Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OMG!... wrong language

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 9:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I feel stupid :( 

Just bought the gold edition of civ 3 with play the world included. But when
i clicked the installation it's all france. I don't have my receipt (i
bought it on a market).
Is there a way to change language with an language pack? If there is plz can
i have a link.

If anyone knows any other possibility's to get me the english version would
be happy to know.
My email= betasmasher@yahoo.co.uk

Greets

More about : omg wrong language

Anonymous
November 13, 2004 11:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:35:55 +0100, "Mad Menyo" <gouwm@quicknet.nl>
wrote:

>I feel stupid :( 
>
>Just bought the gold edition of civ 3 with play the world included. But when
>i clicked the installation it's all france. I don't have my receipt (i
>bought it on a market).
>Is there a way to change language with an language pack? If there is plz can
>i have a link.
>
>If anyone knows any other possibility's to get me the english version would
>be happy to know.
>My email= betasmasher@yahoo.co.uk
>
>Greets
>

Well, that's noit going to work cause all your armies will always
surrender!
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 5:57:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> Well, that's noit going to work cause all your armies will always
> surrender!
>

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag
www.tacticalgamer.com
CS:SOURCE server now active :D 


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004
Related resources
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 3:41:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Great stuff.... now a normal answere plz.... idiot :S

got a serious problem here and you joking around.... go joke your family or
something.

Greets

"Mad Menyo" <gouwm@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:4600d$419645e3$d549e830$15444@news.multikabel.nl...
> I feel stupid :( 
>
> Just bought the gold edition of civ 3 with play the world included. But
when
> i clicked the installation it's all france. I don't have my receipt (i
> bought it on a market).
> Is there a way to change language with an language pack? If there is plz
can
> i have a link.
>
> If anyone knows any other possibility's to get me the english version
would
> be happy to know.
> My email= betasmasher@yahoo.co.uk
>
> Greets
>
>
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:57:52 -0000, "Adam Webb"
<adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

>> Well, that's noit going to work cause all your armies will always
>> surrender!
>>
>
>HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry. I could NOT resist!
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 11:12:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:41:46 +0100, "Mad Menyo" <gouwm@quicknet.nl>
wrote:

>Great stuff.... now a normal answere plz.... idiot :S
>
>got a serious problem here and you joking around.... go joke your family or
>something.
>
>Greets
>

I am not sure anyone can help you here. You probably need to email
the game makers. If it is just a matter of updating the text files
than you could probably just get them from someone else since they are
small files. If all the files are named differently and/or the exe is
completely different there might not be much you can do.

I don't know what you paid but if you buy again get a cheapo regular
CivIII along with the Conquests expansion pack. Conquest is already
bundled with PTW. You be able to scavage them online for $8 each.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 12:30:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:41:46 +0100, "Mad Menyo" <gouwm@quicknet.nl>
wrote:

>Great stuff.... now a normal answere plz.... idiot :S
>
>got a serious problem here and you joking around.... go joke your family or
>something.
>
>Greets
>
>"Mad Menyo" <gouwm@quicknet.nl> wrote in message
>news:4600d$419645e3$d549e830$15444@news.multikabel.nl...
>> I feel stupid :( 
>>
>> Just bought the gold edition of civ 3 with play the world included. But
>when
>> i clicked the installation it's all france. I don't have my receipt (i
>> bought it on a market).
>> Is there a way to change language with an language pack? If there is plz
>can
>> i have a link.
>>
>> If anyone knows any other possibility's to get me the english version
>would
>> be happy to know.
>> My email= betasmasher@yahoo.co.uk
>>
>> Greets
>>
>>
>

I am very sorry man. I should not have joked on ya but it was just too
easy for a genetic smart ass like me.

You hang one low and outside and I GOTTA swing at it. :) 
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:44:54 -0500, Skinner1@hotmail.com spoketh

>
>Well, that's noit going to work cause all your armies will always
>surrender!
>

Really? What gives you the impression that the french are more likely to
surrender than anyone else?

Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 2:26:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote...

<< Really? What gives you the impression that the french are more likely to
surrender than anyone else? >>

After they adopted an internal security warning level similiar to our color
system. In order from low to high:

Arrogant Dismissiveness
Surrender
Active Opposition

;) 


Peter Smith
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:26:22 -0600, Peter Smith spoketh

>"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote...
>
><< Really? What gives you the impression that the french are more likely to
>surrender than anyone else? >>
>
>After they adopted an internal security warning level similiar to our color
>system. In order from low to high:
>
>Arrogant Dismissiveness
>Surrender
>Active Opposition
>
>;)
>
>
>Peter Smith
>

Albeit humorous, there are no factual reason to imply that the french
are more likely to surrender than any other nation...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:25:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:41:26 GMT, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:26:22 -0600, Peter Smith spoketh
>
>>Arrogant Dismissiveness
>>Surrender
>>Active Opposition
>
> Albeit humorous, there are no factual reason to imply that the french
> are more likely to surrender than any other nation...

Other than the last several centuries of history, that is. Last time
the French had a real military victory was under the leadership of a
Corsican.

By the way, isn't the top category "collaborate"?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 18 Nov 2004 18:25:48 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>
>Other than the last several centuries of history, that is. Last time
>the French had a real military victory was under the leadership of a
>Corsican.
>
>By the way, isn't the top category "collaborate"?

Really? Well, in the last 100 years, there's only been two major wars
that the French have been involved with, and history records that they
fought valiantly in both...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:51:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:33:03 GMT, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2004 18:25:48 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh
>
>>
>>Other than the last several centuries of history, that is. Last time
>>the French had a real military victory was under the leadership of a
>>Corsican.
>>
>>By the way, isn't the top category "collaborate"?
>
> Really? Well, in the last 100 years, there's only been two major wars
> that the French have been involved with, and history records that they
> fought valiantly in both...

What, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Algeria ... which of these 4 are the two to
which you refer, please? Hell, they couldn't even defeat _Greenpeace_.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 18 Nov 2004 18:51:12 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>
>What, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Algeria ... which of these 4 are the two to
>which you refer, please? Hell, they couldn't even defeat _Greenpeace_.

WW1 and WW2...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:13:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:54:36 GMT, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2004 18:51:12 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh
>
>>
>>What, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Algeria ... which of these 4 are the two to
>>which you refer, please? Hell, they couldn't even defeat _Greenpeace_.
>
> WW1 and WW2...

So Vietnam wasn't a major war, then? And the Maginot line was a success,
was it? Seems to me I recall a photo of the Tour Eiffel with a nazi flag on
it, maybe that was photoshopped or something?

"fought admirably". You have selective admiration, my friend.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:13:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 18 Nov 2004 19:13:43 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:54:36 GMT, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2004 18:51:12 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh
>>
>>>
>>>What, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Algeria ... which of these 4 are the two to
>>>which you refer, please? Hell, they couldn't even defeat _Greenpeace_.
>>
>> WW1 and WW2...
>
>So Vietnam wasn't a major war, then? And the Maginot line was a success,
>was it? Seems to me I recall a photo of the Tour Eiffel with a nazi flag on
>it, maybe that was photoshopped or something?
>
>"fought admirably". You have selective admiration, my friend.

The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with the
exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries). By
your measure, that makes all of them cowards, and that would be a gross
misrepresentation of the facts.

The fact that the French government (as well as Polish, Danish, Dutch,
Belgian and Norwegian) moved to London doesn't mean the countries simply
gave up. In european history books there's a reference to something
called the "french resistance", and it's nothing culinary... There's
also the Polish resistance, the Danish resistance and the German
resistance. With out these brave people, many who gave their lives for
the cause, the war could have lasted a lot longer. Fought admirable as
well.

The Maginot line was obviously not a success, as the germans simply
walked around it, took Paris and then attack it from behind.



Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:13:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Dave Hinz" <

>>>What, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Algeria ... which of these 4 are the two to
>>>which you refer, please? Hell, they couldn't even defeat _Greenpeace_.
>>
>> WW1 and WW2...
>
> So Vietnam wasn't a major war, then? And the Maginot line was a success,
> was it? Seems to me I recall a photo of the Tour Eiffel with a nazi flag
> on
> it, maybe that was photoshopped or something?
>
> "fought admirably". You have selective admiration, my friend.

No, Vietnam was not a major war, except for the Vietnamese, the Americans
and Australians.

And in W.W.II the French did fight admirably. Against the Allies. Dakar
and "Operation Menace" for example.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
(Site now back up and working)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 11:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:51:09 -0800, Roger T. <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <
>
>>
>> So Vietnam wasn't a major war, then?
>> "fought admirably". You have selective admiration, my friend.
>
> No, Vietnam was not a major war, except for the Vietnamese, the Americans
> and Australians.

Ah, right. His statement was that they were only in 2 major wars in the
last century and did well in both of them.

> And in W.W.II the French did fight admirably. Against the Allies. Dakar
> and "Operation Menace" for example.

Had to google for "operation menace". Interesting stuff...

ObCiv: I'm playing one of the WWII scenarios from (mumble) right now,
as Churchill. The French seem not to be arming up, but at least they
gave me a ROP so I can defend them for them. I'm wondering - should I
proactively attack Germany, and if so, should I start by going through
Belgium?
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 12:02:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote...

<< No, Vietnam was not a major war, except for the Vietnamese, the Americans
and Australians. >>

I'm curious to see how you define "major war". The Vietnamese were fighting
French Colonial forces (in place since 1858) starting on 19 December 1946,
under Ho Chi Minh. In 1949 a French-recognized Vietnamese government
emerged. 1951 through 1953 saw the growth of gurrilla units and tactics, and
in 1954 the Vietnamese finally had enough forces capable enough to assault
and defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu. The French response was to pull all
forces south of the 16th Parallel. After the Vietnamese sued for peace,
which they received on 20 July 1954, the French recognized Vietnam's
independance and started removing their forces. The process was completed in
April 1956.

That's nearly ten years of military action. You're not going to tell me that
was a "major war"? The entirety of the Korean War was fought during this
time period.


Peter Smith
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 12:06:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote...

<< and history records that they fought valiantly in both... >>

To say that the French people fought valiantly in both wars is, in itself,
an accurate statement.

To say that the French government did the same is not.

Do not confuse one for the other. For in doing so you elevate one to a
position it does not deserve while demeaning the efforts of the other.


Peter Smith
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 5:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:13:32 GMT, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2004 01:03:36 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>>>>How you define "performed admirably", please?
>>
>>No answer, I see. Maybe that means "tried really hard and failed
>>miserably", but this doesn't fit my definition of"performed admirably".
>>If France had contined to "perform admirably" in that manner, they'd all be
>>speaking German now.
>
> Does that mean that the U.S. should also be considered militarily
> worthless for failing miserably in Vietnam and Somalia?


Let's look at win:loss ratio France is, what, 2 for 10? One under
Napolean, and the other was the french revolution, when they won
to/lost to, er, the French.


> This whole France bashing is a result of dissatisfaction with the French
> opposition of the current war in Iraq,

You really _are_ ignorant of history, aren't you. "This whole France
bashing" predates either Iraq war by many decades. We bail them out
and they spit on us. We bail 'em out again, and they spit on us again.
We bail 'em out in Vietnam and get dragged into _their_ failure.

> and all this old war stuff are
> just being twisted to give the impression that the French has always
> been cowards when faced with war.


Perhaps you can provide an example of the French being militarily
effective? And I notice you keep replacing my "useless" with "cowards".
Please don't put words in my mouth, you're clearly not qualified
to speak for me.

Show me these wonderful French military victories.

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 5:23:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:23 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>
>Show me these wonderful French military victories.
>
>Dave Hinz

I have never claimed that the french have had any wonderful military
victories. All I've been saying is that the claim that the french are
cowards (i.e. very likely to surrender) are not as well founded in
history as some would like to believe. The french did no worse (or
better) in 1939-1941 than any other European country, yet they are the
ones being picked on.

They spit on you? When have the french spit on the U.S.? Does not
blindly agreeing with U.S. foreign policy imply ungratefulness for
events that took place 50+ years ago?

Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 6:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:45:48 -0500, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:23 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh
>
>>
>>Show me these wonderful French military victories.
>
> I have never claimed that the french have had any wonderful military
> victories. All I've been saying is that the claim that the french are
> cowards (i.e. very likely to surrender) are not as well founded in
> history as some would like to believe.

Show me when they've been anything but useless, Lars. From an outside
observer, collapsing without giving any effective resistance to invastion
looks an awful lot like "Don't hurt us, here, have Paris", to the point
where if there is a distinction, it's meaningless in both appearance
and in end-result.

> The french did no worse (or
> better) in 1939-1941 than any other European country, yet they are the
> ones being picked on.

Right, because of course there was Vichy-Poland, Vichy-Belgium,
Vichy-Russia, and so on, is that it?

> They spit on you? When have the french spit on the U.S.? Does not
> blindly agreeing with U.S. foreign policy imply ungratefulness for
> events that took place 50+ years ago?

It's not about the Iraq wars, Lars, and you should know that. By the
way, you do know that one of the reasons that France (and Germany,
interestingly enough) were so opposed to action is that much of SH's
purchases of hi-tech goods was coming from...guess where????

Where are these French Victories, Lars? Maybe they think themselves
brave, but they're ineffective.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 12:29:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 19 Nov 2004 15:29:05 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:45:48 -0500, Lars M Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:23 GMT, Dave Hinz spoketh
>>
>>>
>>>Show me these wonderful French military victories.
>>
>> I have never claimed that the french have had any wonderful military
>> victories. All I've been saying is that the claim that the french are
>> cowards (i.e. very likely to surrender) are not as well founded in
>> history as some would like to believe.
>
>Show me when they've been anything but useless, Lars. From an outside
>observer, collapsing without giving any effective resistance to invastion
>looks an awful lot like "Don't hurt us, here, have Paris", to the point
>where if there is a distinction, it's meaningless in both appearance
>and in end-result.

Actually, the germans took Paris before they went back and had the
French army surrender. Where were they last effective? Gulf War, 1991.

>
>> The french did no worse (or
>> better) in 1939-1941 than any other European country, yet they are the
>> ones being picked on.
>
>Right, because of course there was Vichy-Poland, Vichy-Belgium,
>Vichy-Russia, and so on, is that it?

There were Nazi collaborators everywhere...

>
>> They spit on you? When have the french spit on the U.S.? Does not
>> blindly agreeing with U.S. foreign policy imply ungratefulness for
>> events that took place 50+ years ago?
>
>It's not about the Iraq wars, Lars, and you should know that. By the
>way, you do know that one of the reasons that France (and Germany,
>interestingly enough) were so opposed to action is that much of SH's
>purchases of hi-tech goods was coming from...guess where????

Really? You don't think the reason they didn't want to go to war was
that they thought there was still room for diplomacy, and that the
allegations of "imminent threat" by the US was exaggerated?

>
>Where are these French Victories, Lars? Maybe they think themselves
>brave, but they're ineffective.

Again, I've never claimed that French have had any big military
victories. They won, as a part of the Allies in both WW1 and WW2, and in
the Gulf War in 1991.

Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 10:41:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In message id <igtpp0t4ci9o8n56emr4m09r8u1isncvtg@4ax.com> on Thu, 18
Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0500, Lars M. Hansen wrote in alt.games.civ3 :

>The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with the
>exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries).

Two? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 12:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

John Blake <john.blake@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> In message id <igtpp0t4ci9o8n56emr4m09r8u1isncvtg@4ax.com> on Thu, 18
> Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0500, Lars M. Hansen wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>>The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with the
>>exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries).
>
> Two? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.

Ireland was just as difficult to reach as Great Britain (ignoring the
people who just lump it in with Great Britain anyways) and Spain was
already fascist and essentially allied with Germany so they didn't need to
invade it.

EepEep
November 22, 2004 8:17:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:304daaF2rolrgU4@uni-berlin.de...

> ObCiv: I'm playing one of the WWII scenarios from (mumble) right now,
> as Churchill. The French seem not to be arming up, but at least they
> gave me a ROP so I can defend them for them. I'm wondering - should I
> proactively attack Germany, and if so, should I start by going through
> Belgium?

Since you play as Churchill, you should start bravely
attacking Germany through Egypt.
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 12:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

eepeep <me@me.org> wrote in message
Xns95A787C11ADE0abc123unme@66.75.162.198...
> John Blake <john.blake@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message id <igtpp0t4ci9o8n56emr4m09r8u1isncvtg@4ax.com> on Thu, 18
> > Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0500, Lars M. Hansen wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
> >>The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with the
> >>exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries).
> >
> > Two? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.
>
> Ireland was just as difficult to reach as Great Britain (ignoring the
> people who just lump it in with Great Britain anyways) and Spain was
> already fascist and essentially allied with Germany so they didn't need to
> invade it.
>
> EepEep

And FWIW so was Portugal.

Alfredo
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 3:05:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In message id <WNsod.46987$Es2.1018763@twister2.libero.it> on Mon, 22
Nov 2004 21:24:06 GMT, Alfredo Tutino wrote in alt.games.civ3 :

>
>eepeep <me@me.org> wrote in message
>Xns95A787C11ADE0abc123unme@66.75.162.198...
>> John Blake <john.blake@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In message id <igtpp0t4ci9o8n56emr4m09r8u1isncvtg@4ax.com> on Thu, 18
>> > Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0500, Lars M. Hansen wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>> >>The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with the
>> >>exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries).
>> >
>> > Two? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.
>>
>> Ireland was just as difficult to reach as Great Britain (ignoring the
>> people who just lump it in with Great Britain anyways) and Spain was
>> already fascist and essentially allied with Germany so they didn't need to
>> invade it.
>>
>> EepEep
>
>And FWIW so was Portugal.

Neutral, Fascist or once upon a time a dominion of the British Empire?

;-0
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 9:37:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

< cut>

> Nice thing is, I can play it again if I fluff it badly. An option that
> the Allies didn't actually have...I could even wipe out France and make
> it "England South", since they've given me the ROP...hmmmm....
>
> Dave

Nice idea. I'd go on...

Alfredo
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 11:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

John Blake <john.blake@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
akv4q0pi215hqfv1bcd7vqp8tvosujn16p@4ax.com...
> In message id <WNsod.46987$Es2.1018763@twister2.libero.it> on Mon, 22
> Nov 2004 21:24:06 GMT, Alfredo Tutino wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>
> >
> >eepeep <me@me.org> wrote in message
> >Xns95A787C11ADE0abc123unme@66.75.162.198...
> >> John Blake <john.blake@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > In message id <igtpp0t4ci9o8n56emr4m09r8u1isncvtg@4ax.com> on Thu, 18
> >> > Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0500, Lars M. Hansen wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
> >> >>The french, as well as the rest of Europe, fell to the germans (with
the
> >> >>exception of Great Britain and the two so-called neutral countries).
> >> >
> >> > Two? Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Ireland.
> >>
> >> Ireland was just as difficult to reach as Great Britain (ignoring the
> >> people who just lump it in with Great Britain anyways) and Spain was
> >> already fascist and essentially allied with Germany so they didn't need
to
> >> invade it.
> >>
> >> EepEep
> >
> >And FWIW so was Portugal.
>
> Neutral, Fascist or once upon a time a dominion of the British Empire?
>
> ;-0
>
Oh, well, one or the other I guess... Or both?
;-(

Alfredo
!