Civ3 Expansion Pack Announced!

[VoodooAce]

YES!

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

YES!

Can not wait to kick so sniveling butt in MP.

 

[Field Marshal Klesh]

Wow, maybe there will be a video of Sid playing the Saxophone this time.

-FMK.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I just want to log these predictions: if they don't do it this way, they aren't as smart as me...

So we get eight new civs and "some" new scenarios. I am now fairly confident of how it will go down.

One scenario will be Conquest of the New World. It will utilizing existing England, Aztecs, France, Iroquios and add Spanish and Inca, maybe Dutch or Sioux.

One scenario will be midevil northern europe. It will utilize existing England, Germany, Russia and France and add Vikings, Celts.

One scenario will be the coming of the Golden Horde. It will utilize existing China, India, Russia, and Japan and add Mongols, Turks.

One scenario will be War of the Worlds. It will utilize existing Civs plus add the Martians.

So, we will be getting Spanish (special unit, Conquistador), Inca (special unit, we never heard of it but it comes out early and sucks), Vikings (ye olde Longboat), Celts (Wode Warriors, I dont care if it correct), Mongols (Horse dudes), Turks (Jannissaries), Martians (them big UFO things from the movie), and Sioux or Dutch or possibly Mayans.

If there are more scenarios, like WW2 or Alexander based, they will run off of existing Civs.

There will not be new traits (but I wish to God they would make Commercial Civs build faster Markets and Banks and make expansionist Civs build faster settlers and ships).

There will be new music.

It will not cost less than 24.99.

 

[Sentinali]

Okay, I love Civ, I have played it since the original and I am a big Sid fan, BUT the XP thing bites my butt. These are items that should have been included with the original release and now I have to play $40 (I live in Canada), for the expansion. I can live with a shoddy initial release IF they patch it well and update you for free. This is nothing but a SHAMLESS MONEY GRAB!

IMO, multiplayer should be a patch, so should any new common units. The XP should be the new civs, scenerios and their unique units and their should be about new 16 Civs. That would be fair.

 

[AD_KB]

All in all i think it will be great [although i do hope they add a lot more units... [ ok just a little will do!! ]

<--- civ

the most intriguing thing HAS TO BE THE TURNLESS GAME which is probably mainl added so thatr people could play mlti player without having to wait upto 7 mins per turn...

although i have to admit ... turn based and the balance civ has is one of the reasons its so successful, if i wanted real time strategy i would play Red alert etc... but it will be nice to se what they have made of this turnless game, maybe it will actually be a good way of playing both multi and single players... does anyone have a release date?????

 

[Desert Fox]

I guess no one seems to care that we have to pay for a decent editor, for an expansion pack and the first release still(regardless of the voting) has some serious issues.
Mainly for designers like Elucidus, myself, LWC, Korn, etc. I personally would like to see the game I paid $65.00 for LE version to be completed. Hearing that I will have to pay for the added features that "clearly" should have been included with the first release is utterly ridiculous.
I am pleased they are making a multi-player feature, I play Civ3 way to much (to the point of burn out) so don't take this post out of context. I think Firaxis is being "unfair" to the civ community. Mike the programmer saying they aren't supporting extra units, graphics, etc in Civ3 yet. That is because they planned to charge us for that. Let us face another fact only the true civ addicts and mod makers know the quirks going on. Strange damn things should be addressed before even thinking of expansion. Come on Firaxis give us a break and give us the "mother of all patches" and make us all happy without putting out extra cash.
Thanks!

 

[Sir Yelof]

Originally posted by Sentinali
Okay, I love Civ, I have played it since the original and I am a big Sid fan, BUT the XP thing bites my butt. These are items that should have been included with the original release and now I have to play $40 (I live in Canada), for the expansion. I can live with a shoddy initial release IF they patch it well and update you for free. This is nothing but a SHAMLESS MONEY GRAB!

IMO, multiplayer should be a patch, so should any new common units. The XP should be the new civs, scenerios and their unique units and their should be about new 16 Civs. That would be fair.

Fair to who?

Fair to a company that committed a development and QA team for 3-6 months to come up with the new artwork, new mechanics for multi-player, and playability/balance testing? Total cost probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fair to a gaming industry in which programmers and producers are paid below average salary? Fair to a world where over 80% of the games produced don't turn a profit?

Sure it's a money grab, but there's nothing shameless about it if you ask me. You can't market a patch, and you can't trust people to compensate you for your efforts unless you charge them. People don't pay for shareware.

These guys have done it right so far with the support team and the frequent patches, and I hope they continue to perform.

--Yelof

 

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Sir Yelof


Fair to who?

Fair to a company that committed a development and QA team for 3-6 months to come up with the new artwork, new mechanics for multi-player, and playability/balance testing? Total cost probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fair to a gaming industry in which programmers and producers are paid below average salary? Fair to a world where over 80% of the games produced don't turn a profit?

Sure it's a money grab, but there's nothing shameless about it if you ask me. You can't market a patch, and you can't trust people to compensate you for your efforts unless you charge them. People don't pay for shareware.

These guys have done it right so far with the support team and the frequent patches, and I hope they continue to perform.

--Yelof

Who the hell are you kidding? Good Programmers "I stress good" are paid quite well. And most companies do not have their best programmers jump ship and take everyone with them. Leaving the company struggling to make it. The fact is Firaxis is trying to drain, squeeze as much money as possible from us all. Civ3 could have been much more then it is. In its current state it is literally full of all kinds of bugs. It is horrible that they are skipping over completing the first release and moving toward release of expansion pack with the features that I expected in the first release. Brian Reynolds and the crew were the true people who made Sid's game really shine. He is one of the best programmers around in the Industry today. That is why many people are complaining about Civ3. Programmer doing Civ3 is no where near as good as Brian is. That is the bare facts here, bad programming. I sure hope Firaxis releases a patch to finally resolve the issues currently in the game. I seriously doubt the present editor will be fixed. They need the cash flow and they have to charge for something that they just shouldn't be doing. I suspected this way back after the first patch. You could tell they were holding back.
I am waiting for Rising Nations I bet it will be the best game ever for the new style of turn based/RTS that Brian will be bringing onto the market with Rising Nations. I still play Civ3 but it pisses me off when I kept having problems due to bugs. Fix the game then lets talk about expansion packs.

 

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by calgacus
The eight most popular new civs according to my poll would be:

1. The Spanish (19.76%)
2. The Mongols (12.57%)
3. A Scandinavian civ (11.98)
4. The Arabs (7.78%)
The Celts (7.78%)
6. The Carthaginians/Phoenicians (6.59%)
7. The Scots(5.39%)
8. The Turks (4.79%)
The Jews (4.79%)
(on May 2nd, 6pm GMT)

Found below:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15780&highlight=excluded+civs

Actually, that's 9, but the Turks and Jews came in joint eighth.
It'll be interesting to see how closely the new civs match popular opinion!

If you had called the Scandinavian civ "the Vikings" they would have won (or at least finished 2nd)!

 

[Sir Yelof]

Originally posted by Desert Fox
Who the hell are you kidding? Good Programmers "I stress good" are paid quite well. And most companies do not have their best programmers jump ship and take everyone with them.

Just going by the most recent industry data I've seen, which is captured here: http://www.gignews.com/crosby3.htm

"The survey at the 1999 Game Developers conference found that game programmers with more than 1 year of experience earned an average of $59,127 in 1998. Lead programmers earned more. According to job search agency surveys, experienced game programmers usually earn a base salary of between $60,000 and $80,000 annually."

This observation jives with what I've heard from friends currently and formerly in the computer game industry. From a business perspective few game companies can hold their own.

Guess what? A lot of people who like to program like to play games. So being a game designer/programmer is highly competitive, which means they don't need to pay as much.

Anyone know how many copies of Civ3 were sold? I don't have access to PCData anymore, and haven't seen any press releases. I don't know what the margin is on game software but I'm guessing they see $20 of every $40 sale. We could figure it out right here... maybe they should have been charging us $80 for the first release...

--Yelof

 

[Beloyar]

I don’t know if many people really wished to have new civs, but since they already added eight, I think they already decided which ones. Our comments is just daydreaming.
My choices are the top eight:

• 
  1. Byzantines (high civ) East Roman Empire – religious, commercial (+industrious)
  2. Incas (high civ)
  3. Arabs (high civ) – scientific, religious (+militaristic)
  4. Ethiopians (civ)
  5. Thai (civ) southeast Asians
  6. Mongols (nomadic civ) – expansionist, militaristic
  7. Spanish (civ)
  8. Mayas (civ)
  9. Turks (civ) – militaristic, expansionist (+religious)
  10. Celts (multinational culture)
  11. Slavs (multinational culture)
  12. Scythians (multinational culture)
  13. Khazars (advanced culture)
  14. Carthage (civ)
  15. Vikings (advanced barbarians)
  16. Sioux (barbarians) should not be included in the game
  17. Iroquois (barbarians) should be taken out of the game

Eight more civs will slow the game drastically, unless AI is improved.

We need more optional animated units for mods, etc.

Here is how some new civs can be introduced into the game. The cause for the change can be a result of one or more of the following:

• 
  · a civ’s Golden Age expires
  · a civ’s unique unit become obsolete
  · a civ has too many unhappy citizens
  · part or all of the civ converts to new religion or new gov’t

Thus, for example, in ancient civs, like Babylon, Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc., for reasons listed above, some of the cities revolt. The revolt will not be secessionist (to other civs) but separatist to form new civs, like Arabs, Byzantines, Italians, etc. If cities in Russia, China, etc. revolt in a similar manner, new states, like the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, etc. would appear (provided Communism has been discovered), and so on. This method could also be applied to British/Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc.), and many others.

DelinquentRock, you’re absolutely right, Americans should have Euro architecture.
But, Russians, Indians and others should also have their own styles as well.


What we really need is more Editor capabilities, so we can change what we want in the game.


I also came up with many other good improvements that can be included in the expansion pack: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13538&perpage=20&pagenumber=17

 

[Chaz200]

I agree with Yelof,

Here's a scenario. Last Friday I took a friend of mine to the movies. Tickets $17, Snacks $15.. Total $32.

$32 dollars for 2 1/2 hours of entertainment. I bought Civ III for $40 US (Hint: Don't buy a game the first month of release) and have played it for probably 80 to 100 hours thus far. So cost to entertainment ratio doesn't even compare.

I also saw nothing on the package for Civ III promising a future patch that would enable multiplayer. Albeit some functions in the game did not function properly but patches were issued to correct them.

Teams of programmers have spent countless hours to develop a game. They are not doing it for an altruistic purpose they are doing it to make money. So I don't mind paying for an expansion pack if it contains features that I am interested in.

Civ III is a damn good game and a heck of alot better than alot of the garbage that is produced in the gaming industry. So I say thanks to the developers for a great game and thanks for at least listening to the Civ community.

I look forward to purchasing an XP.

 

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by Desert Fox


Who the hell are you kidding? Good Programmers "I stress good" are paid quite well. And most companies do not have their best programmers jump ship and take everyone with them. Leaving the company struggling to make it. The fact is Firaxis is trying to drain, squeeze as much money as possible from us all. Civ3 could have been much more then it is. In its current state it is literally full of all kinds of bugs. It is horrible that they are skipping over completing the first release and moving toward release of expansion pack with the features that I expected in the first release.

So what you are saying is, that you would rather wait more than half a year until the full game was ready with scenarios, MP et cetera? I have played the game for half a year now, and I have had some really good fun playing. I think this time has been worth the extra money I have to pay if I choose to buy the expansion pack.

 

[Ruffin]

How about this for a solution to which civs to include and exclude - culturally linked rebellions? When a city split off it could either go into a neighboring civ (culture flip) or form a new civ based on the original. All the pop would immediately become the new nationality and all the culture in that city would become the new civs culture.

So an English city that's just had quite enough of the tea and scones would become the first American city with all of the tech of the English and proportional % of the gold. Culture flips of neighboring cities would start the American revolution, etc.

The rest would be similar -
Rome - Byzantium
Germany - Austria
Zulu - Xhosa
Russia - Ukraine
China - Korea
Babylon - Assyria
etc.

 

[Matt]

I like the opportunity 8 more civs gives, lets hope firaxis uses them wisely.

I am Canadian, and I think a Canadian civ would be a borderline civ, Aussies should be first in line due to their own landmass ( and the Crocodile Hunter!). Militarily, Canada has a distinguished past, and we are renowned in our UN peacekeeping, if under-equipped. I think our most important attribute is culture. Canadians are very strong in the popular culture field, what with the legions of famous canadian actors, singers, bands and art. And don't forget science. In the context of Civ3, Canada could be culturally strong enough to annex some American cities.

There, thats my canadian take. UU could be some sort of advanced infantry, as that has been our biggest strength in both WW - Extra attack point?

Another possible native american civ could be the Innuit (Eskimos) - maybe give them ability to use frozen resources other civs can't. UU war Kayak?? I dunno maybe this one's silly, but living through the cold they have is impressive to me.

Other civs I am in favour of - Celts, Vikings, Mongols, Incas/Mayans, Hebrews, Spain, Brazil/Mexico.

I definitely approve of breakaway civ potential, possible way of introducing Canadians, Aussies, Mexico etc. This would add civs without actuall adding them. Something like this happened to me once in Civ 1.

I will pay for XP only after first patch is released, so there!!

Matt

 

[Matte979]

Civ3 was way to cheap when we bought it.

You compare to movies i compare to concerts.. for example
U2

2 hours..

100 bucks atleast.

Civ3 is cheap compared to how many hours you spend.

Long live Firaxis!.. They need to make money and I am willing to support them aslong as the keep up the good work.


Note: I work for a company that sell one user licenses for 2000 bucks..

/Mathias

 

[WarlordMatt]

I don't care how much civ III MP/XP costs, I am GETTING IT!!!

I think the Spanish should have been included in the original Civ III. They are a very important civilization to history. (discovery of America, etc.) The Conquistador is a good choice for a Spanish UU, it could be like a souped-up Explorer, requiring Saltpeter and Iron and it could have an A/D/M of like 3/3/6, of something.

I think the idea of breakaway civs (Americans, Mexicans/Brazilians etc.) should be a definite thing to include in the XP. The Americans didn't just start out at 4000 BC, they broke away from England and by the American Revolution. I hope this and many other things are included in the MP/XP.

 

[Shoegaze99]

Some interesting comments here regarding potential new civs, what constitutes one, and what should be in the game. The poll results reflect what would makea very good new set of civs, I think.

South Pacific, Arab, and Caltic/Norwegian civs are all but a done deal, I'd wager.

Somebody mentioned the Aztecs and questioned their inclusion, citing political correctness. That's nonsense. In their day, the Aztecs were the most powerful civilization on the continent, ravaging their neighbors and building a complex culture that still keep archeologists in business to this day. Not only were they a world power for their part of the world and the time in which they lived, they crafted a culture unique to the world. I think both of those traits are important to warrant true "civ" status.

I think of the Incas and Mayans, the Incas would be the best choice if another South American civ were to be added. They are farther removed from the Aztecsboth culturally and physically, and built a unique mountain culture all their own. They too were a major power in their day, and for thousands of years were *the* power south of Panama, i.e., in all South America. A fascinating culture for those interested.

A South Pacific culture would ne highly appropriate, though it would have to be made of a number of groups put together; there are, after all, significant differences among Polynesian history. Nonetheless, that would make a great civ.

Lastly, if you believe certain civs were excluded because of anti-Islamic sentiment, alireza1354, you're absolutely nuts.

 

[fangnasher]

I think it is totally ridiculous to have to pay for multiplayer functionality. This is a standard norm for all games these days. I couldnt give hoot about new civilizations. After you play the game enough by yourself it gets rather routine and boring. I think this is a scam and a blatant ploy to generate additional revenue for something that should be automatically included in the original release.

I am seriously considering just bailing on all Firaxis products in the future because of this type of behaviour.

The new HOMMIV does not have MP capability but they are going to release a "FREE" patch to upgrade in the future.

Oh well, Im done ranting

 

[StJaBa]

I don't think people should be suggesting countries such as Canada and Australia when there are major civilizations that are missing in the game.

Here are five that are extremely neccesary

1. Mongols. Created the world's largest empire for a short period. The top notch military power of the Middle Ages.

2.Turks. One of the most powerful countries during the 1400, 1500, and 1600s.

3. Vikings. The scourge of Europe for hundreds of years.

4. Spanish. It's civilization left a permanent mark on about 1/6 the world.

5. Phoenicans(sp?)Colonized much of the Mediterranean. Gave us our alphabet.

Here are some that should NOT be included:

1.Austrian. German is sufficient. There is no Austrian language. There is no such thing as Austrian culture. The Austrian/Hapsburg Empire was extremely important in history, but 1. Hapsburg was also Spanish. 2.There is no such thing as an Austrian Civilization. Would be a totally different story if the game was called "Empire III"

2.Sioux. Less than 100 years of limited existence does not count.

3. Carthagenian. Similar in culture to Phoenicians. One great leader, and threatening an empire does not make a civilization. If that were the case I would be waiting for a Dixie civilization