The 8th civ spot- a study of the evidence - Page 2

jdd2007 · June 10, 2002, 16:08

im a little late, i know, but where did the 7-letter test come from?

Spiffor · June 10, 2002, 16:45

In PtW video, Jeff Morris selects Civs for some seconds. We see 7 names which could be "Mongolia - Ancient" or "Spain - Industrial" (the Civ selection screen was tricked up). The last Civ in the screen seems to have 7 letters. It's extremely blurry, so I won't consider this as an element of proof, especially since the Civ selection screen was tricked up. It could perfectly be the "English" or whatever.

Panag · June 10, 2002, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
Having read the 9 page chat log, I am not convinced the Koreans are in. Flawed logic would say yes, but the key is that the Firaxians never admitted the Koreans were in; nor did they admit the Hwacha was a UU. I am not saying they are not in; I just don't believe the current evidence points conclusively to them being in.

Here, Mike did not confirm it was a UU; what he did was ask another question to throw people off track. Nor did he confirm the Koreans are in during his other response; he again threw people off by making a comment about how to get a GA another way. The thing to remember is that IF Koreans are in, have the Hwacha as a UU, then it would be unbalancing if their UU couldn't start a UU when all the other current UUs can. The Koreans could still be in, with the Hwacha as another arty unit available to all, if you have the necessary resource(s). The last could also be true, without the Koreans being in: a new arty unit.

I did try something today. I made Cannons and Catapults Start GA; Catapults were kept nonlethal; Cannons were made land lethal. Then I put both in a scenario as starting units, since I didn't want to wait that long to test the theory. Results:

Non lethal Catapults damaged several units, but no GA. Cannons destroyed a Babylonian Warrior; GA started. So, if Koreans are in and the Hwacha is a UU, then Lethal Bombardment would have to be enabled for it to cause a GA, as the game currently works.

The beta testers will know soon enough, but they won't be able to tell us. This sounds like it may be one of the last civs revealed since it is such a hot topic; what bettter marketing ploy than to withhold it until last?

According to the chat, some of the early units for Civ 3 didn't make the cut into the final product.

hi ,

the last line , .....true , this had something to do with infogrames pushing , also , Sid wanted to go further , way further but this was deemed as unreal and to much , people where saying that no-one could "control" this , that it was to much at ones , ....
BUT , there should be more stuff in , a lot more , and more wonders , and even some civ-specific wonders (!) , ...

have a nice day

History Guy · June 10, 2002, 17:46

We must take into consideration the fact that the Arabs were only mentioned in one article, and it was the same article that reported that the 'Gauls' were in. The Turks certainly look to be in, as the picture of the chap that was released to us certainly appears Turkish in appearance. I have a suspicion that there aren't any Arabs in Civ3 PTW after all! I put forward my opinion that there are then two empty spots, and I believe that the one is now filled by Korea. Therefore, the last one shall be Hebrew or Inca. I think it'll be the Incas. The Koreans makes up for that seven letter word.

civman2000 · June 10, 2002, 18:41

yeah, and "Inca" or "Incas" could easily fit into what was previously thoughtto be the arabs...

Oerdin · June 10, 2002, 18:52

I know the Arabs and the Turks are totally different but it seems a shame to include two middle eastern civs and not a single one from the Americas or Africa.

Panag · June 10, 2002, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I know the Arabs and the Turks are totally different but it seems a shame to include two middle eastern civs and not a single one from the Americas or Africa.

hi ,

they could put the arabs from marocco to algeria , from yemen to syria , ....room enough to put them

no for real , they should be in , put them in the current sahara , .....

have a nice day

ranskaldan · June 10, 2002, 22:29

Tsk tsk......

but seriously, many civilizations are clustered into a thin band running across Eurasia, and Civ should reflect that. Unless we're planning to dump the Spanish and the Japanese too, I don't see why we should leave either the Turks or the Arabs out.

Imp. Montezuma · June 11, 2002, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I know the Arabs and the Turks are totally different but it seems a shame to include two middle eastern civs and not a single one from the Americas or Africa.

Arabs in Africa too, from Mauretania to Zanzibar.
BTW Africa included in "Middle East Group" by game terms.

Oerdin · June 11, 2002, 13:12

The Arabs didn't arrive in north Africa until the 8th century. If the Arabs are in then they should start them in in the correct spot or not include them at all.

Imp. Montezuma · June 11, 2002, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Arabs didn't arrive in north Africa until the 8th century. If the Arabs are in then they should start them in in the correct spot or not include them at all.

You are right. I'm work on modeling of Arabs in Earth started in Medina. They stil weak even in GA. May be need special bonus resource like' 'Oasis' +1 Food +1 Shield.

Panag · June 11, 2002, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma

You are right. I'm work on modeling of Arabs in Earth started in Medina. They stil weak even in GA. May be need special bonus resource like' 'Oasis' +1 Food +1 Shield.

hi ,

an oasis would be neat , this could be really nice , imagine the effects of that , on a current world map , , yeah it could work

have a nice day

Imp. Montezuma · June 12, 2002, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

an oasis would be freat , this could be really nice , imagine the effects of that , on a current world map , , yeah it could work

have a nice day

freat?

I want next special 'resources' like 'Volcano' randomly on Mauntains with negative bonus -3 Food, -3 Shield, +1 Gold; 'Tornado' with watever bonus

Darkworld Ark · June 12, 2002, 21:20

I don't see what peoples' problem is with the Middle EAst being crowded, because it is. Anyways, who plays on the real world map anyways, even if Firaxis adds a real world senario with realistic starting points, what's the fun in knowing were all the other civilizations are going to be?

Panag · June 13, 2002, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma

freat?

I want next special 'resources' like 'Volcano' randomly on Mauntains with negative bonus -3 Food, -3 Shield, +1 Gold; 'Tornado' with watever bonus

hi ,

NEAT , thanks , ...

now , "tornado" + bonus , ....

have a nice day

kring · June 21, 2002, 03:15

Ugo latest screen shots

In some of these screen shots, it is obvious some names have been juried up. In the one above, you have monkey, cub,, and tiger for city names.

Mikhail · June 21, 2002, 19:28

First of all, there really is "no" evidence. The civ select screen in the video was tricked up. The XP is still months away, I'd say that's plenty of time for Firaxis to change their minds about any of the civs. Mongols and Spanish are the only ones that have been directly confirmed by Firaxis.

Especially if Firaxis is releasing a second XP in time like they say they are. They'll have to have some popular civs left for it.

As for the mid-east being crowded, it won't be any more than Europe. Spain, France, Gauls, Rome, Germany, Russia....When you're setting up a game, you just have to think logically about what civs to include in each region (No way will Firaxis allow a 24 player game. 16 is near unplayable as it is). I NEVER include Rome, as they just end up trapped on the Itallian penninsula with 2 or 3 cities, and get conquered by France or Germany.

also, as far as I know, the F-15 can't generate a great leader either, but it's still a UU. I'm not sure though, I never play as America.

Panag · June 21, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Mikhail
First of all, there really is "no" evidence. The civ select screen in the video was tricked up. The XP is still months away, I'd say that's plenty of time for Firaxis to change their minds about any of the civs. Mongols and Spanish are the only ones that have been directly confirmed by Firaxis.

Especially if Firaxis is releasing a second XP in time like they say they are. They'll have to have some popular civs left for it.

As for the mid-east being crowded, it won't be any more than Europe. Spain, France, Gauls, Rome, Germany, Russia....When you're setting up a game, you just have to think logically about what civs to include in each region (No way will Firaxis allow a 24 player game. 16 is near unplayable as it is). I NEVER include Rome, as they just end up trapped on the Itallian penninsula with 2 or 3 cities, and get conquered by France or Germany.

hi ,

they might trow in a bigger map , ...

and when palying on a 256X256 map , why , not , room for 31 civ's , ....

have a nice day

Mikhail · June 21, 2002, 20:18

it's not the 'room' that's the problem with playing with 31 civs. It's the turn time.

Panag · June 22, 2002, 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Mikhail
it's not the 'room' that's the problem with playing with 31 civs. It's the turn time.

hi ,

"turnless" mode , ....;

have a nice day

kring · June 22, 2002, 11:04

In SP, turnless mode may not be an option.

In MP, turnless mode may not be as great as it sounds; only time will tell. Besides which not everyone would want to play in turnless, since it may be less beneficient to the more warmongerers in the group.

Veracitas · June 22, 2002, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
In SP, turnless mode may not be an option.

In MP, turnless mode may not be as great as it sounds; only time will tell. Besides which not everyone would want to play in turnless, since it may be less beneficient to the more warmongerers in the group.

Actually, warmongers will probably love hte option! Imagine, in the ancient age, it's really really hard to sneak up on an opponent. With such slow units, your opponent will most likely know that you're coming and have a whole turn at least to think about it. But imagine if you're checking your production and stuff and five mounted warriors suddenly descend on your cities and take a few before you can even click the EXIT button.

hehehehehhehe!!

::laughs maniacally::

kring · June 22, 2002, 12:16

That sounds wonderful, until you realize the flip side of the coin, and you are on the receiving end of it.

I would truly love to see simultaneous play, similar to the old Diplomacy board game, modified since the units would then attack (which wasn't possible in that game system) each other when vying for the same turf.

I doubt it would work as you say, unless the Mounted Units had a RoP with the other civ. Since you are going to notice them as soon as they get within visual range of your lit areas. Outposts will also factor in by that time.

Considering the warmongering I have read about, I would have a large force at the borders to discourage such behavior.

thinkingamer · June 23, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

The Koreans did not invent movable type printing. Currently there is an argument in academic circles whither China or Korea where the first to invent wood block printing in the 8th century. Wood block printing differs from Guttenburg's movable type in that each page had to be carved out of a piece of wood, thus it could only be used to print a single page over and over,
while Gutenburg's movable type could be rearranged into which ever order the author wished.

According to this site http://www.printersmark.com/Pages/Hi...Anchor-ORIGINS China invented the wood block printing in 6th century. Movable type printing was invented in China in 11th century, not Guttenburg. Koreans were the 1st nation that used METAL movable type, in 1403(first time/and extensibly).

And while not mentioned in this site, Korea was the first to use METAL block printing in 12th century. Also Korea owns the oldest wood block printing (dated 751 or older).

I just want to clarify all this confusion.

siredgar · June 26, 2002, 16:24

Monkspider, I thought you were in the Korea camp... =P

Dimorier Maximus · June 26, 2002, 22:58

I think that the reason Firaxis hasn't told us the 8 civs is because it isn't final yet. They are probably still debating just like we are....all I know is, I hope all the civs they are debating over get in and we end up with 10 or 12 new civs instead of 8.

kring · June 27, 2002, 01:01

In one of the last chats IIRC or in one of the interviews if I didn't, they said the civs were already chosen. They also said the info would be released in press releases, a little at a time, no doubt to build interest.

Panag · June 27, 2002, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I think that the reason Firaxis hasn't told us the 8 civs is because it isn't final yet. They are probably still debating just like we are....all I know is, I hope all the civs they are debating over get in and we end up with 10 or 12 new civs instead of 8.

hi ,

, that would be great , ... who knows , ....

there is room in total for 32 , one for the barbarians , maybe one for the UN , still we have 31 or 30 , ...right now 16 , so there are still 15 or 14 out there , okay lets say they shall use the option of "the country split's in two" , then they should , or could still bring 10 out , at least , ....

, now , all we need is a bigger map , ....

have a nice day