Hey! Did you know there will be helicopter gunships in Civ 4?

Cool! :cool:

:king: :goodjob:

No. Where are your sources? Screens? Put them here :).

Source?

They definitely deserve to be in the game. Attack helicopters are an important part of the modern military, and they're cool, too. :D

http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=6

Go and read this article at Firaxis Games! ;)

It's to be read at the 24th line of the article....


They also name America the United States.....hmmmm.....interesting....

Cool.

That site also has new sceenshots :goodjob:

Nice. Gunships will finally make the helicopter worthwhile.

As for U.S. vs. America, I can see why they did it. Those in North and South America who aren't in the U.S. tend to take a dim view of the U.S. calling itself "America".

Although, it does raise some interesting questions:
Can it really be called the United States if it's in despotism (and if so, does the name take on a sinister meaning?)? If it only has one city?
What do you call it's citizens? USans? Statesians?

What do you call it's citizens? USans? Statesians?
Yankees. :D
The nationality probably is "American", but they just changed the name of the nation. That's fine by me.

Cool.

That site also has new sceenshots :goodjob:

Oh yeah! You can see Julius Caesar there as well, converting to a new religion, and lot's of other nice screenies if you press the next button.......... Really nice.... ;)

I can also see a city having it's own golden age, marked with a star, and a +25% sign! :)

Hmm, the star probably means it's the capital, hehe....

I want to see some shots of these modern units. All we've seen so far are ancient units.

In the third screenshot, the one with Tientsin and Delhi, you can see three (!) religion symbols over Delhi! Apparently you can have supporters of multiple religions in the same city. I wonder if the order of the symbols indicates their popularity rankings in that city. They seem to have Jews, Christians (EDIT: or is that blue thing a cross after all?) and Buddhists there. :)

If this is old news, I'm sorry.

I can also see a city having it's own golden age, marked with a star, and a +25% sign! :)
Judging by previous screenshots, I think the star marks it being a holy city, and the +25% might as well mean some kind of a resource bonus for that city.

One last thing: Is it just me (or the zoom level) or have they made the unit figures' size smaller? They must have gotten fed up by the complaints. ;)

One last thing: Is it just me (or the zoom level) or have they made the unit figures' size smaller? They must have gotten fed up by the complaints. ;)


Yes, I was just thinking the same! It looked much better in this screenshots then before. Imossible to say if it's the zoom level or not..... :confused:

Firstly I think the star just marks the capital (timbuctu also has one).
Secondly I think, Julius Caesar looks awful, don't you think?

mitsho

In the third screenshot, the one with Tientsin and Delhi, you can see three (!) religion symbols over Delhi! Apparently you can have supporters of multiple religions in the same city..


Maybe the civics setting for India in this case is to allow freedom of religion? :confused: In such a case, maybe you don't have just one religion per city. Just throwing out ideas.

Also, why do the borders seem sometimes to be staight lines along tiles (SS #3) and other times to be slightly curved and rounded on the corners (SS#4)? Is it different art or does the border appear curved because of topography? Corners of borders at sea are definitely rounded. It also seems like the borders don't meet across a one tile gap as they do in Civ3.

http://www.firaxis.com/images_cms/games/civ4/screenshots/zceasar-lg.jpg

I think Julius looks handsome.... :)

i really hope they change some of the city names in terms of spelling. the chinese city names tend to be more archaic romanizations

tientsin -> tianjin
tsingtao -> qingdao
canton -> guangdong
hangchow -> hanzhou

even indian names
bombay -> mumbai
dats the only one i know of... lol.

Picture by Picture comments:

Pic1: You can demand Cities

Pic2: 5 units in spearman group (no nationality flags either :confused: )

Pic3: China, Indians, and Romans visible. What's that being built up north? Gra-something (uu maybe). I'd be curious what that is. I think Delhi is a Holy City for 3 different religions.

Pic4: I wonder what the +25% is. Maybe defensive bonus for culture?

Pic5: Pretty shot. Not much to mention. Looks like Rice Patties, Horses in Stables, and Elephants wondering around. Barbarian Archers nearby, they better watch out ;)

Pic6: Probably a more realistic Ceasar, but not quite so good looking ;) I think Ceasar wants the Chinese to convert. Also, Chinese can build Knights, so they probably don't have the Rider anymore.

If they are going to Use Caesar as the leader of Rome, they might as well use a pictur eof him when he was in his Prime, and accomplished his greatest feats

http://heraklia.fws1.com/graphics/Caesar_Home.gif.gif

thiers also the fact that Caesar wasnt some skinny chicken; he was quite well known for his personal stregth and stamina

yeah caesar seems a bit too old. i guess brutus never got to him.

[QUOTE=Louis XXIV]

Pic3: China, Indians, and Romans visible. What's that being built up north? Gra-something (uu maybe). I'd be curious what that is. QUOTE]


It looks like grower to me not sure though

I think it says 'Grower' too... I wonder what that's for?? :smoke:

I wouldn't have thought that Civ 4 Caesar looked like real Caesar until Xen posted that statue of him, but the Civ4 version looks exactly the same.

As for U.S. vs. America, I can see why they did it. Those in North and South America who aren't in the U.S. tend to take a dim view of the U.S. calling itself "America".

I'm not sure about that, from my expirience most of them don't care. I used to think this too, but I asked my mother (born and raised in Argentina) and she said she didn't care at all, and that she'd never met anyone that felt that way.

Source?

They definitely deserve to be in the game. Attack helicopters are an important part of the modern military, and they're cool, too. :D
Yup! Ever since tanks have been equipped with DU armour, Gunships are the only things worth hitting with an RPG :p

http://www.firaxis.com/images_cms/games/civ4/screenshots/zceasar-lg.jpg
Why did they make him look so old and skinny? This is what he is supposed to look like...
http://www.acapixus.dk/galleri/images/KOL9396.jpg

Also, why do the borders seem sometimes to be staight lines along tiles (SS #3) and other times to be slightly curved and rounded on the corners (SS#4)?


Hello,

In SC#4, the borders are mostly surrounded by an ampty area, but in SC#3 we have sevral territories tied together.

Let me tell it simply :
We've been getting many informations in a few days after several month / years of silence and speculation, and now ...

I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT !!!!

PS : I want it

I want it too.

One thing I never really liked about Civ3 was, although I can compete with AI at any level, I cannot beat the guys in GOTM - they know too many tricks!

By playing Civ4 from day one, I won't be disadvantaged... except against those members who are beta-testing right now! :sad:

I'm such an un-American citizen of the United States. When referring to my nationality, I identify myself as a "United States American." If I'm going for informal brevity, I refer to myself as a "Yankee."

In this supposedly underdog nation, I'm the very underdog. :)

Why did they make him look so old and skinny? This is what he is supposed to look like...
http://www.acapixus.dk/galleri/images/KOL9396.jpg

or maybe that's what caesar wanted the romans to think he looked like

yeah caesar seems a bit too old. i guess brutus never got to him.

Yeah, that what i was thinking too, in Civ4, Julius Ceasar hasn't been assassinated!

or maybe that's what caesar wanted the romans to think he looked like

if it were the Greeks, youd have a point; bu tthe Romans were well known for being total realists in thier art work; soem of thier greatest politicians have ever defect of thier face; scars, warts and all portayed; one reason was that so even in far flung corner of the republic and empire, every one woudl know exactley what the leaders in Rome looked like, and coudl recognize them.

the benifit of this, is that when you see a Roman statue, unlike many greek examples, you can be sure that is what the person depicted actually looked like.

I wouldn't have thought that Civ 4 Caesar looked like real Caesar until Xen posted that statue of him, but the Civ4 version looks exactly the same.

hes old, scraney, and hes got Blue-green eyes; none of which were attributes of Caesar; sure, he got old, but he was never depicted as looking nearlyl as decrepid as they portrey him (and, as th epost above explains, you can be sure that Roman busts are what the person detailed actually looked like)

Caesar looks like a scrotum...

Nice. Gunships will finally make the helicopter worthwhile.

As for U.S. vs. America, I can see why they did it. Those in North and South America who aren't in the U.S. tend to take a dim view of the U.S. calling itself "America".

Although, it does raise some interesting questions:
Can it really be called the United States if it's in despotism (and if so, does the name take on a sinister meaning?)? If it only has one city?
What do you call it's citizens? USans? Statesians?

Citizens of the United States are Americans. It's a unique and non-confusing name.

I was particularly unimpressed by an article I read by an Ecuadorian professor objecting to the US being known as 'America.'

Some Canadians object to the term, one customs agent saying 'we're all Americans.' BS. No Canadian - besides those like me who are also American - has ever called him/herself American. Those few who object are the ones who object to everything just to be difficult. And even most of the most perverse people find something else to be perverse about.

I'm sure you met every last Canadian there ever was to make very sure of those facts of yours, too.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans. I've never once heard a Canadian say they're American. Not going to start a USA vs Canada word war now.

As for U.S. vs. America, I can see why they did it. Those in North and South America who aren't in the U.S. tend to take a dim view of the U.S. calling itself "America".
It's mostly pointless because there's no way to pluralize "United States" to designate a group of people, like you said, unless you say "United States citizen" or something, which still does not designate nationality, just citizenship.

An acquaintence of mine had an experience in a Norwegian language class while we were residing there that went something like:

Teacher: So where are you from?
Friend: America.
Teacher: Where in America?
Friend: What do you mean? There's only one.
Teacher: *nasty look*

Of course, this doesn't jive with the fact that almost all Europeans (and everyone else) refer to people of the USA as Americans, and no other nationality calls themselves "American" - they say they're Mexican, Brazilian, Canadian, and so on. The only place where any ambiguity could enter into it at all is with regards to the continent itself, which is stupid. There's no such continent as America - there's North America, and South America, and nobody identifies their place of origin by continent anyway. Can you imagine a Japanese person identifying themselves by saying "I'm Asian"?

It's really a rather pointless change. I'd say the only group it staying as "America" would offend are people who have some preexisting dislike for the United States. I could be wrong though.

With regards to helicopters (on topic? what?!): woot. Here's hoping they made transport helicopters longer ranged too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americas

Just because you Americans use a seven continents model (Africa, North Am, South Am, Antartica, Australia, Europe, Asia) doesn't mean everyone does. English Canada apparently runs a six-continent model (Eurasia instead of Europe and Asia) ; Europe runs a 6-continent model too (but America instead of North Am and South Am), French Canada runs the 5-continent model (Eurasia and America both), etc.

That said, it would be a rather pointless issue to change at this point. The languages in which it can easily be changed probably have already changed it (or are in the process of) - Étatsuniens (Unitedstatesians) is increasingly common in french, and those in which it can't easily be changed to a relatively workable name, well, no point having an ugly hard to pronounce name.

France (read: Chirac, et al) isn't exactly the USA's closest bosom buddy so that really doesn't surprise me. ;)

The point remains, nobody identifies themselves by what continent they're from. Nobody. So it doesn't matter what continent system you use, 5, 6 or 7, because nobody's going to be that vague. Since everybody gives their nationality, and there's really only one country with the actual word "America" in the national title (at least that I'm aware of - if there's another, I'd really like to know), that leaves very little room for ambiguity as to what country that person might be from. And hence, very little ambiguity for a culture group ("civ") unless the other party is somehow used to people introducing themselves by continent first. In which case, I dare say that other party is freakish.

If you're not used to people introducing themselves by continent first, and there is no other country with the word "America" in the title, the only real reason anybody could object to the term... is if they're being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk.

The only other possible, tangential reason I can see is having to name the entire cultural group from the Americas as "American Civs" but the distinction is pretty much implied.

And if, in person, I ever hear anybody say "United Statesian," or an identifiable equivilent in another lanugage, I will remember to take my time, point, and laugh obnoxiously. :lol:

Symphony D:

Australians identify themselves by the continent they come from.

Many people around the world consider themselves to have more than one identity, rather like Texans in the United States, and many Europeans, Africans and Central and South Americans coidentify with their nation and the larger geographic region.

While they no longer exist, the Confederate States of America once shared the globe with the United States.

Just because you Americans use a seven continents model (Africa, North Am, South Am, Antartica, Australia, Europe, Asia) doesn't mean everyone does. English Canada apparently runs a six-continent model (Eurasia instead of Europe and Asia) ; Europe runs a 6-continent model too (but America instead of North Am and South Am), French Canada runs the 5-continent model (Eurasia and America both), etc.
Here we divide America continent in 3: North, Central and South. North America has only Canada, USA and Mexico, South America is all countries below Colombia and Central America is everything between NA and SA.

That said, it would be a rather pointless issue to change at this point. The languages in which it can easily be changed probably have already changed it (or are in the process of) - Étatsuniens (Unitedstatesians) is increasingly common in french, and those in which it can't easily be changed to a relatively workable name, well, no point having an ugly hard to pronounce name.
We do the same here. There's a commonly used word "norte-americano", but it also refers to people who lives in all North America. There's another word "estados-unidenses", which is exatly the same as Étatsuniens :cool:.

Here we divide America continent in 3: North, Central and South. North America has only Canada, USA and Mexico, South America is all countries below Colombia and Central America is everything between NA and SA.

But do you consider Central America a continent?

Most places include Central America in with North America already.

Every time I have heard the term 'norteamericano', it referred only to US Americans, excluding Mexico, Central America, and the Carribean (all parts of the North American continent) and often Canadians as well.

But do you consider Central America a continent?

Most places include Central America in with North America already.
Here America continent is considered divided as I wrote. It's two big triangles, one is North America (which you can "see" a triangle better) and other is South America. Central America is the istmus which connects both triangles and all islands in Caribe.

There's the Eurasia case mentioned above. Why are Europe and Asia diveded if they are only a big continent? It's diveded for some reasons, but I think the main reason is the ease to study two portions of land instead of a huge amount of land. Europe has a huge amount of countries, Asia has even more countries. Joining all these contries in only one big continent may confuse most of people.

And I think Africa is also connected to Eurasia, but everyone puts it alone.

Every time I have heard the term 'norteamericano', it referred only to US Americans, excluding Mexico, Central America, and the Carribean (all parts of the North American continent) and often Canadians as well.
That's what I meant. Norte-americano is mainly used for people from USA, but it also refers to all people from North America, which includes Mexico and Canada. Only a few people use the word "estados-unidenses".

There's the Eurasia case mentioned above. Why are Europe and Asia diveded if they are only a big continent? It's diveded for some reasons, but I think the main reason is the ease to study two portions of land instead of a huge amount of land. Europe has a huge amount of countries, Asia has even more countries. Joining all these contries in only one big continent may confuse most of people.
Cultural and historical reasons. Before medieval times, there were a few connections between Europe and Far East besides the silk road. The Mongols were the first to connect significant parts of Europe and Asia under a single Europe, but they didn't directly leave great cultural legacy.

Even today the 'European culture' is for many parts different from 'Asian culture'.

well the ural mountains heavily divide between europe and asia (as well as the middle east, black sea, etc.) and so, for historical purposes, europe was distinguished from the rest of the asia. as a whole, there's only a few points where one cud have travelled in thru europe, since it was surrouned by sea and ocean to the north west and south

Australians identify themselves by the continent they come from.
Always an exception. ;)

While they no longer exist, the Confederate States of America once shared the globe with the United States.
Same "civ", just a splinter group. Yes, I know there were differences, but they were mostly economic, rather than cultural, so the CSA doesn't really count - they were still "American".

Of course, this doesn't jive with the fact that almost all Europeans (and everyone else) refer to people of the USA as Americans, and no other nationality calls themselves "American" - they say they're Mexican, Brazilian, Canadian, and so on. The only place where any ambiguity could enter into it at all is with regards to the continent itself, which is stupid. There's no such continent as America - there's North America, and South America, and nobody identifies their place of origin by continent anyway. Can you imagine a Japanese person identifying themselves by saying "I'm Asian"?


Actually people do sometimes identify themselves as "Europeans" or as "Asians" or as "Africans". The term "European" is used especially often. Strictly speaking, America refers to a continent, not to a country.

I don't have a problem with "American" being used as a nationality due to the lack of a good alternative in English and due to tradition. The term "Yankee" is often used as a pejorative and southerners might also object to being called "yankees". I take it as depending on the context whether "American" means someone from the US or someone from the American continent. But to use "America" to refer to a country sounds ridiculous to me. It is as if Germany called itself "Europe". Of course, Germans can call themselves Europeans because they are. BUT Germany is not the same as Europe. Thus, I don't see a problem with Germans calling themslves "Europeans" but I would object to them calling themselves "Europe". It is the same with the terms "America" and "American".

It is true that Mexicans, Brazilians and such do not refer to their specific nationality as "American". However, I can attest from personal experience that in Latin America people do sometimes refer to themselves as "American" in the same sense that a German or a Spaniard may refer to himself as a "European". Also, in Latin America, the term "America" is never used to refer to the USA. The US is called "the United States" by the common people, and is called "North America" or "The United States" in printed literature. I personally object to calling the US "North America" as this is also inaccurate (I think this was a South American invention). The US is never called "America" in Latin America, neither in literature nor by the people in common speech, since "America" is understood to refer to the Western Hemisphere. In addition, the term "American" is used to refer to the nationality, but in literature the term "United States-er" is also used. Now, in Spanish "United States-er" does not sound as ridiculous as it does in English. The word used is "estadounidense". By no means would I advocate using the ridiculous term of "United states-er" or some such in English.

Thus, an Argentine might say that his grandparents came to America in such and such a year to refer to their migration to the Americas, not their migration to the US.

Anyway, for the record, the term "America" was first applied to the Brazilian coast. Later it was used to refer to the entire continent when it was split into North and south America. Thus, the earliest use of the word "America" to refer to a piece of land was in reference to Brazil!


It's really a rather pointless change. I'd say the only group it staying as "America" would offend are people who have some preexisting dislike for the United States. I could be wrong though.



I have no dislike of the United States. I oppose it because it is linguistically inaccurate, leads to confusion and sounds a silly to me. Someone might say that Cuban immigrants to the US "came to America" which sounds ridiculous because Cuba is in America. It is ridiculous to have "America" be used exclusively by the United States when any map in any language shows "North America" and "South America" as referring to the Western hemisphere. If we have North and South America, then logically, America MUST refer to the combination of those two continents. Logically, it cannot possibly refer just to the United States. If America referred to the United States, then South America should refer to the former Confedaracy and North America should refer to the Union states. To use "America" to refer to the US leads to a ridiculous logical contradiction.

If you read older English literature you also often find the use of the terms "American" and "America" in their broader sense. Even till this day such references can occasionally be found in printed literature in English. In Spanish it is far more common.

An example of modern-day English usage of the broader meaning is in the Organization of American States". Their link is here: http://www.oas.org/ This is not an organization of states of the United States! This is an organization for all the countries of North and South America (except Cuba).

So in conclusion I do welcome the change. I modded my game to change "America" to "The United States" although I left the nationality as "American".

Symphony D:

Australians identify themselves by the continent they come from.



Yes, and before the civil war, in the US people identified themselves more by their state. Identity was defined more by the state one was from.

I´m brazilian and I don´t see a problem, but there intelectuals sometimes do.
All in all, United States call himself "America" is not offensive, but is technically wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americas

The wikipedia article makes an interesting point:

[QUOTE]
Moreover, the use of America to refer to the New World as a whole is also found, though less often, in English, such as in the common phrase "Christopher Columbus discovered America".


This phrase is often used in the United States, even though Columbus, to my recollection did not discover the territory of the United States, unless one includes Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands as parts of the US.

yeah caesar seems a bit too old. i guess brutus never got to him.

Well it's still better then yougster from Civ3, that doesn't even look like Caesar.

Man, this thread has gone soooo O/T ;) !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker (an Australian from the Continent-and Country-of Australia :D!)

As far as I know, most Canadians still think in terms of seven continents, on the extremely rare occasions we think about continents. Some people in Europe call themselves Europeans, but that's mostly optimists about the future of the EU. Furthermore, many people call the EU 'Europe,' both in and outside the EU. Thus, countries clearly in the European continent are spoken of as "joining Europe" when they become part of the EU.

Words having more than one possible meaning does not mean either meaning is technically, logically nor in any other way wrong. Nor, at least in English, is honest confusion at all likely in regards to the term 'America.'

How often is there confusion over visiting 'South Africa' (clear presumption is the specific country) or 'the equator' (Ecuador)?

Also, helicopter gunships sound quite cool.

Man, this thread has gone soooo O/T ;) !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker (an Australian from the Continent-and Country-of Australia :D!)

If you think this is off-topic, you should see the 'Mali' thread.

This phrase is often used in the United States, even though Columbus, to my recollection did not discover the territory of the United States, unless one includes Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands as parts of the US.

Well they are US territories. ;)

Amerigo Vespucci

Vespucci was the one person for whom North and South America was named after. Vespucci had a wonderful life and found many things on his voyages. Amerigo Vespucci was born in Florence, Italy in March of 1451, and grew up in a considerable mansion near the river. As a young boy, Amerigo's happiest moments studying the stars. He excelled in mathematics and his hobby was copying maps. His dream as a young boy was to travel and get a better picture about what the Earth looked like. Amerigo spent half of his life as a business man hoping to strike it rich so he could explore.

In 1503, on this journey, led by Amerigo Vespuccci himself, the captain and crew explored the south eastern side of South America. They ran along the coast and visited such places as Cape Soo Roque, Guanabara Bay, Rio de la Plata, Cape Santo Agostinho, San Julian and spotted the Falkland Islands. His crew returned back to Spain in 1504 and told their story to mapmakers to put on the maps. After the findings of the "New World" a mapmaker suggested they call it America, after the knowing founder. Martin Waldseemuller a German mapmaker was one of the first to believe that Vespucci was the first European to reach the "New World." In 1507, he suggested they call it America and soon this name was used throughout and eventually used officially in the naming of the continent.

Mind you, who really cares about the name. Civ 4 is coming and it looks kick @ss ;)

And if, in person, I ever hear anybody say "United Statesian," or an identifiable equivilent in another lanugage, I will remember to take my time, point, and laugh obnoxiously. :lol:

Fair enough, I think I'd just laugh back then. There's a number of languages, whether you know it or not, that use terms more specific than just "Americans" to refer to the people of the United States.

It all comes down to language and convention. In English it is conventional and accepted to say "Americans" in the narrow meaning, so I think any PC-ness here would be unjustified. Referring to the country itself as "The United States" is however just as conventional or even more than just saying "America" (which is imprecise and potentially chauvinistic)... I'm sure Firaxis will have "United States" for the noun and "Americans" for the adjective, which seems optimal.

Don't presume that the English nuances apply equally to all other languages. In Spanish people are most likely to say gringos or yanquis (casually), or norteamericanos or estadounidenses (technical, typical for newspapers). In French there's étatsunis as someone mentioned, but probably americains most of the time. Danish for example has Amerikanere for the people and De Forenede Stater for the nation (a literal translation), something similar goes for German, Dutch, Swedish, and Norwegian.

In my particular language, Icelandic, we also have a literal translation of the country name: Bandaríkin; from that we derive bandaríkjamenn (literally "People of the US" or "Unitedstatesians" ;) ). That goes for casual spoken language too, although there exists a super-casual form kanar, derived from "AmeriCANS".

Chinese has Meiguo and Meiguoren - literally "Mei Country" ("Mei" is derived from the ME in America) and "Mei Country People". So they're country-specific too, although they have a completely different system anyway.

So my point is, this problem has been solved in different ways in various languages around the world - let's respect those conventions however different they may be from our own. That also means respecting the English convention of saying "Americans" in the nation-specific meaning :)

apparently, according to the contributors to this thread, everything has to be right by principle. you have to take the term "american" and deconstruct it to its bone. nothing can be right by tradition - that is, the way a word has been used by people over centuries can in no way contribute to its rightness.

well, i'll tell you. i could bring up, on principle, the fact that the United States of America is the only country on earth with "america" in its name. but rather, i'd bring up this: the american dream. the american way. american style. american rock n roll. american arrogance. american beauty.

when i say any of those things, is anyone, ANYONE, confused about the meaning of america? does anything thing, just for a second, that i might be talking about brazilians?

Why did they make him look so old and skinny? To me it looks pretty nice. It's okay, but I think, it wouln't be the worsest idea, if he would look more "militaristic" - IF he represent the militarisic character of the romans. In this case he could - for example - use a roman bronze amour instad of that this blue "tunica" (which isn't even a tunica).

Maybe leaderheads will age?