E3: Firaxis Announced 2nd Civ3 Expansion!

[Civrules]

One more thing is that it is called Civilization 3: Conquests NOT Civilization 3: Conquest which could mean that this expansion has only 8 scenarios with the new civs and more scenarios but you cannot play just a reg game with the new civs.

Then I would say that it is a piece of junk and my reputation about Firaxis and Atari will be horrible!!!

It sounds good from what I read and I hope that you can play with the new civs and have special scenarios for them and you can play in a good old regular game! It is just too early to tell but I am still optimistic.

I will try to read everything on civ3.com more carefully and connect the dots.

 

[Civrules]

It dose not say a word about single player features! And says everything about those professionally created scenarios. Maybe I still don’t get it but it should not be hard to add those civs for play in reg SP mode.
Maybe they just want it to be famous for those scenarios, but still have those civs in reg SP mode. Who knows!
It is just another expansion pack and they don’t have much to talk about other important features so they talk about the scenarios. I don’t know.

Hey, It is still to early to tell and we still don’t have much info!
Maybe in the next two weeks we will get more info?

This is all so confusing!

 

[mrgenius]

o come on guys, stop speculating of lack of features. it was probably just a slip of the tongue (or because it was typed, fingers?). you guys take everything so literally, (at least in this topic)

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Hellfire
The mac port is even worse because we don't have PTW and we don't even have patch parity. Brad Oliver is currently working on the 1.29 patch for mac IN HIS SPARE TIME, and thats because Firaxis had nothing in the contract for the port to pay the mac shop for patches. The reason why we have no patch parity is because Firaxis isn't paying jack for the mac patches.

That's not correct. Firaxis would not be the company to pay for Mac development in any regard. It works like this: MacSoft licenses the game from Infogrames (e.g. pays Infogrames money) then turns around and again pays me to do the Mac port. This is not specific to Civ3 - this is the typical course of events for most Mac games. Firaxis have been very helpful in getting me the latest code whenever I've asked. My only real complaint is that they used DirectPlay and GameSpy - that makes PTW a porting nightmare.

 

[Kenric af Grashen]

as everybody seems to dislike the hitites so much i will certainly enjoy the possibility taking the Egyptians into Quadesh and fight for victory rather than a draw and maybe try playing as the hitites against my beloved egypt

 

[Civrules]

Although I am not sure weather the U.N. in Conquests has a more serious purpose or not the producers will eventually make the U.N. better in the Civilization series.

This article is from 4/30/2003. I got it from NBC news and tried to put the web here but it didnt work. But anyway here it is.


RETHINKING “CIVILIZATION”
At Firaxis Games in Maryland, company president Jeff Briggs has been playing close attention to the big picture side of the unfolding story in Iraq. The big picture is his job: Firaxis is home to revolutionary game designer Sid Meier, creator of the granddaddy of all strategy computer games: “Civilization.”
‘If Iraq has told us anything about modern warfare, it’s that it is as much a war of words as a clash of arms. It makes for interesting game decisions.’
— JEFF BRIGGS
president, Firaxis Games “Our game ‘Civilization’ always had what we called a United Nations component to it,” said Briggs. “And if you achieved the consensus of the other countries you could achieve a diplomatic victory.”
But real world events has Briggs thinking about updating the Civilization series. Among the features: An increased role for the media and a more true-to-life world governing body. In this more realistic setting “Civilization’s” United Nations component would be less kumbaya, more realpolitik. More powerful members would have the power to veto or go off and wage unilateral action.
“If Iraq has told us anything about modern warfare, it’s that it is as much a war of words as a clash of arms. It makes for interesting game decisions.” said Briggs.
But will such a game matter when it’s released, two or three years down the road? Briggs is not so sure: “Things are happening so quickly that it’s going to be hard for any game company to respond with a great game in time for people to still care.”


This could be good news!


Edit: I think I have it now. Click here

 

[Dr Alimentado]

civrules, you know it really is quite a sight watching your enthusiam wax and wane for this new expansion

FWIW I would be extremely surprised if the added civs weren't available for regular games, just like the civs added in PTW. In fact I would bet a considerable amount of money on it if anyone was foolish enough to take the bet...

I doubt they'll change the UN in C3C though. Maybe for Civ4 though, and hopefully we'll get a more sophisticated diplomacy system together.

 

[Civrules]

I never said it will be in C3:C! I said eventually. It might look that I am excited about it but if you look at some of my previous posts it dose not look like I would give a million for the expansion...If it is only scenarios.

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Sa~Craig
as everybody seems to dislike the hitites so much i will certainly enjoy the possibility taking the Egyptians into Quadesh and fight for victory rather than a draw and maybe try playing as the hitites against my beloved egypt

Now that would be pretty cool. It's also for that reason that I think that one of the unmentioned civs might be the nubians. Egypt in the new kingdom had a lot of biffs with the nubians so if you are going to play a Ramses ll conquest it would make sense to put them in as well.
And perhaps to have the Assyrians as well as the Hebrew's as most scholars believe that the Egyptian Pharoah of the bible that Moses dealt with was either Ramses ll or his son Merneptah(I think that's his name).
Either way Muwatallis ll is going to eat dirt

 

[Cilpot]

Yes, yes!!! Locked alliances... Finally!

 

[Gingerbread Man]

A few comments:

Correct me if I am wrong, but for many years the only records of the hittites was in the Old Testament. Would this mean an Israelite scenario? (Not Israeli or Hebrew, BTW. I think Isreali is modern israel, Hebrew is the language. But, dont take that as a source)

Or would this scenario be part of the Sumerian/Mesopotomian scenario?

 

[ltccone]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
A few comments:

Correct me if I am wrong, but for many years the only records of the hittites was in the Old Testament. Would this mean an Israelite scenario? (Not Israeli or Hebrew, BTW. I think Isreali is modern israel, Hebrew is the language. But, dont take that as a source)

Or would this scenario be part of the Sumerian/Mesopotomian scenario?

The Hittites were one of the first civs to use iron. Their position in present day E. Turkey would easily put it in a Mesopotamian/Middle East scenario with possibly Israel, Babylon, Sumeria, and Egypt.

 

[trumpeteer]

If Europe weren't bursting at the seams already, I would have wanted Switzerland to be a new Civ. Perhaps for a civ-specific unit they could have some kind of mountain-sniper-type dude that has an X% defensive bonus on mountain terrain or +1 hit point (can they do that?)

But, like I said, if they make one more European civ, the Iberian Penninsula will sink into the Atlantic Ocean!!!


They could use another civ in the Siberian region (the Huns, maybe?) to fill in the gap there, and an Australian civ to fill in, uh, Australia. If they add the Incas and Mayans, then there might actually be reasonably-sized civs in the Americas! But I don't think I can stress this enough: NO MORE MEDITERRANEAN CIVS!!! It's one thing to make nations fit like jigsaw puzzles, quite another to make them fit like microscopic dust particles.

 

[Yecos]

Originally posted by Cilpot
Yes, yes!!! Locked alliances... Finally!

Call me dumb but what is exactly LOCKED Alliances ?

i couldn't say what does it mean exactly...

 

[player1 fanatic]

It's an editor feature which helps to create scenarios in which some civs are in alliance forever (think about WWII scenario).

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
A few comments:

Correct me if I am wrong, but for many years the only records of the hittites was in the Old Testament. Would this mean an Israelite scenario? (Not Israeli or Hebrew, BTW. I think Isreali is modern israel, Hebrew is the language. But, dont take that as a source)

Or would this scenario be part of the Sumerian/Mesopotomian scenario?

The Hittite civilisation was only discovered in the early 19th century. For years people thought that it never existed. The bible was the only place they were mentioned at that time but later on texts was found in Egypt (not sure exactly sure when) mentioning a great battle at Qadesh in modem day Syria, I think, between Ramses ll and an Hittite king called Muwatalli ll. Ramses later went on and married one of his daughters in an effort to bring peace between the 2 countries. Not much is heard of them after that as directly after them the kingdom of Isreal and the Assyrians start to emerge and take centre stage in that region. Then the Babylonians 500 years after that.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Also, Mursilis was the Hittite leader who conquered Old Babylon (Later the Hittites were replaced by the Assyrians, then the New Babylonians)

 

[CivCube]

Originally posted by trumpeteer
But, like I said, if they make one more European civ, the Iberian Penninsula will sink into the Atlantic Ocean!!!

I think they have enough North American civs. Like everyone says, more African civs and the addition of Aborigines would definately help.

 

[oldmanrupert]

I agree with civcube, and with all due respect thestonesfan, the aboriginal tribes of the eastern seaboard here in Australia, were an advanced society in a spiritual sense, they had a developed religion. They traded with other tribes, fought wars. To compare them to way the aboriginal society is currently portrayed, is to underestimate their once notable existance. Sure, they faded after the advent of European settlement, as many ancient cultures did, just look at central america.

I think the Aboriginies would be a worthy addition to the Civ franchise, and hope they are included with Civ Conquests.

With the Bulkans having been such a hotbed of activity of the modern age, I think it'd be nice to see a tribe from there get a nod. Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand would be rolling in his grave!

 

[Elden]

Look at the background to the new leader Gilgamesh. Now look at the background for Hannibal in the ancient age.

You'd think they could make a new background but no...

Still the new leaders (and all else that we've seen) of the new game do look good.