techathon
Member
I have a Gameinformer that says there will be an Icon notafacation system
Civ 5 Confirmed Features
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
- Status
techathon
Member
It's not on the website and I only have a hardcopy and mo scanner. They sell it at gamestop if you REALLY want a 1 page review that only really has few new things
emeralddude
Utopia?
I've got the issue too, and they also said that players will be able to upload, download, and comment on mods within the game.
I like the references, very academic of you. 
no really, great job!
I just don't understand why did they had to take out religions and spies, how will I have my continental-Island-fundamentalist-terrorist-nation. With no religions or spies that just means that i am stuck on the darn island
I just loved to take down huge empires by critical resources prevention in the middle of their war with other nations, balancing the power of my enemies while chanting to my self "Nothing is true - Everything is permitted".
no really, great job!
I just don't understand why did they had to take out religions and spies, how will I have my continental-Island-fundamentalist-terrorist-nation. With no religions or spies that just means that i am stuck on the darn island
I just loved to take down huge empires by critical resources prevention in the middle of their war with other nations, balancing the power of my enemies while chanting to my self "Nothing is true - Everything is permitted".
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,843
I like the references, very academic of you.
no really, great job!
[/COLOR]".
occupational hazard
Gallean88
Squid Gynaecologist
I'm pretty sure the vikings/scandinavia are in it. They're in the trailer after all.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Augustus was confirmed.
All's been confirmed except for the final two civs, though various claims have been made (Inca, Siam, Persia), though so far no source has yet to claim Vikings.
Gallean88
Squid Gynaecologist
Well the OP claims that the pyramids are in it because they are seen in the trailer, so I was kinda going off of that.
I doubt they'd put vikings in the trailer if they were irrelevant.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
They could be a city state, not an actual Civ.
LegioCorvus
Prince
I'd still bet money on the Vikings being in, and I would probably make some good money, given that most people don't see it happening.
That feeling is mostly based off of two things:
1) The trailer. So far, everything else seen in the trailer has been confirmed, including the Ottomans before we ever had confirmation they'd be in the game. True, we have no confirmation on the Wonders, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the Pyramids of Giza & the Hagia Sophia are in the game (though why it has minarets still baffles me).
2) It's not the first time the Vikings have premiered in a Civ game, and frankly, they'd present a unique opportunity to show off the new AI, especially the parts concerned with naval warfare. So far they only have Elizabeth to show off the 5 AI aspects of navel consideration, which seems unusually small.
The reason a lot of people don't think they're in the game is because they don't want them to be in the game. I'd personally argue Spain over them, but that's a personal opinion, which I'm keeping a bit of a crowbar separation away from my predictions on the game.
I'm also 100% positive that the Incas are not in the game, because Quechua is not a dead language.
There are over 10 million people in the world who still use it as their native language. It should have been obvious from the beginning that that article that mentioned the Quechua language was wrong, and was referring to Nahuatl, of which there are no speakers today that speak a dialect even similar to the one from Montezuma's era. I'd extrapolate, but I think the point is made.
I'd also reasonably guess that the Italian article was wrong on many things, but that's a personal bias against their form of "journalism." Though I wouldn't be surprised if Persia was the 17/18th Civ along with the Vikings.
Of course, we have no way to know this until we get some more proof, but I'd make a gentleman's bet on the Vikings being in, and a reasonable assumption on the Persians, though neither is enough to warrant them being "confirmed."
/end rant
That feeling is mostly based off of two things:
1) The trailer. So far, everything else seen in the trailer has been confirmed, including the Ottomans before we ever had confirmation they'd be in the game. True, we have no confirmation on the Wonders, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the Pyramids of Giza & the Hagia Sophia are in the game (though why it has minarets still baffles me).
2) It's not the first time the Vikings have premiered in a Civ game, and frankly, they'd present a unique opportunity to show off the new AI, especially the parts concerned with naval warfare. So far they only have Elizabeth to show off the 5 AI aspects of navel consideration, which seems unusually small.
The reason a lot of people don't think they're in the game is because they don't want them to be in the game. I'd personally argue Spain over them, but that's a personal opinion, which I'm keeping a bit of a crowbar separation away from my predictions on the game.
I'm also 100% positive that the Incas are not in the game, because Quechua is not a dead language.
There are over 10 million people in the world who still use it as their native language. It should have been obvious from the beginning that that article that mentioned the Quechua language was wrong, and was referring to Nahuatl, of which there are no speakers today that speak a dialect even similar to the one from Montezuma's era. I'd extrapolate, but I think the point is made. I'd also reasonably guess that the Italian article was wrong on many things, but that's a personal bias against their form of "journalism." Though I wouldn't be surprised if Persia was the 17/18th Civ along with the Vikings.
Of course, we have no way to know this until we get some more proof, but I'd make a gentleman's bet on the Vikings being in, and a reasonable assumption on the Persians, though neither is enough to warrant them being "confirmed."
/end rant
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Wasn't Stockholm mentioned being a city-state?! If so, the Vikings are out.
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
@jahg84 = I do agree, there has to be a Mid East civ but there already are the Ottos and Arabia, so I don't think your argument helps for Persia. I always thought of Persia as a more "ancient" civ than a "later" civ.
@Loppan Torkel = Yes I do belive it was, thank you for reminding/ mentioning.
@Loppan Torkel = Yes I do belive it was, thank you for reminding/ mentioning.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
The Arabs, Ottomans, and Egyptians are not middle eastern?
- Status
