yuan dynasty, the Golden Horde, the Il-Khanid dynasty, the Chagatai and to a lesser extend the Moghul dynasty and other smaller khanates, they all had a fairly high degree of independence but they were all Mongols and in that sense united and most of the time allied with each other. Contrary to the Greeks though, most of the time the Mongols *did* have a single 'supreme' leader, and Genghis and Kublai (among others) both held this position for most of their lives.

Your point about Kublai reigning over the Chinese makes no sense. When the Romans conquered Gaul, Gaul became a Roman province and Roman laws and culture were enforced on the Celts living there, even though the Romans tolerated Celts who wanted to maintain their own livestyle, as long as they payed taxes and accepted Roman rule. The same was the case in China: when Kublai had conquered China, it became part of the Mongol empire and Mongol rule, laws and culture were enforced on the Chinese, while the Mongols kept much of their own culture and customs. The Chinese were allowed to continue to speak their own language and maintain their old lifestyle, but they had to accept Mongol rule, pay taxes and accept a new social hierarchy in which the Mongols were on top of the social ladder and the South-Chinese at the bottom. Important government functions were for a good part in the hands of Mongol aristocrats (though they hired many Chinese advisors because they simply didn't have the necessary experience to rule a vast empire themselves). It's true that the Mongols adapted themselves to and were even assimilated by the nations they conquered but again, the same was true for the Romans (think Greece or Christianity, for example). Like the Romans, the Mongols never lost their identity over it, they always remembered who they were and where they came from.

Your two most important arguments against the Mongols counting as a civilization seem to be that they didn't rule for long enough and that they were nomadic warriors rather than settled-down rulers. I did a little research and even the most 'pessimitic' historians say the Mongol empire ruled the Eurasian continent for 185 years (other sources and I myself disagree and add a few centuries to that). This is from the rise of Genghis Khan to the (almost simultaneous) decline of the Il-Khanid, the Yuan and the Golden Horde. If we go back 185 years and look at the state of the USA in the early 19th century we have to conclude that the Mongols were a significant worldpower longer than the Americans were, yet noone disputes them being a 'valid' civ. So IMHO your first argument doesn't hold. As far as the second argument goes, yes, the Mongols' traditional lifestyle has been one of nomadic existance, but the Mongols have also always had fixed settlements. In order to be able to support trade, warfare and other social, political and cultural systems, it's simply necessary to have at least some fixed settlements. Also, Mongol aristocrats have always prefered the luxury and comfort of palaces and houses over the uncomfortable and primitive life in yurts. Long before and long after Genghis Khan & Co came around the Mongols have lived in towns, cities and other fixed settlements. It may not have been the most characteristic part of Mongol culture, but it did happen. Add to that the great cities that the Mongols founded and inhabited in the time of their (first) 185 years of supremacy (the names of which I mentioned earlier in this post) and I think your second argument a weak one to say the least.

If you consider the enormous impact they had on the history of mankind, I think you can't dismiss the Mongols off-hand as a possibility for a civilization in Civ3, esp. not since they *were* indeed a civilization by any definition I can come up with for that word. IMHO they are even a must-have civ but that's just my personal opinion, whether or not Firaxis agrees with that is something that only time will tell (but they did think so in the past).

FireDragoon,
We've discussed this extensively before but I'll explain it again. A number of those previews specifically stated that 16 is the total number of civs, not the number of civs per game. Some of these previews even mentioned that the number of civs per game was 7 or 8, but others haven't said anything about this (only 1 preview so far claimed that the number of civs per game is 16). I have not seen the number 32 anywhere before, so unless you can give me a more or less reliable source for that number I have to assume that it's sheer speculation, not based on any facts. And again, this thread is about facts, not about speculation. (In fact, even numbers from previews are speculation, only Firaxis can give us the real numbers, but these previews could be a good indication of what the real numbers will be.)

hetairoi22,
You're right, I read that about the English too somewhere, I'll add that to the list. As far as the Zulu cities are concerned, we already knew of those for a very long time but apparently no-one remembered to add them to the list. I'll add that to the list after all. Thanks for the heads up on these issues!


So far, based on our evidence, we know that:

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed)[color=red], (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)[color=red]
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%)- or JAPANESE?(50%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese), possibly Japanese Unique Unit
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American, any ideas on who? Hiawatha?), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.

** There are two clues that this Native American civ in fact isn't the Iroquois: the houses behind the leader picture are small and round rather than long and square and the unit is a horseman while the Iroquois lived in woods and didn't rely heavily on horses. All other clues (text references, hair cut, city names) point to Iroquois.
*** 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 (which means they could be in or not):

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
18. JAPANESE - instead of the Mongols; open for debate, please see the Samurai(?) unit here
* Also see this picture: Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (Most votes go to Genghis)


SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):

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 refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:

Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.

-------------------------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.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.

--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------

* The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[KrazyHorse]

Whatever. I'm going to stop this whole "are the Mongols going to be in civ III" sub-thread, because whenever Locutus and I respond it takes up half a page. Let it just be said that the question of Mongols vs. Japanese is still unresolved.

[Adm.Naismith]

After a while, we have new facts about Civ included in games: new PC Zone screenshots mention Iroquis (on diplomatic table) and French (one of the main map screenshoot).

The Iroquis leader seems called "Hiawatha" (I have no hint about Iroquis history ).

[Locutus]

Wow! Lot's of new info out I see, haven't had much time yet to process all of it but I too spotted those things, Adm. Naismith & Gramphos.

The diplomacy screen is hard evidence of the Native Americans being Iroquois, as we already suspected all along. Hiawatha is one of two more or less famous Iroquois leaders, him being the more famous of the two (forgot the name of the other).

I saw all those cities too, plus one or perhaps even two Greek city names (Miletos).


So far, based on our evidence, we know that:

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names (capital), Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer), city names (capital), multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed), city names
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar), city name (capital), Unique Unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), city names (capital), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG), city names
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed), (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference, city names (capital)
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%)- or JAPANESE?(50%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese), possibly Japanese Unique Unit
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (Hiawatha; 100% confirmed), city names, text references, Unique Unit (75% Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City names (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.

[...]
*** 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 (which means they could be in or not):

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
18. JAPANESE - instead of the Mongols; open for debate, please see the Samurai(?) unit here
* Also see this picture: Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (Most votes go to Genghis)


SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):

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 refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:

Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.

-------------------------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.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.

--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------

* The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[Gramphos]

You should add City Names to Germans, Chinese, French, Russian and Egyptian. As the city names has been in various Screenshots.

[Gramphos]

There have been Russian and Egyptian City Names in older screens, I just didn't want to comment them as the Civs already were listed to be in.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Let it just be said that the question of Mongols vs. Japanese is still unresolved.

I think the Mongols qualify: a) it was a civilization - the fact that it did not concentrate around cities for most of its existence does not negate its importance in history, though it makes its power difficult to simulate in Civ, given the focus on cities; and b) it was HUGELY significant. In fact, if we include in the "Mongol" tribe all the turkic-speaking, steppe-dwelling peoples, the Mongols played a crucial role several times in history.

On the subject of who the Asian dude is, I disagree that he is Genghis Khan. The surrounding landscape IS too East Asian, and he bears a striking resemblance to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which made Edo (now Tokyo) its capital. I've attached a picture of Ieyasu below, which shows him wearing the same head-dress as the CIII screenshot.

KH, of the two pictures you show, the first is obviously a European representation and probably inaccurate, the second is much more likely to represent GK's likeness.

Two bits of (fairly) useless trivia here:

first, Genghis Khan's real name was Temujin; "Genghis Khan" was actually his title, meaning Great, or Supreme, Leader. Genghis Khan assumed this title when he united the Mongol tribes under his control, "Khan" being the head of a Mongol tribe.

second, for those who don't know, his name was pronounced more like Chinggis (the "ch" as in chicken).

[JellyDonut]

The reason Firaxis made it 16 civs instead of 21 is quite simple: 16 is a big round number in binary (1000) and in hexadecimal (10), so it makes it a lot easier to program the names, leaders etc. and maybe include 16 colors to account for each civ and let any combination play in the same game.

They could have raised it to 32, also a round number in bin and hex, but that would be expensive and offer little reward if there's a customize civ option. I would have liked to see the Celts (pronounced KELTS, not SELTS!) back, but it doesn't look like that will be happening.

[JellyDonut]

These are the civs I expect to show up, based on the sketchy evidence:

Americans, Aztecs, Chinese, Egyptians, English, French, Germans, Greek, Indians, Iroquois, Japanese, Persians, Romans, Russians, Zulus

[Solver]

I am sure I like this. Israel, Aztecs and Egyptians are my primary civs for whom I wish to play. If these 3 are in, I won't care as much for the others, but I hope to see more than 16 in.

[Gramphos]

Now I’ve had a closer look at the new video, and I have found one interesting thing.

In the attached image I’ve combined two screens from the video. The first screen is a City window with the name Salamanca. That alone says nothing, as we already had seen this name and taken it for a Spanish city, but if you compare the terrain with the screen below you’ll find that they match. As the bottom screen shows a part of Iroquois Despotism Salamanca seem to be an Iroquois City. I don’t know if they ever had any City named Salamanca. They might have captured it, but I can’t find any proof of battle. Locutus, I need your detective skills now . Is it possible that the Iroquois had a city named Salamanca, or have they captured it?

[LaRusso]

Dunno how to make captions but I froze the video on full screen mode. Looks like its 870 AD and there are already tanks rambling around. Stupid little red circles mark the units. Terrain looks a tad better than on jpg's posted on PC Zone and it kinda looks like there are hills rolling into mountain ridges (still, every peak for itself, you can see tiles patched together).

[TechWins]

The reason Firaxis made it 16 civs instead of 21 is quite simple: 16 is a big round number in binary (1000) and in hexadecimal (10), so it makes it a lot easier to program the names, leaders etc. and maybe include 16 colors to account for each civ and let any combination play in the same game.

No, I'm sorry you are wrong. Firaxis has stated that they wanted to have lesser civs so they could make each more unique. They wanted to be able to spend more time on each individual civ. Instead of making a few more civs with the quality of each civ lessened.

[Martinus]

No, I'm sorry you are wrong. Firaxis has stated that they wanted to have lesser civs so they could make each more unique. They wanted to be able to spend more time on each individual civ. Instead of making a few more civs with the quality of each civ lessened.

That may be the reason why there are less of them. But why exactly 16? I think the answer about binar/hexadecimal coding is quite plausible.

[Phutnote]

Kenobi's right about the 'Asian dude.'

It is not Genghis Khan.

The fellow is wearing indigineous Japanese attire. The hat and robes are worn by a religious order in Japan, which still exists, centred around one of the spiritual mountain sites there (the name of the mountain I cannot recall, but they have dozens of temples there).

Hirohito and the Emperors of Japan have worn this sort of garb for centuries.

I think Firaxis has been pretty good with its research, so there's no way it's a representation of good old Genghis.

I'd say Japan is in for sure, but I'm not sure which guy from Japanese history he is. Might be Toyotomi Hideyoshi.



Phutnote

[Gramphos]

As nobody has looked into it I decided to look up that page on Iroquois that Locutus found earlier (proofing that they were in). And after searched the page for "Salamanca" I found this:

http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html
The Seneca were once the largest tribe of the Iroquois League - the number of their warriors equal to the other four tribes combined.
...
The Seneca, however, are the only Native American tribe to own an American city - Salamanca, New York.

This should take the Spanish out of the list for good. (Or at least move them down to the clue section)

As we are running out of facts that will add Civs to the list, we have to search for evidence against the one on there way to the list.

[Locutus]

Sorry for not posting earlier: I had some problems with my Internet connection so I haven't been online since my previous post (but if it's any comfort, this thread is the first one I checked out as soon as I could go online again )

Gramphos,
Fantastic research man! I thoroughly investigated the existance of a link between the name Salamanca and Iroquois civilization back then but couldn't find anything. Don't know how I managed to overlook that but all the more respect to you for finding it after all! This moves the Spanish to the 'suggestions based on clues' list.

Though nothing is certain yet, I think this means we figured out all the civs! All that's left to do is finding some harder evidence on Babylonians, Aztec and Persians and resolve the Mongol-Japan issue, which interestingly enough seems to be shifting more and more towards Japan (I wouldn't like this personally but unfortunately Firaxis is calling the shots, not me). Thanks to Kenobi and Phutnote for their useful info. You both make good points. I have one point of criticism though:

I think Firaxis has been pretty good with its research, so there's no way it's a representation of good old Genghis.

This is not true, I and others have noted many small or larger historic accuracies already (one example being Alexander the Great not having long hair, but there are many others). For this reason I'm going to leave this issue open (at 50/50) for now. Unless very strong evidence or an overwelming amount of clues comes along for one of the nations I'm gonna keep this as it is. I'll move the Japanese civ up to the '100% certain' list to indicate one of the civs is certainly in but we don't know which one yet and that the issue is completely open and could go either way.

Edit: typos and stuff...


So far, based on our evidence, we know that:

100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:

1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names (capital), Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer), city names (capital), multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed), city names
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar), city name (capital), Unique Unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), city names (capital), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG), city names
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed), (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference, city names (capital)
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%) or JAPANESE (50%) - one of these two is certainly in but which one is still open for debate, evidence consists of a Leader (Genghis Kahn or not?) and possibly a Japanese Unique Unit (Samurai(?))
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (Hiawatha; 100% confirmed), city names, text references, Unique Unit (75% Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great, city names (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplite(?)), text reference, video reference.


EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS (which means they could be in or not):

14. PERSIANS - City names (capital)
15. BABYLONIANS - City name
16. AZTECS - City names


SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):

17. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca, but it was once a Roman city and there's also an Iroquois city with that name.
18. VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
19. ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.
20. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.
21. CONFEDERATES. As refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
22. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.


--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:

Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.

-------------------------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.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.

--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------

* The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.

[Eli]

[Immortal Wombat]

Couldn't the game have both mongols and japanese? did I miss something that said there was definatly only one of them?

If Bactra in fact was part of Babylonia rather than Persia, then that would make the 14 top civilizations (mongols + japanese) with the Aztecs and Babylonians the 16 civs included.

[death_head]

I don't see the point of these self-imposed Civ limitations...

[Zealot]

Why aren't the portuguese a civ in the game? They could be a unique civ too! We had a huge empire on the XVI century! The trade ability could be exploited!

[Locutus]

IW,
You disappoint me You played Harlan's Alexander scenario (CtP2), you ought to know that Babylon and Bactra are about 1000 miles apart. Bactra lies near the present day Afghanistan-Uzbekistan border while the Babylonians never came much further east than the Iran-Iraq border. Also, Persepolis as anything else than a Persian capitol seems unlikely to me. OTOH, it would be possible for that Babylonian city we saw in a screenshot (Nippur IIRC) to be a Persian city, though that still seems far-fetched.

As I said in my previous post, nothing is certain yet. We only have 13 civs confirmed (and one only half: Japan or Mongol, we don't know which one), which still leaves three positions open. In theory even the Arabs could still be in, though that's not very likely of course. It's possible that the Babylonians are Persians are in fact one civ and that the Mongol and Japanese are both in but the evidence we currently have suggests otherwise.

death_head,
What do you mean by 'self-imposed Civ limitations'?

Zealot,
Yeah well, I'd like to see the Arabs, Spanish, Dutch, Khmer and a whole bunch of other civs as well but it ain't gonna happen. Firaxis only wants 16 civs (most likely), so they have to make some choices that many people won't like. I'm sure there will be mods and expansion packs and stuff though with all these civs included...

[Zealot]

It still isn't fair, Locutus! It was bad enough that the portuguese weren't on Colonization! And on Civ 2 we weren't present again, but the carthaginians and the vikings were! I'm sorry, but these civs didn't have the historical impact that the portuguese have.

And another thing that pisses me off is that Macau was founded in 1557 by the portuguese, and the city of Macau is already on Civ3 and is part of the chinese empire!! The nerve!!
http://viewer.fgnonline.com/fgn_medi...ews%2Fbusy.jpg

[TechWins]

The reason why Firaxis has included so little amount of civs is because they wanted to make each and every civ unique. They stated that they would rather have less unique civs than have a lot of bland civs.

[me_irate]

All i can say is that at least one civ from mesopotamia should be in there. These were the first civs and IMO the most important. I believe Babylonians are the most likely simply because they were in civ 1. The babylonians, assirians, persians, pretty much covered the same land. While each had its own land the others didn't the main part Babylon, Ur, Akkad Ashur and many of those cities were owned by all three (not to mention other civs) Even if one sees babylon in a screen shot it does not make the babylonians a sure thing simply because for a time i believe babylon was even the capital of persia. As well as persepolis Akkad and about 5 other cities.

Originally posted by Locutus
As I said in my previous post, nothing is certain yet. We only have 13 Civs confirmed (and one only half: Japan or Mongol, we don't know which one), which still leaves three positions open. In theory even the Arabs could still be in, though that's not very likely of course. It's possible that the Babylonians are Persians are in fact one civ and that the Mongol and Japanese are both in but the evidence we currently have suggests otherwise.

Locutus good job. Just a thought. If you wanted to make money and you are Firaxis, would you not include the Japanese and not the Mongol. Also include Israel. I was thinking about how many computer there is in Israel and Japan compare to Mongolia. Or for that matter how many computer in the Arab world. And before someone jump all over this I mean computer that people can play games on and not (be killed for doing so) the Gov. or Business computer.

[Locutus]

Zealot,
I beg to differ. The Carthagians and Vikings had a very big impact on history. The Portuguese were important too but they certainly weren't more important than the other two. Whether or not certain civs were in previous games shouldn't have any impact on which civs are in Civ3. I mean, that would almost force Firaxis to leave the Romans, Greek and Chinese out and certainly you'll agree that that wouldn't be a very good idea?

I agree the Portuguese are a major civ, but I'm not sure if they're in the top 16 (then again, I could say the same of the Iroquois and French).

I certainly agree that it's ridiculous that Macao is a Chinese city, I sure hope that will be fixed before the game hit's the stores.

Techwing,
I know, but that doesn't mean I (or anyon else) have to agree. Personally I think it's quite possible to have 32 civs and still make them all unique. You just shouldn't include too many similar civs (FE Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Persian, etc), but more not-so-obvious but still very important civs like the Ethiopians, Hebrew, Khmer, Bantu, Polish, Arabs, Polynesians, etc.

Me_irate,
I agree, there is indeed a lot of overlap between various ME civs. That's exactly why city-names alone aren't sufficient as evidence for a civ's inclusion. But Persepolis in particular was a very Persian city. The only other civs that ruled over it AFAIK are the Greeks (very briefly, during the reign of Alexander the Great) and the Romans. IMHO seeing Persepolis in a screenshot is a strong clue that the Persians are included, though it's still no certainty. For Babylon and Nippur and other cities that are actually located in Mesopotamia (Persepolis lies well outside it as you no doubt know), I agree that this is by no means a guarantee that the founder-civ is included, though the possibility exists and shouldn't be ignored.

Joseph,
Thanks. I don't think money should be too much of a concern for Firaxis. If it was, then the Koreans, Canadians and Dutch (among others) would also 'have to' be included. Besides, Civ3 is even among non-TBS players one of the most anticipated games of the year (or next year ), Firaxis will have to try very hard to not make Civ3 a big hit (see Diablo 2: it s*cked yet it sold). So it's not really necessary for Firaxis to let Marketing pick the civs.

But even if I'm all wrong, your reasoning still can't be used in this thread as an argument to include the Japanese rather than the Mongols. It's by no means hard evidence and IMHO hardly counts as a clue either; it's mere speculation.

[me_irate]

I don't believe that the carthagains should be in the game. I believe the phoenecians should be. Carthage was but a colony that took over the remaining Phoenecian empire after they fell to alexander. Phoenecians were probley the greatest seafarers of ancient time and clearly controlled the seas.

another note i believe the japenese deserve a place far more than the mongols. They are better represented as barbarians that roam in hoards not a civilization.

[me_irate]

Originally posted by Locutus
The only other civs that ruled over it AFAIK are the Greeks (very briefly, during the reign of Alexander the Great) and the Romans.

Also didn't the Selucid greeks controll Persepolis for a time after alexanders death? Or did they lose it right afterward to rebellion? And i also had it in my mind that one of the Arab nations controlled it in ancient times as well this might not be correct though, i cant rember for sure.

[TechWins]

I know, but that doesn't mean I (or anyon else) have to agree. Personally I think it's quite possible to have 32 civs and still make them all unique. You just shouldn't include too many similar civs (FE Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Persian, etc), but more not-so-obvious but still very important civs like the Ethiopians, Hebrew, Khmer, Bantu, Polish, Arabs, Polynesians, etc.

No, of course you don't have to agree with it. I was just simply explaining the fact why there are so little amount of civs. I would like to have 32 civs as well. With the Brazil, Incas, Aztecs (not suer if they're in the selected 16), either Turkey or the Ottoman Empire (whatever you want to call them), and many others. I want to have more western hemisphere civs because there is a lack of them. Not that I neccesarily would like to play with them it's just that they should try to balance out the civs for each continent. Obviously the European area should have the most because there are many civs in that area that deserve to be in (i.e. English, French, Germans, Spanish, Vikings, Polish, Romans, Greek, and many others).