Civ3 Expansion Pack Announced!

[Discovery One]

Calgacus -

I had a brain-fart as to the Muslim thing... Actually Saladin would be a good choice! (I forget how his name should be spelled; Salah al-Din maybe?

What might the special units for each one be?

Spain.............................Conquistadore
Arabia............................Hashashim (Medieval assassin)
Polynesia.......................Catamaran (sea-going trireme)
Maya..............................Sahal (probably same as Jagaur Warrior)
The Netherlands............some renamed Man-O-War
Mali................................Camel Caravan - trade bonuses????
Inka...............................Far Runner (an ancient explorer)
Mongolia........................Horse Archers - what else?
Choson Korea................Turtle Boats (an early, lame ironclad-type)

 

[God]

The assasin was first started in Egypt. And Saladin was a Kurd not an Arab.

 

[Beeblbrox]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Exactly. However, in Civ2, the Celtic cities were all like Cardiff, Swansea etc.

I don't mind SOME welsh cities, but the Scottish and Irish have to be included.

If not, I'd like a Scottish Civ, please! IMO, we had MORE impact than the English. American culture is all well and good, but where would it be now without Baird's Televison? Where would medicine be without Penecillan, invented by the Scottish Flemming? The first King of what came to be known as Britain was Scottish, and it was the 51st Highland Division defending the retreating Soldiers at Dunkirk.

But that's not what this thread is for.

I want the Celts or Scots!

>> *cough* coming from Hastings where Baird lived most of his life and actually invented and demonstrated the thing a stones throw from my local boozer we can call that a null point can we?

 

[Sixchan]

But he WAS Scottish. And if there were no Scots, then no matter where he lived, there'd be no Baird.

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Eight New Civs?

Personally, I would like to see more non-Euro civs. We could go all day arguing that the Ukraine is a valid new civ since it was the heart of Russia, or even that Sweden and Poland had old and rather large empires at one time or another.

These are what I feel should be the new civs:

1. ASIA: Mongol Empire
Mongolia had the largest land empire in history, and while short-lived, they basically ruled what was known as the "entire" world.

2. MIDDLE EAST: Ottoman Empire
The Arab/Muslim culture was vast, had a huge network, and was one of the greatest powers of the 17th and 18th centuries. It waned due to European naval developments, but it was one of the crux nations and cultures of its time (attributed to Islam, naturally)

3. SOUTHEAST ASIA: Khmer/Annam/Siam
One of these cultures should be represented. A southeastern Asia culture is necessary. These cultures spread to places such as the Philipines, Australia, and even America. Heck, the Angkor Wat is one of (the?) oldest standing temples in the world, all from the Khmer Empire. Either have Khmer, Annam (Vietnam), or the more modern Siam.

4. SOUTH AMERICA: Inca
There were few large South American native empires, the Inca being the most noteworthy and prosperous. Add them to America.

5. OCEANIA: Srivijaya
Large Indonesian empire that controlled the waterways between the various islands. A representative of other cultures of the region, as well as a predecessor to the Malay people.

6. AFRICA: Mali
Central west African power. Could also be Ghana or Morocco. Mali was an actual Empire, however, with a prosperous gold and slave trade.

7. AFRICA: Ethiopia
Ancient civilization dating back to the Nubians who resisted the Egyptians. Nice location between the Egyptians and the Zulu, as well as a strong historical background.

8. EUROPE: Vikings
Expansionistic. I am tired of writing, you all know the shpeel.

--

I chose these on factors of
FIRSTLY: location
I place these empires in a context of location on the Earth map. Do they overlap? How close are they? What spaces are empty, lacking? There are many great and different countries in Europe, but we can only have so many European nations. We have to cross some and leave out others. "Great nations" need space to grow.

SECONDLY: culture
Did these cultures have their own art? Science? Their own contribution to the world? The Celts were amazing in their art, but their warfare art was lacking, whereas the converse is true for the Mongols. What makes this culture unique and stand out?

THIRDLY: historical importance
Was it a large empire? A small nation? Do they still exist today, either through the first-hand, or maybe through historical account?

So then WHY...?

America?:
Revolutionized world with emphasis on scientific innovation, commercial prosperity, and a representational republic form of government.

Aztecs?:
Massive architecture, sciences, advanced trasportation systems. Built on Olmec, Toltec, and other tribes; accounts for other classic Latin American powers.

Babylon?:
One of the oldest state societies, bringing a codified system of laws, new military tactic, and serving as a basis for the majority of other preceeding middle eastern cultures.

China?:
One of the oldest countries in the world, with advanced sciences, high sense of art, military tactic, and law. It has been around longer than most nations and influenced all of Asia.

Egypt?:
Literate, massive architecture, and served as a cradle for following civilizations. Powerful for its time, utilized river for transportation.

England?:
Government, commercial system, colonies. Basis for America. One of the most widely used languages.

Ethiopia?:
Major Ancient power in mid-east Africa. Rival to Egypt in Ancient times (Kush). Cultural and trade influences.

France?:
Most culturally influential nation for Europe as we know it. English language is how it is due to French influence. Art and style from French have influenced all of Europe's nations, from Spain to Russia. Military leaders, high sense of art, great philosophers.

Germany?:
People of mixed heritage account for most of eastern Europe. Long existance, scientific innovation, and military successes. Current world power accounting for older ones such as Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Denmark.

Greece?:
Ancient civilization that extended from the Mediterranean to the Indian states, building upon Persian and middle eastern cultures. Great thinkers, philosphers, architecture, and military leaders.

Inca?:
Advanced science, trade, and large South American kingdom. Accounts for other west-coast South American civilizations before it.

India?:
Indus people are one of the oldest civilizations; their language is the root dialect for most others. India has been home to many kingdoms and state societies and is a cradle for one of the world's main and most influential religions: Hinduism.

Iroquois?:
Representative of the Native North American tribes.

Japan?:
Classic and isolated power. While decended from Chinese settlers, Japan maintains own culture and has lasted for millenia. Art, military tradition, and culture influence.

Khmer?:
The most powerful Southeast Asian empire of the medieval world, highly ornate religious structures, cultural influence. Would represent other SE Asian cultures, such as the Thais, Viets, Laotians, etc.

Mali?:
Developed African kingdom in the west. Gold trades, developed society.

Mongolia?:
Military tactic, largest land empire in the world. (However, little to no positive cultural influence.)

Ottoman:?
Large power in the Age of Colonization, separating trade between Europe and Asia. Vast size, Islamic culture. Representative of other Arab cultures such as Muscat, Turks, Yemen, various Sultanates, the Abbasids, etc.

Persia?:
Persia built upon Babylon and was a cultural basis and structure for most of the Middle East until the Greeks. Large land mass, known leaders.

Rome?:
Science, politics, military tactic. Rome founded many of the principles started by the Greeks, and implemented by future European civilizations. Massive Mediterranean empire.

Russia?:
Combined vast cultures from Europe to Asia. Kept strong military presence, high advocate of arts, crux of Eastern Orthodoxy. Cyrillic alphabet. Representative of many Asian and Eastern Euro cultures such as Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Georgian, Armenian, Uzbeki, Khazak, Tartar, Ainu, etc. Communism.

Srivijaya?:
Major Oceanic/Indonesian power. Hindu influence, naval superiority between Asia and Australia in the medieval times.

Vikings?:
Norse mythology, unqiue alphabet, expansion. Explorers and hunters. Scandinavian location, distant from other Euro cultures.

Zulu?:
Representative of South African tribes. One of the most noteworthy of the tribes for uniting its people, being highly militaristic, and opposing Dutch colonization.

-----

WHY NOT???

Canada/Australia?:
British Colonies with highly British cultures. Only debate is on merits of America being a Civ. Do not have the same magnitude of significant scientific achievements, unique political influence, or global influence.

Aboriginees?:
No advanced socieites or even farming chiefdoms. These were simply wandering people with very little culture, no true form of writing, and never a true "culture."

Assyrians?:
Babylon and Especially Ottomans cover this region.

Carthaginians?:
Rome acquired this region quickly, and while noteworthy, has little cultural achievement.

Celts?:
While influential in art, language, and mythology, little influence concerning land or global acheivement. Great basis for more powerful nations' cultures, but did not stand out on it's own over time.

Dutch?:
Trader nation. Roman founded, amalgam of German, French, Roman, English peoples and influences.

Israelis?:
Noteworthy, but small and highly conquored. Cultural influence, but no real civilization of its own. And an ubiquitous "Jew" civilization in its stead is just silly.

Portuguese?:
Trader nations, colonies, but little influence on Europe as a whole. Commercially successful in its prime, but poor expansion as a civ.

Polynesian?:
You cannot just call a civilization "Polynesian" just like you cannot call a civilization "Indian [Native American]." There needs to be some one to represent (such as the Iroquois) and I chose Srivijaya. Another would work, but not "Polynesian."

Turks?:
Ottomans cover this well enough.

Scots?:
Too close to England, small civilization, no large-scale expansion.

Spanish?:
It was a toss-up between including the Spanish, or including the Vikings. I chose the Vikings as Scandinavia has resources and room left to expand in on the world map, while Spain is isolated, small, and close to France, Egypt, England, Germany, Rome, and Greece. Omitted purely for location purposes.

Tibet?:
Chinese culture covers this fairly well, and while large in its prime, it is already overshadowed by China and India.

Other civs I have explained to be represented by already included Civs.

So, uh, that's what I think.

-Ben

 

[MrSparkle]

I have been out of the Civ loop for a few months so forgive me if this is a stupid question

has a double production, double movement option been added to Civ 3 in any of the patches?

Cos if it aint, it had better be in the xpansion!

 

[Selous]

i vote that Novaya Havoc gets the post of the year! that was an excellent post that he/someone should it post to firaxis

a scientific analis based on gameplay conciderations and a knowledge of empires of old ... my only complaint is the exclution of spain, but then your reasoning is quite sound based on a world map ... but then not everyone plays a world map

but based on your evaluation i think that the southeastern asian culture (Khmer/Annam/Siam cant say ive ever heard of them, but that means nothing) unless that is tied in with the khmer rugue? SP) could be omited for gameplay reasons (positioning) and both the spanish and vikings be included?

after reading your post, firaxis should be looking at gameplay civs ... and not others

actually ... there is 1 segmant that u failed to include, mainstream knowledge of the particular civilizations. while most of the said civs are widely known, the Khmer/Annam/Siam and the Srivijaya are 2 that i have never heard off, and i would dare say very few people know who they are? ... for locational reasons australia could be included to fill this region as a widly known civ
the ottomans could be called the turks, and everyone will know who they are, have u got another name for the mali? they are not what i would call mainstream knowledge, but essential for there location

 

[Pangur Bán]

Eight New Civs?

Personally, I would like to see more

...... already included Civs.

So, uh, that's what I think.

-Ben

Great post, very systematic and comprehensive. However the analysis is slightly imbalanced in regards to a few things.

Firstly, most of the arguments supporting the Vikings apply also to the Celts. It is claimed that the Celts did not stand up in their own time, but this is a complete exaggeration. They established territories from Anatolia to Spain. They also lasted a long time. The Roman began subduing the Italian Celts in the 3rd century BC. It wasn't until 1746, after the battle of Culloden, that the Celts became truly dead as an independent culture.
"Norse mythology, unique alphabet, expansion. Explorers and hunters" are some of the reasons given for the inclusion of the Vikings, but just replace "Norse” with "Celtic" and you have arguments for the inclusion of the Celts.
Granted though, if the distance from other European culture is important to you then the Vikings win round. However, I think that this should only be of minor importance for doing an earth-map mod. Anyway, the EMPIRES of Persia, Babylon, the Ottomans, Rome, Greece, even France and England all overlapped in the fertile-crescent. As do the Iroquois and the Americans in North America.

Secondly, I find it difficult to see how the Aborigines can be dismissed the way they are; yet the Iroquois are included for being "the representative of the Native North American tribes". Surely, the Aborigines are "representative of the native Australian tribes". And the statement that the Aborigines had "no true culture" is either highly ignorant or has a very subtle explanation. If the latter, extensive justification is required. Aborigine culture, Dreamtime, etc is the oldest continuous culture in the world, as it has been totally uninterrupted by invasion or large/medium scale warfare.

Thirdly, the dismissal of the Jews is also quite light. You will probably say that guys like Einstein, Marx, Freud and
Wittgenstein were really part of German civilization because the idea of the "ubiquitous Jew is silly". Ok, but even the ancient state of Israel is probably the 2nd or 3rd most important entity in the ancient world. Both Christianity and Islam are dependent upon Jewish religion. And if you are going to say that the Viking should be included partly because they had Norse mythology and their own writing system, then obviously Israel should be included for its superiority of importance in this regard. And as with the Aborigine statement, the claim that Israel had no "real civilization of its own" warrants extensive justification.

Lastly, all of the civs that you dismissed have very strong good points and so can't be dismissed rationally without saying why the good points are of less importance than the bad points. If they could, all of the accepted civs could be dismissed just as easily. For instance, you have included Mali, but I could just say:

"A medium sized empire of desert. Did not compare even remotely with the contemporary European and Asian civs. No large-scale expansion. Could not stand out on its own over time." Whereas you have written "Developed African kingdom in the west. Gold trades, developed society." So why exactly do the latter arguments outweigh the former?

 

[slightlymarxist]

I think what everyone forgets is that this is a game intended for the general population, not for historians. Srivijaya? Annam? Great cultures, I'm sure, but these aren't civs that people in general have heard of. Let's face it, if this game was made in China it's not likely America would have been a Civ in its own right. More like an English colony going rebel. The reason America and the Iroqouis (who should be "barbarians" IMHO) is in there is simple... the game is made in America. Many Americans want to play as their home nation, and/or encounter a representative of their history (Native Americans).

Vikings will most likely be in the XP. Spanish will most likely be in the XP. Why? Simple, people want it. There's a lot of Scandinavian and Spanish consumers, and people elsewhere have heard of them and believe them to be important. Vikings and conquistadore Spaniards are "cool". Nevermind geographical balance, a civ needs to ring a bell in western mind to get included. Mali doesn't, I'm afraid. So it's not going to be in there.

I wish it were different, but it's not.

 

[Desert Fox]

Waste of time....

 

[Selous]

Originally posted by calgacus


Secondly, I find it difficult to see how the Aborigines can be dismissed the way they are; yet the Iroquois are included for being "the representative of the Native North American tribes". Surely, the Aborigines are "representative of the native Australian tribes". And the statement that the Aborigines had "no true culture" is either highly ignorant or has a very subtle explanation. If the latter, extensive justification is required. Aborigine culture, Dreamtime, etc is the oldest continuous culture in the world, as it has been totally uninterrupted by invasion or large/medium scale warfare.

well i can address this part, the aborigine "culture" as u put it is a stone age group of nomads, the lived in some of the worlds most fertile land, had the MOST surface minerals and still didnt develop metals ... and while the aboriginals did have a dreamtime ... that consist of myths such as "a large snake created monoliths such as ayres rock" (that is a real one ... that is what created ayres rock) and they did paint pictures on rocks .... with that counting for a civilization then there really isnt anyone that couldnt be counted in civilization

and with the longest continuous culture in the world .. there is debate about that, apparently the "modern day" aboriginee has only been in australia for around 3000 to 4000 years or so ... there was another indigiounous race before then that were slaughtered to a person

 

[Shoegaze99]

Desert Fox, you've (allegedly) been playing games since 1979 and have never seen lots of fanfare for a game that has some flaws? Stunning.

You've been playing games since 1979 yet you went out and purchased a game without seeing what people, both professional and laymen, were saying about it first? Amazing.

You've been playing games since 1979 and have never seen a PC game released too early, or in need of a minor patch or two? Startling.

And yet through all this, you admit you have been playing the game every day.

Odd.

In the world in which I live, that's generally a sign that you got your money's worth.

It's 2002. There is no reason for any PC game player to purchase a game without know exactly what they're getting. Message boards and forums are flooeded with bug reports with 48 hours of any game's release. There are three print magazines dedicated solely to PC gaming, and countless websites. I cannot recall the last major PC game released that did not ended up being patched in one way or another. All of this should be abundantly clear to somebody who claims to have over 20 years of gaming experience. If you learned from it, that is.

I'm honestly not sure what you're seeing. I've played dozens of Civ III games without encountering a show-stopping bug. Plenty of feature tweaks I'd like to see, sure, but nothing that has made the game unplayable. And Firaxis has patched the game three times since its release, displaying that they're clearly still involved in the game.

Obviously there is something there, or *you* would be playing it daily, as you yourself admit. If the game's so flawed, why do so? And if it's worth playing every day, why the complaining?

What, exactly, do you want?

Fact is, somebody could but the game right now and never patch, and still enjoy the heck out of it. I know because two friends of mine have done exactly that and have yet to complain about anything other than Persian agression at their borders.

But hey, maybe their gaming only goes back to 1981, not 1979 ...

 

[Novaya Havoc]

:-D! Thanks for the feedback, people, especially calgacus. I'll try to clear some things up:

The natives of America had complex farming societies, whereas the Aboriginees were more nomadic and pastoral. This is why I didn't include Aboriginees -- they were not "civilized," per se, and although they had made achievements in art, they were, for the most part, isolated and nomadic.

Hell, we could argue for an Easter Island race; they even had their own language (which has yet to be deciphered).
---

Some of these civilizations I simply omitted due to overlap in culture. I love Celtic history and art, and they do have a high influence on Norse traditions; however, the Celts did not have a truly coherent "Empire." Granted, neither did the Vikings, but I placed the Vikings simply on the basis they are:
a) commonly known
b) associated with culture AND warfare
c) located in Scandinavia.

It is mostly the factor of B and C.
While they did spread throughout much of Western Europe before the rise of the Roman Empire, they are not very much alike any of the other Civilizations in the game -- politically, mind you -- (with the exception of the Iroquois, but they are only included as a nod to North American native culture).
---

I dismissed "Jew" on the prospect that it will not only generate some kind of racist civil-lawsuit, but also that there wasn't a large, true, "Jewish" empire/civilization. Ancienct? Yes. Influential? Most definately, but they have never been a true world power or even had a land of their own, as we are seeing today.

"Civilization" is more representative of the world's great powers throughout time, not necessarily the founders or the most influential -- this is why many of the Ancient or Classic empires are left out; many have noteworthy and exceptional accomplishments, but few really have a culture that stands out.

--

(heh... forgive the shoody organization -- I am kind of in a hurry. )

Lastly, yes: any civ may be argued for or against. Anyone can bash out the concept of Khmer, or Srivijaya, or Mali and Ethiopia. They are included as representations of other worldly locations. These are large empires from various times in various regions, and this is why I included them. Are they any more valid than other civilizations? No. However, I have included them because they come from their own parts of the world and thus, have a very distinct and different culture than the other Civs, whereas there are many common factors within Euro civs.

Many empires had risen and fallen in the Middle east, the Indian sub-continent, SE and east Asia, Europe, and all of them contributed to what these locations are today. However, for the sake of gameplay we have to agree to disagree, and while being representational, we have to be realistic.

My opinion is that there should be two new African civs, one European, one South American, one SE Asian, one Oceatic, and one Middle Eastern. These locations are currently not represented and should be identified by new players.

Mali, Khmer, Srivijaya -- I doubt these specific empires will be used, but hopefully a representative culture from each location will be used. These are just random ones I happened to select from memory in each area. Mali could be Morocco or Ghana, Khmer could be Siam, Srivijaya may easily be a representative Polynesian culture instead. Civilization should also educate, not reduce to the lowest common demoninator. Khmer non-identifiable? Maybe through this it will be. We know much abnout Europe, we should expand those horizons.

Heh -- but that is just my opinion, and I know it is flawed, but it is the best I can do.

running to appointment,
-Ben

 

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Shoegaze99
Desert Fox, you've (allegedly) been playing games since 1979 and have never seen lots of fanfare for a game that has some flaws? Stunning.

You've been playing games since 1979 yet you went out and purchased a game without seeing what people, both professional and laymen, were saying about it first? Amazing.

You've been playing games since 1979 and have never seen a PC game released too early, or in need of a minor patch or two? Startling.

And yet through all this, you admit you have been playing the game every day.

Odd.

In the world in which I live, that's generally a sign that you got your money's worth.

It's 2002. There is no reason for any PC game player to purchase a game without know exactly what they're getting. Message boards and forums are flooeded with bug reports with 48 hours of any game's release. There are three print magazines dedicated solely to PC gaming, and countless websites. I cannot recall the last major PC game released that did not ended up being patched in one way or another. All of this should be abundantly clear to somebody who claims to have over 20 years of gaming experience. If you learned from it, that is.

I'm honestly not sure what you're seeing. I've played dozens of Civ III games without encountering a show-stopping bug. Plenty of feature tweaks I'd like to see, sure, but nothing that has made the game unplayable. And Firaxis has patched the game three times since its release, displaying that they're clearly still involved in the game.

Obviously there is something there, or *you* would be playing it daily, as you yourself admit. If the game's so flawed, why do so? And if it's worth playing every day, why the complaining?

What, exactly, do you want?

Fact is, somebody could but the game right now and never patch, and still enjoy the heck out of it. I know because two friends of mine have done exactly that and have yet to complain about anything other than Persian agression at their borders.

But hey, maybe their gaming only goes back to 1981, not 1979 ...

Look I wasn't mad before but you are getting on my nerves now. Purchasing Civ3 was not done blindly I went out because I am a fan dipwad! Your lengthy op-ed cutting me down is really pathetic. Get alife and quit jumping on someone for making an opinion based on how they feel.
The game is flawed period! Everyone that seriously plays the game knows that. If you say or think it is not you are blind or have some other problem.

I am upset that the game is not completed yet a expansion pack is being announced. Not only am I playing the game I am helping to design a mod for the game.

The game is not fixed many problems still abound. Anyone who has played the especially with mods knows the problems. I guess you are totally blind huh? This is one of the reasons I normally don't post my opinions because no one can allow you to make them. Keyboards make people very strong with words and nothing else. Most are total loosers I might add spend all their time posting about what someone else has to say, how pathetic!

 

[Desert Fox]

I never said there were any bugs that made the game unplayable either, did not say there were show stopping bugs either. The flaws in the game are very annoying not just tweaks will fix them a big patch will. With the latest news that I "really" was complaining about is: "Now we will have to pay for the expansion pack to get a good civ3 game. Many things coming in the expansion should have been included with Civ3."

Civ3 should have been delayed for at least 6 months before releasing that way it would have been complete. Glad you like the game as is. Be sure to not install any patches then and enjoy it how it is if it is so good now?

 

[RenegadeXH]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
Great news! I hope those scenarios are REAL scenarios, and not just maps.

Can't wait to try multiplayer Civ3!!!

I agree totally man, scenarios are the best part of the game, I cant wait to try out the new ones.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Desert fox - flawed means that the game has something basically wrong with it that needs correcting - what is that?

And surely its you who is being immature with all your go play on the street little one nonsense

but im a rabbit what do i know?

 

[Bobo63867]

I think that everyone is predicting the new civs with the wrong system.
Yes, it would be great if every part of the world has a representative and we would be able to play as Khmer, Ethiopia, or Polynesia, but the makers are going to give us civ leaders that most people know and can identify with.
People(not the die hard civ fans) are going to want to raid and pillage as G. Khan or a Viking leader instead of trade as the great Mali leader.
That's why i believe we ar going to see these civs be added:
Definites
1) Vikings
2)Mongols
3)Spanish
4)Turks (explained countless times previously)
5)Incans (no S. Americans)

Possibilities(no particular order)
1)Carthage (Hannibal is famous)
2)Celts (They need Broadica for another woman)
3)Sioux (Not the best rep. for Western Native Americans but come with Sitting bull)
4)Hebrew (Many famous leaders)

I hope that i am wrong so we can meet new civs from different parts of the world (Mali, Khmer, Ethiopia) but i doubt that there are going any added that have not been heard of by a majority of the potential new customers.

Sorry about the spelling.

Why is everybody putting down the Iroquois? I am from W. New York so i know little more about the people(and i'm more biased) They developed currency, found ways to unite large groups of people peacefully(6 different powerful tribes), yet still could defeat the Algonquins regularily, and played huge parts in the struggle for land in the "New World" and stayed united and independant after most of the fighting. Plus they might be getting casinos this summer! This culture one that shouldn't be deemed inferior to the other civs already in the game.

 

[Shoegaze99]

Heh! Simply amazing.

Irony, thy name is Desert Fox.

 

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Desert fox - flawed means that the game has something basically wrong with it that needs correcting - what is that?

And surely its you who is being immature with all your go play on the street little one nonsense

but im a rabbit what do i know?

Let see now read real closely here okay? Flawed means that (whatever) said item is not working as otherwise stated and/or advertised. Civ3 lacks a decent patch to fix all the things that are still wrong with it. Or maybe a good programmer (Brian Reynolds) to actually get Civ3 working properly.

I was treating the guy like he is acting a little immature kid. Like most of the people who get on this web site. (Now I am not directing this at the cool people on here ) I am helping to design a mod have you tried to make a mod work? I speak only facts or things others does not want to admit. I love the civ series but Civ3 just lacks so much from what civ2 and Alpha Centauri has. That is a simple fact. Enough carrying on over what I posted. It is getting very silly. If there were no bugs in Civ3 I would not be posting anything at all on this geeky web site. Peace!