E3: Firaxis Announced 2nd Civ3 Expansion!

[Ottooo]

if they are going to add a conquest of the Americans scenario, i think it would be logical that they add both The Netherlands and Portugal

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

but using firaxis logic that means they'll add Ghana

 

[anarres]

Aren't you guys more interested in the *new features* rather than new civs (that can be modded already!)??

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

we worry about what civs are going in cause that means we don't have to mod them in!

 

[Civrules]

I don’t care if they added Portugal or not... It would be nice though. We still don’t know what half the civs are (at least most of us don’t know )!

 

[Punkymonkey]

Originally posted by Hermes
Well actually, you could argue that mesopotamia was united under Sargon of Akkad (or at least his grandson Naram-Sin) about 2300 BC, and again under Ur-Nammu (or his son Shulgi) aorund 2100. Sure Sargon II and the assyrians was important, just not the first to unite.Masopotamia....

Akkadians united a small area of the fertile cresent. The assyrians united all of Mesopotamia and went into egypt and turkey

 

[Punkymonkey]

Originally posted by LouLong


Sure but Maya can grow South and Aztecs can grow north whereas Portugal would have to start growing towards Spain.

What about the Inca? how far south can they grow if the inca are right there???

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Punkymonkey


What about the Inca? how far south can they grow if the inca are right there???

Don't be silly.
Incas and Mayas have the whole south america to expand.
Portugal and Spain would have the whole iberic peninsula...

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

i don't know why everyone doesn't think theres enough room for Portugal to expand if the spanish are there i find everyone starts building in siberia anyway

and with regard to the Maya, Inca and Aztec problem I think there is enough space in central and southern America for the three to fit

edit: well wasn't I late with this contribution

 

[Civrules]

Doesn't that room issue happen in our regular games? Once I crushed the Germans and left them to have 3 cities.

If the Iberian peninsula is split in half from east to west than one could be on the top and the other on the bottom. It all depends on how the AI will expand. I don’t think this is a problem at all! And I certainly don’t think that the developers would not add Portugal because of that nuisance.

 

[trumpeteer]

I could care less about balancing sizes in Europe, or for that matter, in the game. After all, isn't it so much easier to divide by one?

Peace through war!!!
:soldier: :soldier: :tank: :soldier: :soldier:

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Punkymonkey


Akkadians united a small area of the fertile cresent. The assyrians united all of Mesopotamia and went into egypt and turkey

Not true. The Akkadians under Sargon, one of the most accomplished rulers in history, united all the lands from Akkad to the Mediterranean Sea. Their Empire was larger, if not as long lived, as the original Sumerian Empire.

That said, the Assyrians were more important.

 

[Punkymonkey]

Akkadians did not have their empire spread to the mediterranean but had trade networks that went all over which was more important. There is evidence for trading with 3 major areas, Oman, Bahrain and Indus valley for resources so their influences stretched that far but militaristically they were weak and collapsed after a few kings.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by troytheface
Byzantines? That was just the eastern Roman Empire. Although i must admit they had a different military system (according to stuff i read in history books) and lasted longer than the old Rome.

I'm beginning to fashion myself as somewhat of a buff of Byzantine history, and suffice it to say that the Byzantines are quite distinct and unique from any incarnation of Rome. Besides, the Middle Ages are almost completely slighted by the civ choices. There were NO Medieval civs included in the original game. Well, technically I guess France was because of their Medieval leader choice, but they aren't really a Medieval civ. Adding the Arabs, Ottomans, and Vikings is a nice start, but it seems kind of stupid to leave out the grandest and most extensive/successful empire of the entire Middle Ages. I can't get enough of playing them in games, and will be eternally grateful if they are part of the next expansion. In fact, I won't buy it unless they are included!

 

[alamo]

[posted this in the ship date thread, but discussion is here]

Hmmm....reading the features list is kinda like reading about the things that modders/scenario builders have been doing here for awhile.

Not a bad deal to have a user community do your prototype work for you!

To boot you get to bundle it with a patch and sell it all as an expansion!

New victory conditions, Wonders of the World, terrain elements, resources, city improvements, and governments.... Improved multiplayer and play-by-email support, intense diplomatic situations, and a slew of editor enhancements...

Eight professionally designed adventures challenge you to recreate the great conquests of history. Battle for control of Mesopotamia in the Cradle of Civilization, or for the rich and vast resources in the Americas. Then, embark on a campaign through time as you attempt to conquer some of the most powerful civilizations ever...

New Civilizations: Eight new powerful civilizations from the innovative Sumerians to the mystical Mayans.

New Units: Use Trebuchets to batter down the enemy's walls or Sumerian Enkidu Warriors to quickly gain military dominance.

Disasters: Beware the volcanoes, or Pompeii could become your reality.

Diplomacy Options: Locked alliances allow good vs. evil conflicts you'll never forget.

Map Features: Bombard the enemy and leave behind craters.

Resources: Fight for control over Tobacco, Jade, and Exotic Birds.
Wonders: Build the statue of Zeus to make your troops powerful.

Governments: Forming an Islamic Sultanate is just one of the new ways to rule your people

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by metalhead
There were NO Medieval civs included in the original game. Well, technically I guess France was because of their Medieval leader choice, but they aren't really a Medieval civ.

Well, France, and to a much lesser extent Russia, England, Germany and Spain, were also present in medieval time. I don't really see how you can phase them out simply because they survived until today.

but it seems kind of stupid to leave out the grandest and most extensive/successful empire of the entire Middle Ages. I can't get enough of playing them in games

I agree completely.
It's such a pleasure to take their lead and avoid them their sad decline, sunset and death...
In Medieval Total War, I nearly always take them. They just have this something that help to immerse in the game.
I think that a big part of their appeal is that they were an old, prestigious, sophisticated nation, that survived for long despite being in extremely difficult times, and was having an immense culture.

Really a fantastic civilization, that is sadly not given its true place in history classes I think...

 

[Civrules]

Originally posted by alamo
[posted this in the ship date thread, but discussion is here]

Hmmm....reading the features list is kinda like reading about the things that modders/scenario builders have been doing here for awhile.

Not a bad deal to have a user community do your prototype work for you!

To boot you get to bundle it with a patch and sell it all as an expansion!

It did say “and much, much, more”. They probably put the simplest features of Conquests. After all, it is 6 months before they release it.

 

[Hermes]

Originally posted by Punkymonkey
Akkadians did not have their empire spread to the mediterranean but had trade networks that went all over which was more important. There is evidence for trading with 3 major areas, Oman, Bahrain and Indus valley for resources so their influences stretched that far but militaristically they were weak and collapsed after a few kings.

Well its really a matter of argument and definition. What is mesopotamia, well the land between two rivers, akkadians seems to have controlled that. But it seems that it wasn't so organized as assyria was. Anyways, its difficult to say, we don't even know where their capital Aggade was, so of course we have much less written and archaeological sources from this period than we have from the neo-assyrian period, this also makes the argument rather unsolvable.
What about the third dynasty of Ur? It united mesopotamia in a very controlled and bureaucratic empire, also before Assyrians....

 

[EddyG17]

I think that if they are going to add more civ. soon we will only be able to have five ro so cities because there will be no room to expand left meaning that what we need are bigger huge maps like 1000 of width and 1000 of height.

 

[Civrules]

too slow...