New Civs Update from IGN

[kring]

I was just over at Apolyton, and saw this link by m0lok0plus:

New Civs Info

Here is some of it:

Firaxis told us a bit about two of them, the Mongols and the Spanish.

Other new civilizations include the Gauls, the Carthaginians, the Ottomans and the Arabs. We don't have any more details on those yet, but we wouldn't be surprised if the new units include berserkers and a new kind of war elephant.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Ottomans AND arabs - absoloutley fantastic, exactly what I want - addressing what I see as a major balance problem (i know others dont)

but gauls?????? WTH - KOREANS. Gauls are flipping french (geographically). WE dont distinguish between macedon, sparta, athens and greece why should we give one of the litle european tribe that grew into the french their own civs

 

[Graeme the mad]

I presume as the guy said berseker below - he means vikings not gauls
I hope

 

[damunzy]

"Third among the major changes is the addition of a robust editor. Released in June, four months before Play the World reaches shelves, the editor will allow players to create custom scenarios, units and civs. "
Anybody touch on this yet? Sounds like this will be a freebie...too bad MP isn't.

Did anyone notice the reviewer's last name is Butts....sorry, had to laugh at that one. Sounds like the reviewer is an active player instead of one of those "play once, review, move to next game" type reviewers. Sorry for laughing at the name Steve, I am sure you have never had that happen before.
I think the title of the review should have been "Everyone's favorite turn-based empire game goes multiplayer, finally". Sorry, the negative feelings coming out again.

Edit: Oops, I see Thunderfall has, here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23134

 

[kring]

So far, several different places have indicated a possible Oct release for PTW; I wonder if it will hold true.

 

[Thunderfall]

So Koreans are not in? This is a great disapointment for Korean Civers...

I presume as the guy said berseker below - he means vikings not gauls..I hope

I hope so too. "Vikings" sounds much better than Gauls.

 

[Kilroy]

Aren't the Gauls rather redundant? And, I wonder who the leader will be?

 

[sgrig]

Gauls are probably there instead of Celts, which we originally thought will be in. So probably their leader will be Brennus.

I'm really glad both Ottomans and Arabs are in!

 

[monkspider]

Gauls=Celts
Why they have made the silly decision of naming them the Gauls is beyond me.
Also, why Turks *AND* Arabs? This seems highly redundant to me.
This also seems to confirm the possible Korean unit is just part of the Japanese themepack
This would mean our 8 civs are
1. Spanish
2. Mongols
3. Vikings
4. Celts (gauls)
5. Ottomans (turks)
6. Arabs
7. Carthage
8. Inca presumably, possibly Maya

 

[Mad Hab]

Err, sorry, but Turks and Arabs have NOTHING in common, except religion. They were both very important and significant (much more than some other included civs), and is a big shame both Civ I and II ignored them...

Cheers!

Mad Hab

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by monkspider
Gauls=Celts
Why they have made the silly decision of naming them the Gauls is beyond me.

Because Celt is Gaul; the latter the name commonly used for the European Celts, which was a much larger group than the Irish Celts. And saying Gaul=France reveals a lack of understanding about history.

As for Ottomans and Arabs, they are vastly different ethnically. "Why is there an American Civ, where there's a German one?" is essentially the question you're asking.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Turks And arabs - redundant??!!!

Yeah in the same way that having france AND germany or babylon AND persia is - if you understood anything about history you'd know the two civs are very different

 

[Geon]

And saying Gaul=France reveals a lack of understanding about history.

I disagree. Just because they got "romanized" doesn't mean they are not the same people. Just because some German tribe conquered them and changed the name of their land doesn't make them different either.

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by Geon


I disagree. Just because they got "romanized" doesn't mean they are not the same people. Just because some German tribe conquered them and changed the name of their land doesn't make them different either.

It's not just about Romanization, you have to consider the fact that not only were they Romanized, they were Vandalized, and Gothized, and Ostrogothized, and Hunnized. To me, its similar to comparing Etruscans to modern-day Italians...sure, there's probably some common blood running through the veins, but are they really the same people?

As has also been established in the other thread (the Screenshots one), the Gauls were more than just the predecessors of France, they stretched much further than that. There is a distinction between the Roman states of Gaul and the Gallic people which many people forget.