Civ3 Expansion Pack Announced!

How about we keep the discussion to the expasion and not abou different cultures? Thanks...


On to the Xpac:
Charging for what a lot of people thought should have been in the original game is a bad move in my eyes. I know that I will never trust Infogrames or Firaxis as long as they deal with Infogrames. Suggestion to Firaxis (even though I don't believe they will read this), partner up with a publisher that isn't just looking at the dollar signs. I love Civ3 (especially since I can finally get rid of corruption) but love in this situation doesn't make me blind to all the problems the game has. The problems have been listed better by others so I will not go into them again.
[/rant]

[joy]Woohoo!! Finally MP!!! I am stuck on the way they described it though.[/joy]

Also, why doesn't Firaxis ever update their webpage with this stuff? Why is it anounced other places first? Sems like a weird way of going about things.
 
Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
I'll reserve my opinion until I see the actual marketed product. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Whom do you be rolling your eyes at? ;) My joy or the rant or someone else?
 
Originally posted by PaleHorse76
Whom do you be rolling your eyes at? ;) My joy or the rant or someone else?
Click to expand...
At Infogrammes and Firaxis of course. ;) :p They talk much, promise much but I'll wait to see what they are delivering before swooning with delight. :)
 
Ah, I just can't help but get excited over MP. That is the best part of Civ2 for me. I only played SP to make my MP game better. :D
That's why I will be one of the suckers in line waiting to get my copy....but I will have my civ-crack problem kicked by time Civ4 comes out. ;)
 
Yes, Australia does have troops in foreign countries but as it is with Canada ARE NOT ALOUD TO KILL. How do you fight a war when you are not aloud to shoot back? And when those of you with enough sense to shoot back do so, they are court marshaled and sent back home! That is not fighting for what you believe, that is suicide. And I do know world affairs enough to know this is true because I watched one of the court marshals on CNN. Of course I will make the point that India was not war like either and they are in this game. Of course I still laugh every time Gandhi declares war on me(I expect to see little demonstrator walking towards the see every time), as would I laugh every time Paul Keating Declared war on me(Would a unite return home every time it defeated one of mine?). Sorry but at present rate Australia will never be a name synonymous with power whereas Germany, Russia, Great Britain, America, Egypt, Rome, Japan, China, Persia, Greece, Babylon, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Turkey, and even the Aztecs are. I could be wrong maybe someone in power over there will say "Why are we sending our boys out and telling them not to fight. Lets have a little fun and start a war," but I do not see that happening any time soon. Of course in the early 18oos some Brit probably said the same thing about the United State. Not saying Australia is weak or unworthy, but in a game such as this I can think of a million civilizations over the past 4,ooo years which seem to be more worthy (of course the same can be said of the Iroquois, and Indians), and in the end if you want to play as Australia just use the editor!!! That's what I do for Austria, Spain,and Turkey, and in the end it works out all right.
So here is my vote
European- Austria
Vikings
Mediteranian- Spain
Mid-eastern- Turky
Mali (African)
Asian- Mogul Empire (Mongal Empire under Shah Akbar Capital would be Delhi, they did build the Taj Mahal after all!)
Vietnam or Thailand (simple reason is more Civilizations are needed in indochina to even the map out and contest chinas power over the region)
American- Some sort of Civilivation is needed in South America, I do not care who just someone

PS
Ve Grand Poobah- Good point with sugnifigense does not matter why are the iroquis there (I think it is just to slow down America, kinda keep them in check for a while)?
rajofpsg- I think Iberian would be a much better name than Morish if you where going to make one Civilization for both Portigal and Spain.
 
This is Johan511 for any of you who remeber me, and I'm here with my opinion. Civ3 was a total failure, some neat new graphics and no multiplayer to boot. Civ2 still stands as the best Civ ever made, maybe one day we can have a Civ3 but the one that I went and I picked up from the store was a sad excuss to bum me outta my money...and yes I've felt raped for the past few months.
What kinda game company releases a game these days with no multiplayer support....and then on top of that to claim a success in releasing the game is in my opinion a pure outrage. Now they want to make it up to us, after all this time we should be getting a real Civ3 that would actually mean something to human kind, that is the kind of hopes I had for a wonder game that Civ3 promised us but all that matters is the money, Well then..Millions upon millions of copies of Civ2 via (friaxis) games were bought couldn't fraxis find it in heart to give us the whole game on one cd.
It's up to us tho the consumer public to stand up and say no to giving us half-asses half-finished games. Multiplayer is something that should be included in every game...NOT AN EXPANSION!
that's my two cents thanks for your time.

Johan 511
Zxeres Talon -49 Friar DAOC another game that was released half finished
 
Originally posted by Shoegaze99
Swooper, I don't think Australia, and certainly not Canada, meet the criteria of what would make an appropriate "civilization." Both are simply modern day nations that most closely represent a cross between America's culture (whether those folks care to admit it or not) and the government and social structure of Britain.

Though America, Canada and Australia are roughly the same "age" (Canada as we know it in 1859, Australia in the 1820s - or 1788, if you count colonization), neither Canada nor Austrailia has made the kind of significant stamp on history as a whole that America has. Both are wonderful countries with interesting histories and great achievments, neither has impacted the world, for good or ill, the way America has. Because of that, America warrants "civilization" status in Civ III (and in general) while the other two do not, in my opinion. One would be hard pressed to argue that 400 years from now America will not be a significant part of the history books regarding the post-1800 era; one would also be hard pressed to argue that Canada and Australia would.
Click to expand...

I do agree in most of what you say, Shoegaze99. However I would not say that the Iroquois and the Aztecs have had any large impact on world history either, especially the Iroquois. I think the inclusion of the Iroquois and the Aztecs is more a politically correct thing from a USA point of view.

In my opinion one South Pacific civ should be included. It need not necessarily be the Austrailians though that's perhaps the most obvious choise, since Australia is the largest South Pacific nation. It would be interesting to have a civilization like the Polynesians or the Mealanesians in the game. Or even the Kiwis? They have certainly not had much impact on world history, but they are old and actually quite interesting cultures (not the Kiwis, of course), just like the Iroquois and the Aztecs.

In a game with 24 civs there should be room for a South Pacific civilization. I hope they choose the Polynesians or the Melanesians.

I also hope they include the Vikings and the Mongols. And how about Brazil and Argentina? Or Turkey?
 
civ3 is definitely the better game,
it is however a COMPLETE DISGRACE that they want to SELL me an expansion pack after the all the money i paid them for the non-mp-game PLUS the money to get it over in Europe where these morrons in the usa didn´t want to sell it immediately...
 
:mad: What are you talking about Delinquent rock? Australian troops not allowed to fight back? Just the other day I heard about some Australian troops returning fire at some Al-queda troops and killing them. By the way Paul Keating is not the prime minister of Australia. He also would not be the leader of an australian civ. I also beleive Australia should not be in the game but i think you should get your facts right before you comment. Where are you getting this stupid information from anyway CNN:rolleyes:
 
Civ3 made a bold attempt to do what Heros 4 accomplished.... (But another game that was release without multiplayer, and it will only continue) I think that the Great Ldr concept was a step in the right direction but it fell way short of accomplishing anything close to what I had Expected. I wanted a game like chess, something pailablel, a game where foes could take they're destiny in there own hands and duke it out in the form of what humankind had did in the acinet days of fate. Civ 2 brought a much better Vs battle no matter how many combatants and was close to being a Fare game from the start it just needed some help, a push in the right direction I would say. Unfortunely the right direction was a dead end in Civ3 because we still don't know what it would be like to face another human opponent, or (Civilization.) I Played Civ3 and grew more and more weary evertime I loaded the game, until it ceased to be a part my daily and weekly enjoyment. I know the computer is better, It can caluculate to the most mynute degree what use is it that I face him? Pit me against my peers let me try my hand, and give me a Fare, and reasonable starting area, is it really that hard?
 
Whilst I don't think either Canada or Australia should be included as Civs in their own right, it is scandalous that accusations about their ability to 'fight for what is right' is called into question.

As a Brit, I am exteremely grateful that Canada and Australia fought tooth and nail next to us during WW2, and it is not stretching things to say that without their help, Hitler may have been successful in his plans - a horrifying thought. Where were the Yanks, on the other hand? Sitting on their arses, frightened to get involved despite numerous pleas directly from Churchill to the US for them to get involved.

So don't go criticising our Commonwealth friends - the world today could have been a very different place without them.
 
Wouldn't it be great to raze Europe as Gengis Khan? And the mongols were in civ1 so...

Australia? I'd say aboriginals or something, but they won't sell much copies with that treat over there...
 
The Aussies seem to be a little bit uptight now. He didn't even mention anything about your sisters or mothers. That is a joke so smile. Guys don't get all bent out of shape if someone doesn't think you "culture" influences the world enough. Doesn't mean that you don't have a great country, just how he sees the impact it has on the WORLD.

Now let me throw in 4 cents, I am very opinionated. :-)

Two "requirements" that I really see that impact whether a civ should make it or not: longevity and cultural impact. Maybe the production of a "Great Leader" like Genghis Khan. (For justification of the mongols)

I am American so I know more about "Native American" cultures and civs than someone across the pond. I do agree that the Iroquois should not be a civ, but instead should be all of the Native American tribes together. Upsetting that some of the Great Leaders and cites they have for the Iroquois aren't. The Horseman Rider UU they have wouldn't relate to the wooded lands around the Great Lakes and Northeaster US.

Aztecs did have a great culture sort a speak. Great temples and weapons, architecture. Thinking great weapons? Blades. Yes, there were great metal forgers. Had some of the strongest metal weapons in the world beause of their unique forging process. Blades vs. Guns = No Contest! And they were located in central Mexico, so whoever said maybe have a Mexican civ, please do some more history research first. They had an impact on this side of the world and Europeans did take back to Europe many new ideas and discoveries that came from peoples in NA. They had more impact than many realize. Because of the proximity with the Mayans, only one will be able to exist.

Austria?? Yes it was a powerful nation in Europe at one time, BUT it is a German CULTURE. We have Germany. Too many people are looking at the name of the civ and thinking of the country. They don't call the America civ the United States of America civ. Focus away from countries and keeping it on the culture.

Now for my thoughts on what should be added:
1) Vikings, like everyone else. They had expansionist abilities (being the first Europeans to discover the Americas)

2) Mongols, like everyone else. Couple of reasons: they changed warfare with the use of horses (raids then pulls out quickly), they forced the Chinese to build the Great Wall to keep them out and they also produced a "Great Leader" in history, Genghis Khan.

3) Incas. We need something in South American and they were a great culture. They were highly advanced in Math and Sciences, especially Astronomy (as were the Mayans who were on the Yucatan Penisula in Mexico) and they had cities that were dated back as far as 12,000 years ago (carbon-14 dating) leaving them one of the oldest civs in history. Ditto on a lot of things that I said about the Aztecs above.

4) Spain. It was a powerhouse in Europe at one time and most of central and South America speaks its language. Not to mention they were "officially" the first Europeans to discover the Americas and get credit for it. See more about this in #1.

5) Carthaginians. Did everyone forget about Hannibal already?

6) Ottoman Empires (Turkish culture). A significant empire in that region for a time. Enough that it fills the gap between Europe and the Middle East. And at least most people say they have heard of it. :-)

7) Amazons - this is my debatable one, but south america needs some civs. with the incas this would make 2 on the continent. that is my only logical reason and it breaks all my rules about which civs should be in. Either this or Brazil, what choices we have.

8) Thai or cultures from the "Indochina" area. SE Asia. Thailand, Vietnam, etc.

9) Byzantine Empire. Here's one that many may have forgotten.

10) Australia or Aborigenes: something needs to be on that continent. I would suggest the latter because of the "original culture" of the land. Don't ask me about great leaders or cities or anything else about these people.

It looks like I need to throw some more change into the kitty. I think I ran over my 4 cents worth. AND please don't start taking offense because your country couldn't make the list or your culture doesn't seem to fit my rules of who should become a civ. It's just a game (and my opinion).
 
Originally posted by PaleHorse76
Suggestion to Firaxis (even though I don't believe they will read this), partner up with a publisher that isn't just looking at the dollar signs. I love Civ3 (especially since I can finally get rid of corruption) but love in this situation doesn't make me blind to all the problems the game has. The problems have been listed better by others so I will not go into them again.
[/rant]
Click to expand...

Good idea but I think Infogrames now owns the right to the Civilization series. Firaxis was contracted to make Civ3 for Infogrames.

I do find it a bit strange that Firaxis could not convince Infogrames to give them more time to work on Civ3 though, considering the influcence Sid Meier has in the gaming industry.
 
DelinquentRock:

<snip>Yes, Australia does have troops in foreign countries but as it is with Canada ARE NOT ALOUD TO KILL.<snip>

I bet you're one of those people who reckons we all ride around in kangaroos pouches in the streets of Sydney if we told you. This is plain non-sense and ignorance.

<snip>And I do know world affairs enough to know this is true because I watched one of the court marshals on CNN.<snip>

I've seen a lot of weird things on TV too, but you don't see me claiming to be an expert lawyer because I watched a couple of episodes of Judge Judy.

<snip>Of course I will make the point that India was not war like either and they are in this game.<snip>

Accepted.

<snip>...as would I laugh every time Paul Keating Declared war on me...<snip>

Paul Keating is no longer the leader of Astralia, nor is he one that stands out like Bob Menzies or Gough Whitlam. This is irrelevent anyway.

<snip>Sorry but at present rate Australia will never be a name synonymous with power whereas Germany, Russia, Great Britain, America, Egypt, Rome, Japan, China, Persia, Greece, Babylon, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Turkey, and even the Aztecs are.<snip>

Or Mexico and Brazil either apparently.

It's a pity because you actually had some really good arguments that you put forward, which had you left on their own would had been accepted well. But instead you insult Australia though your statements, most of which have little base or are outright incorrect.
 
WOW 8 new civs...

It's going to be (completely sure):
1- Vikings (Europe) (they were in civ2)
2- Spanish (Europe/Medi) (civ2)
3- Mongols (Asia) (civ2)
4- Incas/Mayans (South America) (only one)

Not totally sure:
5- Carthage (Africa/Medi) (civ2 too)
6- Turks/Arabs (Middle East/Arabian Pen.) (don't think we'll get both of them)

The last ones:
7- One African Civ more (My knowledge of african civs is bad :confused: )
8- That leaves space for another Asian/(maybe pacific) Civ (dont know which -maybe Korea -maybe one of the small ones)

Like most others I don't think we'll see Canada or Australia (but you never know :rolleyes: ). The reason for this is that they are too young and too close to their original Euro civs (mostly Britain). The American Civ is really also to young to be in the game, it's strange to have America and the Native Americans starting next to each other in 4000BC. :p But i'm glad the Americans are in, you just don't need to add Canada also.

To DelinquentRock :mad: : You can't say that India shouldn't be in Civ3 or that it is an insignificant country. India's population is alot bigger than the one of the US, India are the origin of one of the biggest religions in the world ever, India is the biggest producer of movies in the World. And it is an ancient civ too. Imo India is more important in Civ3 than America.

Anyone know when the XP will be released:D ?
 
i want the dutch people as a civ!
so i can beat them up!
and ad now a good african country not stupid zululand
and make a barbarian civ with very much challenges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
Aspyr announces new update for Civ6 on Android, coming June 12, 2025
Replies
5
Views
2K
McGreggD
McGreggD
Lazy sweeper
Civ 3 = Chess. Set standard rules. Where is true innovation?
Replies
8
Views
695
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
K
Alternative campaign-The Russians
Replies
8
Views
896
kaskavel
K
The_J
Sid Meier's Civilization® VII - VR Now Available Worldwide
Replies
15
Views
2K
hkdman
H
FXS_Sar
  • Locked
Update 1.1.0 is coming March 4 + New Development Roadmap
6 7 8
Replies
147
Views
15K
The_J
The_J
Back
Top Bottom