Civ IV: Beyond the Sword Info Center

[Shigga]

I repeat myself by saying this is the first ever civXP that has the potencial to seriously ROCK.

[GIR]

Originally Posted by Shigga

I repeat myself by saying this is the first ever civXP that has the potencial to seriously ROCK.

I agree.
Warlords was a joke but this expansion...
I hope for the best

[Will9]

Could someone please tell me where confirmation about Sumeria is? At Apolyton we still only have 6 civs on our factsheet.

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Will9

Could someone please tell me where confirmation about Sumeria is? At Apolyton we still only have 6 civs on our factsheet.

I believe it's the Eurogamer's article, but I can't confirm it. I'm at work and that address is blocked.

[Gaius Octavius]

Hah. That address is blocked, but not CFC? Somebody doesn't understand how to manage productivity...

This article does not mention Sumeria specifically, but it does say Gilgamesh.



I just had a thought: the article makes a mistake, saying Tokugawa is a new leader, along with Gilgamesh. What if the guy also mistook Hammurabi for Gilgamesh? In other words, what if Sumer's not in the game at all?

There is probably another site out there that confirms Sumer is in, so I won't worry. But still...

EDIT: I briefly checked the other articles in the official list, and I could not find any specific references to Sumer as a new civ.

[Will9]

Originally Posted by Gaius Octavius

Hah. That address is blocked, but not CFC? Somebody doesn't understand how to manage producitivity...

This article does not mention Sumeria specifically, but it does say Gilgamesh.



I just had a thought: the article makes a mistake, saying Tokugawa is a new leader, along with Gilgamesh. What if the guy also mistook Hammurabi for Gilgamesh? In other words, what if Sumer's not in the game at all?

Gilgamesh was confimed in the interview, but no confimation of Sumeria. I'd guess Gilgamesh is another leader for Babylon.

[Gaius Octavius]

But the interviewer makes a mistake. He says Tokugawa is a new leader which, if anything, suggests the Japanese have a new leader (but obviously not Tokugawa). What if he saw Hammurabi (who is confirmed in other places, I believe) but thought he was Gilgamesh? Hence, Gilgamesh is nonexistent, and so is Sumeria.

Having said that, I doubt this is the case. Just trying to point out a possible logical fallacy.

[Will9]

Originally Posted by Gaius Octavius

But the interviewer makes a mistake. He says Tokugawa is a new leader

Where do you see that?

[Gaius Octavius]

Click on the link in Methos' post #304!

There are 10 new scenarios including Babylon, Portugal and The Netherlands and 16 new leaders - Sitting Bull, Tokugawa, Gilgamesh and Justinian for starters. The key difference to the way you rule is through corporations that can be spread, grown and used to dominate the world. We're talking McDonalds and Microsoft scale here, not making pasties in a medieval kitchen.

[Will9]

I see that now, but read page 2

Eurogamer: You've got new leaders in the game. Can you tell us about some of them?

Tim McCracken: Yes. We've added loads of new leaders. We've got Abraham Lincoln, Gilgamesh, Justinian. He'll be annoyed with you as he plays but the opposite of him is Sitting Bull - he'll try to take you over culturally.

[Gaius Octavius]

Good, that makes me feel better. It still doesn't have to follow that the Sumerians are in since they're aren't mentioned by name, but as I said, I believe they are. And I'd be very disappointed if they weren't.

More importantly, I wonder what this Tokugawa deal is all about...

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Gaius Octavius

Hah. That address is blocked, but not CFC? Somebody doesn't understand how to manage productivity...

Yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Archduke Otto]

I'm at work as well and I get CFC; but I can't access the homepage of CFC. That is because it somehow doesn't recognise anything past the homepage as having 'gaming content'.

[Grey Fox]

Sumeria was added in C3C and they had Gilgamesh as leader there I think.

[Lars_Domus]

Originally Posted by Grey Fox

Sumeria was added in C3C and they had Gilgamesh as leader there I think.

That is correct. Sumeria and Gilgamesh were also supposed to be in vanilla Civ IV, but were dropped because of time constraints. You can see the Sumerian flag and colour (dark grey) in some of the early screenshots, and this fellow Monkspider did some excellent work in finding bits and pieces of the Sumerian civ left over in the final game files - he even attempted to reconstruct them as a custom civ.

While the Sumerians by name haven't been explicitly confirmed to be in BtS (though Gilgamesh himself certainly has), I think it's exceedingly improbable that they wont.

[cbmclean]

Hey guys,

I'm curious about the rest of the community. I've noticed alot of speculation and discussion on here about which new civs and leaders will be added. To me, I confess that that aspect of the game is just not all that important. I never play as one of the games' inbuilt civs. I always play as my own imaginary civilization, complete with my own imaginary city names etc. For me, the joy in playing civilization is not to try to repeat history to see if I could do better, but to have my own "history" to make. Thus, while I enjoy playign scenarios, they are not the most important part of the game for me. I realize that every one enjoys the game differently, but I was just wondering how many others are out there like me, and make up their own imaginary civilizations?

[LordGek]

Originally Posted by cbmclean

Hey guys,

I'm curious about the rest of the community. I've noticed alot of speculation and discussion on here about which new civs and leaders will be added. To me, I confess that that aspect of the game is just not all that important. I never play as one of the games' inbuilt civs. I always play as my own imaginary civilization, complete with my own imaginary city names etc. For me, the joy in playing civilization is not to try to repeat history to see if I could do better, but to have my own "history" to make. Thus, while I enjoy playign scenarios, they are not the most important part of the game for me. I realize that every one enjoys the game differently, but I was just wondering how many others are out there like me, and make up their own imaginary civilizations?

I REALLY could care less about trying to replay historical situations in scenarios but, rather, like to play as RANDOM civilizations on a RANDOM world with RANDOM personalities. Now that they'll let you RANDOMIZE Leaders to Civilizations I plan to have fun with that as well.

While I sometimes rename a few of my cities on a whim, sometimes I like to think of these historical leaders having woke up from long comas (hence the scrambled personalities) in this strange new world trying to make the best of things.

[Goonie]

Originally Posted by dutchking

Wow, you've seemed to think about this a lot, but I still REALLY doubt Canada as a civ.

Save for Italy (who have the Romans), Canada is the only G8 country without a Civ.

[jpark021]

Originally Posted by Goonie

Save for Italy (who have the Romans), Canada is the only G8 country without a Civ.

Hi, first time poster. I don't mean to be offensive to Canadians, but they haven't really done anything really dramatic to affect history. While they might be powerful or rich, I don't think that alone would be good enough. I like to think of the key to a civilization in "Civilization" the game is that they need to be distinct, dramatic, exotic, and/or extremely strong willed at least once one point in history.

[Will9]

Originally Posted by jpark021

While they might be powerful or rich

Are you still talking about Canada?

A poll on Poly agreed that Canada shouldn't need to be in civ.