Civs included. Just the facts madam 2.

[Locutus]

me_irate,
I totally agree with you on Carthagians vs Phoenecians. Unfortunately (and unjustly) neither is likely to be included in Civ3 so it's not really an issue.

I'm sure we're all very well aware of your opinion on the Mongol-Japanese issue, you've expressed it many times already. I also pointed out at least as often that your opinion is IMHO simply not based on the facts, so I won't bother doing that again.

My knowlegde of Persian history is fairly limited so I can't confirm or deny your statements about Persepolis offhand and I don't think it's important enough to look up. Even if they are true I still think myself that Persepolis has the reputation of being a typically Persian city. Adding it to the Greeks, Arabs, Babylonians or whatever makes about as much sense as adding Brussels to the Spanish or Paris to the Germans does. Sure, they may have ruled the city at some point in history but does that truly make it part of their civ?

Techwing,
I understand what you were trying to say. I also fully agree with you that Civ games so far (except maybe the CtP series) have been way too Western-oriented. Lately I've been playing around with a new list of Wonders for CtP2 and tried to include as many different civs as possible from all parts of the world. Doing this I've come up with a whole list of civs that were actually quite important but have never been in any civ game. In fact, of the roughly 50 wonders I came up with (from almost as many different civs), only 15 or so are from 'Western' civs (Rome, Greece, Western Europe, US).

[TechWins]

Techwing

First of all it's TechWins, not Techwing. That's no big deal, though.

I'm also baffled how there has never been any mention (from people at this forum) of Southeast Asia or Southest Pacific civ to be put in. Well, maybe some people have mentioned that area but primarily for the fact of nationalism and wanting Australia to be in. I'm not sure if any civs in that area have compiled that great of history but I still think that area should have some attention paid to it. At least, perhaps, Indonesia or Australia. Indonesia has a very large population as of right now so I'm sure over the years they have a rich history. Australia is a fairly new nation but they should recieve some recognition in certain areas, I would imagine.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by TechWins


At least, perhaps, Indonesia or Australia. Indonesia has a very large population as of right now so I'm sure over the years they have a rich history. Australia is a fairly new nation but they should recieve some recognition in certain areas, I would imagine.

As an Australian, I appreciate the nod to Oz. However, as much as much as I love this country, we just don't cut it as a world power. We'll just have to be content with having the world's best rugby team, cricket team, swimmers, etc...

Arguably Australia is just another colonial offshoot of Greater Britain (stand up: USA, Canada, New Zealand, Sth Africa) anyway. We Ozzies just chose the best place to live...

As to Indonesia, it has never been a single civilization, but a collection of kingdoms and cultures united by the Dutch, and now independent. It's a big country demographically speaking, but hasn't contributed much to the world stage as yet.

[Rasputin]

the included civs are realy only for those too lazy to cutomize and add their own city names.. I just hope that firaxis allows us to change all the civs in the game to custom civs each game ....

Originally posted by TechWins
I'm also baffled how there has never been any mention (from people at this forum) of Southeast Asia or Southest Pacific civ to be put in

I did mention the Polynesian, or at lease talked about them around 3 to 4 months ago. No one really know how long they have been on the Pacific Islands. They did not keep any type of record. Europe found them in the 15 & 1600. Get this Taiwan is not Chinese. Yes they claim it but when the Dutch landed there in the 1600, the only people that lived there was the Polynesian. They told the Dutch that one in a while a Chinese Pirate would hide there but always left. It was the Dutch that brought the Chinese to the Island. (Slaves) If anyone doe's not believe go to the Taiwan site on the Internet and read their history.

[Locutus]

TechWins,

First of all it's TechWins, not Techwing. That's no big deal, though.

Oops, sorry. And yes, it is a big deal: just a few days ago I complained to Markos about misspelling my name in a CtP2 newsitem. Sure, it was a newsitem and not a forumpost and my real name rather than my handle, but still, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Well, I for one have agrued for the inclusion of such civs. Maybe not in this thread or even in this Civ3 forum, but that's mainly because I don't post here very often and because there's only limited room for civs in Civ3. For the CtP series however, which can support many more civs, I have at some point agrued to include each of these civs: the Khmer, Birmese, Annam (= Vietnamese civ), Thai, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Philippines, Polynesians, Moari, Aboriginals, Australians and New Zealanders. However, I do realize that many of these civs are 'mediocre' civs rather than 'great' civs and if there's not enough room, I can fully understand if most of these are not used. For Civ3, with only 16 available positions, I would only regard the Khmer as a serious candidate. But yes, you are right when you say that very little people seem to care about these civs (mostly due to a lack of knowlegde about them, I suspect).

Kenobi,
Yes, Indonesia is but a loose collection of nations united by their colonial rulers but the exact same thing goes for India, North America, Polynesia, large South American countries and to some lesser extend nations like the Greeks, Italians, Germans, Russians and Chinese (there weren't any colonial rulers there, but they really aren't/weren't united either, much to the contrary). This doesn't mean though that they don't share any common attributes or can't be used as a single civ (even if only to keep the total number of civs down while still not leaving any civs out).

Rasputin,
Have you considered the amount of work it takes for a 'amateur' modmaker to create custom animated leader pics, unique units and city styles?


So far, based on our evidence, we know that (no changes):

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 a possible 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 and 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.

[Wernazuma III]

I have to disagree with the opinion that Persians are nothing but another mesopotamian civ. Their heartland lies east to it and Persians are one of the most important continuous Civs in history. (Old) Persians, Parthians, Sassanids, Muslims and mongol-like rulers: they all had to cope with the uniqueness of the persian people. I would be disappointed if they weren't in. (Of course I want the Babylonians in too).

[Footie Mad]

Could someone post an URL to the swedish article that mentioned the confederate leader?

[JamesJKirk]

Maybe you should include the color, if it's been seen of the confirmed and even unconfirmed civs.

Willie- why do you need a reference, do you have a problem with this? The article came out long ago, it mentioned the possibility of a Stonewall Jackson leader. Too long ago to remember, check the news archives. I remember an article mentioned Patton too long ago

[JellyDonut]

Almost 3000 views.

Maybe someone from Firaxis will tell us whether that leader is Mongol or Japanese.

P.S. I think he's Japanese.

[Footie Mad]

Willie- why do you need a reference, do you have a problem with this? The article came out long ago, it mentioned the possibility of a Stonewall Jackson leader. Too long ago to remember, check the news archives. I remember an article mentioned Patton too long ago

I just wanted to see it with my own eyes.

[Locutus]

Wernazuma III,
I don't think anyone actually said that Persia was Mesopatamian, only that it ruled over Mesopotamia, like many other civs (and could possibly be left out for that very reason). I wouldn't be happy with their exclusion either but with only 16 civs in the game I wouldn't know which other civ could be left out instead either (but the same things goes for most of the civs mentioned in this thread so far).

Wille,
The Swedish article can be found here (English translation by Henrik is here). BTW Patton is mentioned in this very article. Good thing you mention it, I should include it in the next summary as well.

JamesJKirk,
Hmm, I'm not sure if color would add anything to the discussion, we don't even know yet if the civs are tied to a color at all (I sure hope not, that would make it impossible again to play with FE the Americans and the Chinese in the same game). Also, much of the evidence is based on text references and leader/unit pics, the number of civs of which the color can be seen at all is probably fairly limited. But if others would like this as well, I guess I could start keeping track of it.

JellyDonut,
3000 views, that's a LOT! (I use the light style, so I never see the number of views) Well, it's good to know we're not doing this just for ourselves

Better yet, they could just give us the full list of civs (officially or unofficially) That would end our quest here and now! We already figured out 75% and have a good idea about the other 25%, so it shouldn't be all that sensitive info anymore...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Locutus
Wernazuma III,
I don't think anyone actually said that Persia was Mesopatamian, only that it ruled over Mesopotamia, like many other civs (and could possibly be left out for that very reason).

Anyone wants to leave out the greeks because of that?

I still pray for 32 official civs, although they probably remain unheard...

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Anyone wants to leave out the greeks because of that?

I still pray for 32 official civs, although they probably remain unheard...

There are alot of things pointing towards a low number of civs, they will have to balance more and more unique units and not to forget the leader animations which im pretty sure are alot of work.
But im hoping for 32 as well

Originally posted by joseph1944


I did mention the Polynesian, or at lease talked about them around 3 to 4 months ago. No one really know how long they have been on the Pacific Islands. They did not keep any type of record. Europe found them in the 15 & 1600. Get this Taiwan is not Chinese. Yes they claim it but when the Dutch landed there in the 1600, the only people that lived there was the Polynesian. They told the Dutch that one in a while a Chinese Pirate would hide there but always left. It was the Dutch that brought the Chinese to the Island. (Slaves) If anyone doe's not believe go to the Taiwan site on the Internet and read their history.

Tech go back to page 4 of this thread and start from the top and you will see that I did mention the Polynesian and Locutus did ans.

[TechWins]

Tech go back to page 4 of this thread and start from the top and you will see that I did mention the Polynesian and Locutus did ans.

Oh, sorry about that. I may have just missed your post.

[tniem]

Originally posted by JamesJKirk
Maybe you should include the color, if it's been seen of the confirmed and even unconfirmed civs.

While it has been said before, I just would like to add that I certainly hope that civ is not tied to color. To not be able to have two civs in a game due to color is going to be hard for MP games. And it is also not as fun to be able to narrow down the leaders you are going to face simply because you know who you have already met with. Please, Firaxis do not tie color to civs.

[JellyDonut]

It seems most likely (to me at least) that civs ARE tied to color . The Americans and Chinese have been light blue in all screenshots so far and unless they're all from just 2 games or its just a big coincidence it will work like Civ2. On the plus side, they can't stick 3 civs to a color (unless 16 isn't the magic number).

[Gramphos]

Locutus:
I'm just glad to help you
I think you can remove the '?' after the Hoplites, as the text reference of Greeks says that Hoplites will be their unique unit. (I'm 99% sure, but I don't remember where that text reference is).

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

Um, sorry for bursting in like that, I just got my password after a year of not having access to my registered email address...
I am not going to reply to things in the entire thread (which I've just read ), but I am going to blatantly ignore all logic and evidence and remark that despite certain remarks by noteworthy individuals here, the Arabs are certainly not a meager, unimportant civilisation. How about 600 years ruling (eventually) a quarter of asia (can't generate the map of the top of me head, it's not very important anyway.), all of northern africa, half of spain, influencing central africa and all the while sitting at the top of Old World culture while Europe sat in it's pitiful Middle Ages? Granted, the Chinese were also prominent at the time (and, in fact, long before and after the fall of the Arabs at the hands of the old Khan), and the Japanese, Koreans and Indians also made singnificant advances throughout that time period and before it, the Arabs were at the top of the world for at least 400-500 years. They're a formidable foe even now, though not united and totally disgraced culturally.
Also, as much respect as I have for my American friends, America, as was previously said, is hardly a civilisation worth mentioning. Although I must admit that it's grand campaigns and achievments during the 20th Century have certainly bought them a place in History.
The Israelis? As much as I'd love to see them in, I think that it would be best to remove them from the list. After all, we all know that our favorite rough nation will not be included. I'm sure that we're fanatic enough to make a custom civ about a week after the game is out . But do remove them and avoid embarassment. For us.
Lastly, I must do what I've longed for in the past year, commend you all on your marvelous work here, on the website and in the forums. Indeed, you are a bunch of fanatic fans. I like that, esp. when it promotes interest and study in History, Society and Military.
BTW, what's AFAIK?

May the Force be with you,
~Mark.

PS. Goody, now it allows unregistered ppl...

[Colon™]

Re the Arabs I think including them isn't possible because it stumbles on practical problems: they'd have to start in the desert.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Locutus
.

That's true, joseph, but the way I'd like to see it is that the Nigerians were just a subgroup of a much larger civilization, the Bantu, a civ that pretty much lived in the whole of Africa below the Sahara. I'd like the see the Bantu in as a single civ; one could argue that including the Nigerians and not the Bantu is like including the Texans but not the Americans. The only difference is that we know fairly little about Bantu culture and the connections between various tribes were probably much weaker than the connections between American states.

Well er there never was a STATE that incorporated all the bantus, as there was one which incorporated all the Americans. so if we're talking states than a west african coastal state is appropriate, as is Zimababwe, and the Zulu state.

If we're talking languages than bantu still doest cover most of coastal west africa - bantu is a seperate sun grouop of the niger/congo family. if we're talking large language families than we could include all niger congo speakers - but then why seperate vikings, english and germans - or French. Spanish, and Romans?

But then its not very clear what the hell we are talking about.

Which is why it would be better to go back to generic civs, and lots of em.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

[SIZE=1]
Also, as much respect as I have for my American friends, America, as was previously said, is hardly a civilisation worth mentioning. Although I must admit that it's grand campaigns and achievments during the 20th Century have certainly bought them a place in History.

America, despite the shared language with britain, is really as culturally distinct as France, Germany, etc. If you want to focus on civilizations, rather than nation states and national cultures, you should just lump america, britain, france, germany, spain in as a europeans or western civ.

which just further points up how silly these discussions are, how unclear the concepts behind them are, and why we were better off with generic civs.

As for israel, how about getting the best of both worlds with your arab civ, and lets have us a mizrahi jewish civ - an eastern counterpart to the "yiddish" civ i posted about some time ago.

makes as much sense as most of whats posted on this topic.

LOTM

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Mark_Lipovrovskiy
the Arabs were at the top of the world for at least 400-500 years. They're a formidable foe even now, though not united and totally disgraced culturally.

I agree that the arabs should get in, though I think you may have exaggerated the reach of the empire, given the "Arab" empire stretching from Spain to India was not totally "Arab", but Muslim. The people who conquered Spain (or should we say Hispanica, as the Romans called it, before they were routed by the visigoths) were muslim, but mostly moors and berbers, not arabs. Yes, there is a difference, just like the Iranians (i.e. Persians) are not arab, though they are muslim.

I think your comment that the arabs are "totally disgraced culturally" is a little harsh. A couple of decades of terrorism from a frustrated and desperate people should not cause us to discard the contributions that Muslims have made to astronomy, mathematics (remember these:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9? They came from the arabs, as did the zero and algebra), medicine and poetry. In terms of religion, there are more muslims than christians in the world, so there has to be something going for the culture.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems that they're not in.

I think Colon's point on them starting off in a desert is good one, but the coastal area around Mecca (where Muhammad was born) on the Red Sea is not a total desert, and we could easily place one or two oasis tiles to get the arabs going.

Originally posted by Kenobi


In terms of religion, there are more Muslims than Christians in the world, so there has to be something going for the culture.

My Encyclopedia (copywrite 1982) said there was 1 billion Christians back in 82 and they were the larges religion. There was only 500 Million Muslims then.

In order to replace Christians they would have to increase over 6 to 700 million, while Christians stay about the same. All of the America are Christian. All of Europe is Christian except for Albania and the piece of Turkey that is in Europe. The Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific Islands are Christian.
The Muslims world are North Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia.
The Hindus may now outnumber the Christian with their Pop. in India.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by joseph1944


My Encyclopedia (copywrite 1982) said there was 1 billion Christians back in 82 and they were the larges religion. There was only 500 Million Muslims then.

In order to replace Christians they would have to increase over 6 to 700 million, while Christians stay about the same. All of the America are Christian. All of Europe is Christian except for Albania and the piece of Turkey that is in Europe. The Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific Islands are Christian.
The Muslims world are North Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia.
The Hindus may now outnumber the Christian with their Pop. in India.

I'm happy to be corrected on this one, joseph44, but the 1bn number looks pretty high for 1982. What was the world's population back then? Four billion?

Maybe if you add in the population of all the "Christian" countries you could get to something like that, but not all the inhabitants of the USA, Brazil, Russia, European Union etc. are Christian (i.e. actively practice Christianity). On the other side, Islam has Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and lots of Central Asian (ex-Soviet) republics to include. There are still a lot of muslims in India, China and Africa. Also, Muslim countries have tended to grow at a rapid rate (due to a high birth rate), so it's possible they could overtaken the 1bn figure you quoted.

Not all Indians are Hindu - there are Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs etc. in the mix.

Anyone out there want to settle it with up to date numbers?

Originally posted by Kenobi
What was the world's population back then? Four billion?
Maybe if you add in the population of all the "Christian" countries you could get to something like that, but not all the inhabitants of the USA, Brazil, Russia, European Union etc. are Christian (i.e. actively practice Christianity). On the other side, Islam has Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and lots of Central Asian (ex-Soviet) republics to include. There are still a lot of muslims in India, China and Africa. Also, Muslim countries have tended to grow at a rapid rate (due to a high birth rate), so it's possible they could overtaken the 1bn figure you quoted.
Not all Indians are Hindu - there are Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs etc. in the mix.
Anyone out there want to settle it with up to date numbers?

The book said Hindu then was 445,000,000 million, Muslim 45,000,000 million, and Christian 14,000,000, did not list buddhists in India, just said they were there. Those ex-Soviet Republics population are not that big. In 1982 there was Azerbaijan 6,000,000, Kazakh 14.6 million, Tadzhik 3.8 million, Turkmen 2.7 million, Uzbek 15.4 million. 42.5 m for the region. The other ex-Soviet states in the region are Christian.
I don't think the people who are Muslin double their population in 20 years. India only grew 150 to 200 mil in 20 years and they had a base of 600 to 700 mil to start with.

[Colon™]

"I think Colon's point on them starting off in a desert is good one, but the coastal area around Mecca (where Muhammad was born) on the Red Sea is not a total desert, and we could easily place one or two oasis tiles to get the arabs going."

Maybe, but their nearest environment is also desert which restricts their expansion. (unlike the Romans or Chinese for instance)
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned in this thread before (haven't read all) but you also have to consider that they build their empire by swallowing other which isn't an option in 4000BC.
Maybe you can make them viable using fudges but that complicates things and you'd risk unbalancing the game.

[Grumbold]

Quality of historical terrain is no reason to include or exclude a civilisation from contention. Comments have been made in the past about the impracticality of having nations like England on a world map because you'd be lucky to get one decent city on the British Isles tiles. In fact the same applies to almost any European nation. Conversely the traditional Arabic stomping grounds were vast (if we are talking Arab in the wider sense) and a combination of trackless wasteland with astonishing pockets of fertility that Civ tiles fail dismally to represent. With almost all games of Civ likely to be conducted on random maps it could be the Arabs stuck in the arctic circle and the Germans learning how to survive sandstorms.

[Colon™]

Well if you insist on playing the Arabs because of their historical importance, why play on the random map, which somewhat lacks historical references?

Besides, if you can squeeze 3 cities into the British Isles as in civ2 and modify the AI to focus on shipping technologies and units, you can have a perfectly viable, even powerful English civ.
It was already possible in civ2 (provided there wasn’t competition in continental Europe) so I don’t think it would give much problems in civ3.