New Eight Civs analysis: just the facts ma'am

monkspider · May 15, 2003, 18:43

Everyone remembers what fun we had last time, what with the hwacha photo and the blurry screenshot of the civ select screen that, upon being blown up, appeared to show the Hebrews as a selectable civ? Now it's that time again, scientifically analyzing all the facts until we know who the eight civs are!

Here is what we KNOW about the Civ 3: Conq
NOTE: This post will be updated as more info leaks out.

--there are eight of them in total. (source: http://www.firaxis.com/company_showr...?releasenum=43)
--They mention a Sumerian UU, therefore it is safe to say that Sumer is definitely in.
--They mention a scenario involving battle with the Inca and Maya, combine this with previous Firaxian comments that the Inca and Maya were the two civs they wish they could have put in PTW, I think we can definitively say that both of them are in. (http://www.firaxis.com/company_showr...?releasenum=43)
--They mention a new unit called the trebuchet. This may or may not be a UU. If it is, then it is a strong point for the Byzantines, as the time period it was used corresponds greatly with the Byzantine's golden age. Also, they are really the only conceivable civ that could it could be a UU for. I must admit my knowledge in this area is scarce, if there are any experts on the trebuchet out there who would care to correct me, I would be honored.
Here are a couple interesting sites on the weapon.
http://www.albertson.edu/physics/PHY...Trebuchet2.htm
http://29.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TR/TREBUCHET.htm
here is an exceprt from one of the sites
"TREBUCHET, a medieval siege engine, employed either to batter masonry or to throw projectiles over walls. It was developed from the post-classical Roman. onager (wild ass), which derived its name from the kicking action of the machine. It consisted of a frame placed on the ground to which a vertical frame of’ solid timber was rigidly fixed at its front end; through the vertical frame ran an axle, which had a single stout spoke. On the extremity of the spoke was a Cup to receive the projectile. In action the spoke was forced down, against the tension of twisted ropes or other springs, by a windlass, and then suddenly released. The spoke thus kicked the crosspiece of the vertical frame, and the projectile at its extreme end was shot forward. In the trébuchet the means of prcipulsion was a counter-weight. The axle which was near the top of a high strutted vertical frame served as the bridge of a balance, the shorter arm of which carried the counter-weight and the longer arm the carrier for the shot. An alternative name for the trébuchet is the mangonel (man gonneau)."
-The main site has the picture of a leader named Mursilis, who was a Hittite King. Oddly though, "Mursilis" has the Ishtar Gate behind him, which has nothing to do with the Hittites. http://www.civ3.com/images/screensho...ursilis_sm.jpg
"Gilgamesh" can be viewed here. http://www.civ3.com/images/screensho...lgamesh_sm.jpg

Here are the standings as of now
1. Sumer (led by Gilgamesh, UU Enikdu Warrior)
2. Inca (UU "Inca Scout")
3. Maya (UU Javelin-throwing warrior of some sort)
4. Hittites (led by Mursilis)
5. ???
6. ???
7. ???
8. ???

List of civilizations that *may* be included.(please note, anything is possible, and all possible civs are not included on this list. For example, if I created this list before the press release, I would have never included Sumer in a million years!)
Hebrews
Khmer
Dutch
Portugese
Poles
Byzantines
Polynesians
Australians
Ethiopians
Mali
Sioux/Cherokee

mrboo123 · May 15, 2003, 18:48

Hebrews, Polish, Byzantines, and if Australias in there, make way for CANADA!

ghen · May 15, 2003, 18:48

They did say a WWII scenario right? That means they'd include the Poles and maybe Italians if Rome isn't good enough. Also, I'm sure they know that most real earth scenarios have real problems in asia with rapid expansion so maybe a vietnamese country?

1 · May 15, 2003, 18:52

Ugh, I hate how they keep including these itty bitty civs. Honestly... I'd rather play against a Germany, Russia, or China.... not Ethopia and such.

monkspider · May 15, 2003, 18:53

just a few more quick thoughts re: the Sioux/Cherokee, they are civs I would have never seriously entertained as being in the next XP, but the inclusion of Sumer all of a sudden makes them very possible. Long time followers of Civ 3 may recall that the Babylonian civ was to represent "all of the cultures and tribes of the southern Mesopotamian region, including the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians, Arameans, and Chaldeans." (source: http://www.civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm?civ=Babylonians).

These same long-time followers may recall that the Iroquois were to represent all of the North-American native tribes, or as Firaxis put it "In Civilization III, the Iroquois represent all the tribes of Northern Native Americans. " (http://www.civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm?civ=Iroquois). Since they are obviously backing away from their previous comments in regards to Babylon's representation of Mesopotamia, it is now very possible that they will back away from the Iroquois's representation as well.

kring · May 15, 2003, 19:03

I would like to see some from the following: Africa, North America, Polynesia, South Asia, Eastern Europe. Western Europe is overrepresented currently, but it may get one or two of the new civs. North America could have another Native American group: Cherokee, Navaho, Dakota, etc. with an additional one from the far north: Eskimo, Aleut, or Inuit.

History Guy · May 15, 2003, 19:08

Poles might just be in by popular demand. Enough people seem to want them. I might beg to defer, but what is the opinion of a humble History Guy in comparison to the cries of the multitudes?

I am rather amazed by the inclusion of Sumerians, actually. I mean, they are the founders of civilization and all, but look here, the Mesopotamian region is crowded enough with all the Levant civs, not to mention Babylon, which needs a serious city list change if the Babylonians don't want to have all of Sumeria's cities from the start...

Byzantium shouldn't go in. It is covered by Rome, and the capital would be Constantinople, which is also the capital of the Ottomans (with Istanbul as the name, of course).

I sincerely doubt we'll see Australians or Canadians in there, but who knows.

Israel/Israelites must definitely be included. Same for Incas. Sumerians and Mayans might be good ideas, but they are on top of other civs. That's four I'm quite sure of, though. I hope they also put in Holland and Portugal. The last two would be Ethiopia or Mali and Polynesia or Angkor. That's my bet.

PLATO · May 15, 2003, 19:10

I doubt that we will see the Cherokee as they were confederated with the Iroquois. They were however located in the eastern NA continent. I can see eithier the Souix or Apache for the western NA continent. (A mounted apache bowman would make agreat UU!!)

Paulypav · May 15, 2003, 19:25

I would certainly like to see a spread of civilizations from around the world among the 8. Obviously it appears that the Incas, Mayans and Sumer are in. A Civ from Southeast Asia, like the Khmer, Polynesians or Vietnamese would be a must. I vote for Australia as well, not only because Australia is cool, but there is no representation from the continent. African representation should come from the Mali, Nubians or Ethiopians.

Here's an interesting thought that I know I won't see. What about having some civs modernize into others. The Hebrews eventually become the Israelis, the Aborigines are the starting civ for the Australians, seeing as most Australians have only been on the continent for a century or two. (Not that us Americans have been here that much longer). Even take an ancient powerhouse like the Romans and have them evolve into a modern day Italy. Many argue for Portuguese inclusion, and if we are to add another European civ they would have to be at or near to the top of the list. They could begin as the Visigoths, from which the Portuguese were descended, and with the Medieval age become the Portuguese. Just an idea.

Nor Me · May 15, 2003, 19:37

Right-clicking on this image gives the name Mursilis.jpg. Searching for Mursilis, I would guess that the Hittites are in.

BigFurryMonster · May 15, 2003, 19:40

You might want to bet in this thead.

History Guy · May 15, 2003, 19:47

Yeah, see my "Heads UP!" thread.

Hittites are definite, which is unfortunate.

monkspider · May 15, 2003, 20:22

Original post updated.

Louis XXIV · May 15, 2003, 20:38

The Trebuchet wasn't called "Byzantine Trebuchet" so it probably isn't a UU

monkspider · May 15, 2003, 20:45

Yep, you're absolutely right Louis.

Azeem · May 15, 2003, 22:50

Um, why does Mursilis have the Ishtar Gates behind them?

alva · May 15, 2003, 23:24

Since this game is all about an alternative timeline, why not include the Neaderthall?

History Guy · May 15, 2003, 23:38

Azeem, I asked the same question. I can only suppose that either 1) the Gilgamesh and Mursilis pics got switched, or 2) it is meant to represent the fact that Mursilis was the chap who conquered Babylon back in the 1600s BC.

brianshapiro · May 16, 2003, 00:24

THE DUTCH SHOULD HAVE THE SLOOP or possibly FLUYT AS THEIR UU, A FASTER MORE ABLE CARAQVEL

Nakar Gabab · May 16, 2003, 00:57

Was Gilgamesh even a real person? I mean we can presume the epic was based on a probable king named Gilgamesh, but he was only king of one city. I guess they can't use Sargon though, since he's an Akkadian.

What's wrong with the Hittites, anyway? They were pretty tough in their day!

There MUST be another African Civ. Ethiopia or the Nubians, please. It'd be a real injustice to see Africa and the Americas shafted again in favor of another 6 civs in Europe or something.

dexters · May 16, 2003, 03:36

Australia and Canada have no place in Civ IMO. We're just offshoot colonies of England with little to distinguish ourselves by, espcially when viewed outside English club (Americans, Australians, Britons and Canadians).

Other Civilizations are far more deserving.

Polynesians have my vote. They colonized much of the south pacific.

Well, you history nuts can go argue about who else could use the spot Australia ought to free up.

TheStinger · May 16, 2003, 03:54

The Byzantines were just Romans, they aren't a seperate civilisation. It would be like having England and Britain( and yes I know Britain has Scotland, Wales as well but you get my point)

a_wanderer · May 16, 2003, 06:12

with all the world regions getting so tightly covered (perhaps with the exception of central africa) i think firaxis are overlooking one of the most important 'region' - eastern europe. eastern europe is deffintiely not only russia - and before there were even the beginnings of anything like traces of a russian country for example a bulgarian country was already very strong (the bulgarians are reperesented as a tribe in civ 3 currently). the poles are also another similar option - though both of these countries have suffered long periods of foreign occupation and are now relatively 'unnoticed'.

the poles have already gotten their share of support in these forums, but i believe the bulgarians have been totally (and quite unjustly) overlooked. of course that they are not a front-line nation for the game, but when it comes to civs 24-32 they deffinitely deserve to have at least a shot.

just a few facts for those of you ho are not familiar - the bulgarians became the first 'tribe' to settle and establish a country in what was deemed a byzantian territorry (south of the danube in the balkan peninsular) in 681 ad against byzantia's will. from this moment on there was a constant struggle between bulgaria and byzantium which byznatium finally won in 1018, though on two occassions constantinople itself was on the verge of being taken by the bulgarians. during that time there are also quite a few intersting facts to note like the decisive intervention of the bulgarians to help byzantium out during a huge arabian siege of constantinople in 717 ad (+/- a couple of years i can't recollect exactly right now). by the time of the height of the bulgarian first state it was one of the major three (and practically only singificant) countries in europe - france, byznatium and bulgaria (bulgaria and france had a common border for roughly 20-30 years in what's present day hungary). apart from warfare achievments the first bulgarian state had also some quite good cultural achievements and has provided the 'cultural start' (very roughly said) for russia - both religion and literature-wise.

there are quite a few interesting facts to note about bulgaria but i doubt that anyone would be interstred to hear more anyway (since it seems like everyone has its favorites, but just to give you an interesting perspective and an option that noone has mentioned so far (i believe) ;_)

pozdravi

History Guy · May 16, 2003, 10:18

Gilgamesh supposedly was a real king, but was so far back that we know terribly little about him. I think Wooley's expeditions turned up some artifacts proving his existence, so he fits. But Enkidu Warriors? Forget it. Enkidu was the fuzzy friend of Gilgamesh whom the gods did in. They would have done better to make some sort of offensive spearman, as most of Sumerian military was made up of such troops.

I sincerely doubt Firaxis is silly enough to forget the Israelites again. I deeply suspect they shall appear.

I doubt we shall see Byzantium, Canada, or Australia, but I don't mind in the least.

Louis XXIV · May 16, 2003, 10:50

They couldn't do anything with an offensive spearman.
Babylon has the equivalent

I think they will inlcude the civ traits that PTW did NOT have (ind, exp ... sci, exp ... mil, exp ... etc)

Panag · May 16, 2003, 11:01

hi ,

wait a min , 16+8 = 24 if there are only 32 slots and the barbs take one that leaves 7 , .....

have a nice day

Spiffor · May 16, 2003, 11:15

Well, maybe it will be impossible to play with all 32 Civs at once, or at the cost of Barbarians.
Or maybe they'll change a bit of the hardcoding, and will make Barbarians behave completely differently, hence opening the 32nd spot to a Civ.

Anyway, Firaxis has stated on its site that there will be Eight new Civs. Period

Louis XXIV · May 16, 2003, 11:38

In vanilla civ, the max was 16 (17 with barbs)

In PTW, they changed the included amount to be 24. You could now add 32 (including barbs) civs

Maybe in C3C, you could add 40-48 civs. The included amount will be 32 (33 with barbs)

This is probably if you already have PTW

ChaotikVisions · May 16, 2003, 12:05

Well, i'm hoping for the Cherokee. They did develop their own language and the like, though it didn't help them from beng pushed off their land. Not sure for a UU, maybe a spear/bow hybrid. For traits, Militaristic would fit, as well as Scientific for how they adapted to the colonists. Though perhaps Commercial might go in its place instead.

History Guy · May 16, 2003, 12:29

Chaotic, I doubt it. So far, we have two Middle Eastern civs and two American civs. There are five cultures, and two are more than accounted for (unless the Hittites are a Mediterranean civ). I'm still hoping for the Israelites.

There must be at least one European and one Asian civ. Perhaps it will be Portuguese/Dutch or Polynesians/Khmers. And, we all know that there must be one African civ.