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?

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).]

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 ?

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

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.

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).

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III on 05-20-2001 04:14 PM 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.

This is importand Wernazuma. Was Montreal a city of the Americans? If not which civ's was it? In civ 1 and 2 I mostly played greeks and european civs. I played americans but few times and didn't build a lot of cities so I dont know.

Please you or anybody else that knows answer that one for me.
I'll include a necessairy warning sign next to the Canadians but I want to know the abovementioned question first.

Thanx

[Maxxes]

I've looked it up in city.txt but I can't find Montreal Wernazuma.

[Stefu]

wernazuma raises a good point. Remember how in Civ1 and Civ2 there were those lists of extra city names that would come to use if civ would run out of regular city names? Cunaxa and like. How do we know that Persepolis etc. aren't just more evidence of that sort of city names?

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Stefu on 05-20-2001 04:41 PM wernazuma raises a good point. Remember how in Civ1 and Civ2 there were those lists of extra city names that would come to use if civ would run out of regular city names? Cunaxa and like. How do we know that Persepolis etc. aren't just more evidence of that sort of city names?

The exact same thought accured to me and I wrote it down. But then I erased it because as you remember when you had built a lot of cities and the integral city names were all used up, then your civ would start use the city names of another civ that also existed in the game.

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

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III on 05-20-2001 04:11 PM 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.

OK, suppose my dream of 32 civs comes true. Here's how they would break down:

Africa: (3) Egyptians Carthagenians Zulus* Asia: (9) Babylonians Israelis* Persians Arabs* Turks Chinese* Indians* Mongols Japanese*

Europe: (14) Greeks* Celts* Romans Germans* Vikings English* Spanish* Portuguese French* Dutch Danish Russians* Austro-Hungarians Italians

North America: (4) Aztecs Iroquois* Americans (with a "Yankee only" toggle)* Confederates* South America: (1) Incans Austrailia/Oceania: (1) Polynesians

Now, Old World = 26 vs. New World = 6 isn't so bad, is it?
[This message has been edited by Arator (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Al'Kimiya]

Remember Civ1? (and Civ2 as well?) when you've built 16 cities the next city name will be from an "extended list" of cities, that all civs can build, thus you get several Issus etc. Couldn't it be that some of the city names seen on screenshots are from civs already in? Like the Americans build Montreal when the "regular" list of names is depleted?

I'm probably wrong, but it was just a hunch.

[Bereta_Eder]

Al'Kimiya, I'm almost certain it wasn't an extended list. It was a list of another civ that existed in the game.

For example if I kept building dozens of greek cities eventually the roman cities would pop up as titles.

[ancient]

quote: Originally posted by Geography Dan on 05-19-2001 09:32 PM actually, as pitiful as france is, they did win the hundred years war

thats was just about their only win.. and you cant count the world wars because they didnt exactly do anything to win them.. all they did was get whooped..

[ancient]

Hears how i would do that.. with 32 civs..

Africa: 3
Egyptians
Carthagenians
Zulus

Asia: 9
Babylonians
Israelis
Persians
Turks
Chinese
Indians
Mongols
Japanese
Siamese(how could every one ignore siam?)

Europe: 10
Greeks
Romans
Germans
Vikings
English
Spanish
Portuguese
French
Russians
Italians

North America: 6
Aztecs
Iroquois
Americans
Confederates
Mayans
Inuit

South America: 2
Incans
Naztecs

Austrailia/Oceania: 2
Polynesians
Aborigionees (s/p)

Anyways this would be better off. This would make a broader variety or civs and give less creed to europe!
Eastern Hemisphere 24
Western 8
Total 32

[Locutus]

Arator et al,
Your Confederate 'claim' on a place in Civ3 would be very similar to a Basque claim on Civ3; and I think few people would disagree with me if I said that the Basque shouldn't be in Civ3 as a standard civ, the Spanish or even the French would cover them. Surely we agree that Barcelona should be a Spanish city and not be put in it's own civ? (I'm using a city rather than a person since most people don't know any Basque but the idea is the same). So why should the Confederates be a seperate civ then? The Americans cover them just fine.

Actually, paiktis, there were extra cities. Only if you ran out of those as well, you'd get cities of other civs. As evidence, here's part of the civ.exe of Civ1 (I took the liberty of removing the non-printable characters and re-formating it):

Mecca		Naples		Sidon		Tyre
Tarsus		Issus		Cunaxa		Cremona
Cannae		Capua		Turin		Genoa
Utica		Crete		Damascus		Verona
Salamis		Lisbon		Hamburg		Prague
Salzburg		Bergen		Venice		Milan
Ghent		Pisa		Cordoba		Seville
Dublin		Toronto		Melbourne		Sydney

And from City.txt of Civ2 (again, re-formated):

@EXTRA
Naples		Issus		Cunaxa		Cremona
Cannae		Capua		Turin		Genoa
Crete		Verona		Salamis		Lisbon
Hamburg		Prague		Salzburg		Bergen
Venice		Milan		Ghent		Pisa
Dublin		Toronto		Melbourne		Sydney
@STOP

Unless this is represents the secret nation of the Knight's Templar or something these look like extra cities to me

I don't think this is too serious a problem for our list though. I mean, if we see a city name of a certain civ that's not enough evidence to regard that civ as in the game, that just makes them a possibility. All civs that are in for sure (or almost for sure) have overwhelming evidence in their favour, so as long as we maintain this strict selection policy we'll figure it out eventually.

Edit: HTML formatting s*cks...
[This message has been edited by Locutus (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Jer8m8]

Isn't it possible that the people just renamed their city to Montreal? I mean, instead of calling it Washington, you could call the cities Ottawa, Vancuver, Toronto, Montreal, etc. So, if you don't care about the leader picture, which you probably won't see (do you ever see yourself w/o a mirror) someone could have Americans mean North Americans

[Bereta_Eder]

Locutus,
You are precise and with excellent research yet again The plans for the detective's office are starting to materialize in my mind
I agree with what you say about the confederates. Still, Arator had a suggestion and a name so it's ok to include them in the civs based on clues.
The extra cities list are really impressive. Once again you exposed the truth to light! BUT, do we know if these extra were COMMON for all civs?

Even if we don't, I agree with you the list is 100% precise as it is. The civs are categorized on the evidence we have and the 100% confirmed are in.

So, Stefu, Al'Kimiya you were absolutely right

Jer8,
Of course it is possible. But I don't see your point. The evidence about the 100% civs are based on leaders and uniques that we are certain they belong to the corresponding civ. The other civs are in the list in their correct place according to the evidence we have about them.
If for example we had a picture of Alexander the Great the Greeks would automatically go to the 100% civs.


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

[Bereta_Eder]

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 (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

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

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.

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).


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



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

[Slax]

Since you are being painstakingly precise in your statements in this thread, I thought I might remind you that "100% Confirmed..." are strong words - based on early builds of the game. Firaxis reserves the right to remove any civ, no matter how "confirmed" it may seem. To me, these lists are of civs which appear to be included in recent builds, and are likely to be included in the final game.
[This message has been edited by Slax (edited May 21, 2001).]