Let's customize the Big Six!

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Echinda
But I question having Mohammed as the leader. There are a lot of people who could be deeply offended by the idea of a game where the military defeat of Mohammed is an objective.

Echinda is correct, some people at this site that may not take this serious, however there are people in this world that would take naming him in a game very serious. I would let it drop. Keep in mine the Iranian that wrote the book questioning the Koran, they put a bounty on his head for doing so.

[Martinus]

As for Arabs, I think there should be Religious/Commercial. True, they were very scientifically advanced, yet their main fore was commercial ability and traders that travelled from China to Spain.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Seriously, you could say that about all the leaders.

Ummm, no, you couldn't. Mohammed was the founder of one of the world's great religions and is seen by some as a person whose every act and word were divinely inspired. There are no other suggested leaders for this game with that status. Comparing him to Saddam Hussein is merely insulting. Having him involved in a game where the AI could have him, for example, begging for mercy from Elizabeth I would be seen as an incredible affront to many devout moslems and an attack on the foundation of their religion.

If you are Christian, think of the reaction some might have to Jesus of Nazareth being one of the leaders and you get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Trust me, Sid Meier doesn't want to have a congregation of Iranian mullahs calling for his head. If you need any further convincing, go to Google and get some background on the trials and tribulations of Salman Rushdie because of the "Satanic Verses".

--- back to the topic ---

The Mameluke's are still a cool choice for the Arab special units, though. You could also go with Hashishans (sp?), a special diplomatic unit with a greater chance of pulling off assassinations. But I think Mamelukes are cooler and they clearly had a way larger impact on Arab history.

[Inverse Icarus]

the Turks were one of the first civs to use cannons for offensive attacks.

perhaps a kickass cannon.

[DarkCloud]

What about... Viking leader "Gerhalt Bloodshield"
I would be glad with Canute as their leader, however... He DID conquer Britan!

Gerhalt Bloodshield lived around 900-1100, I forget exactly... I think I should read my history of the Vikings book...

Well, he fought a lot with monks, etc and a lot of tribal wars, etc.

Maybe another Norwegian-born poster kknows more about him?

[Gangerolf]

Echinda,
I guess you're right about the Mohammed thing, he being the founder of those mullahs' religion and so on. Anyway, I think Saladin (Ibn Yussuf Salah al-Din) would be a more suitable leader.


Dark Cloud,
I've never heard of him, are you sure this isn't a fictional charachter? I'm no expert though. Fictional or not, he would come far down on the list of potential leaders IMO.

[Alexander I]

Here's what I think. I'll leave the civ abilities to someone who understands them more (my computer won't load the civ abilities chart properly).

Mongols

Name: Mongolia
Leader: Genghis Khan Temujin
Unit: Mangudai/Elite Cavalry (A kind of horse archer)

Norsemen

Name: Scandinavia (or Norway, Denmark, or Sweden -- once they were all ruled by the same king!)
Leader: Cnut of Denmark or Magnus of Norway
(Erik Bloodaxe probably wouldn't do, but he sounds cool!)
Unit: Berserkir (really angry infantry) or Longship

Inca

Name: Inca Empire (or maybe "Peru" )
Leader: Atahualpa
Unit: I'll look into it.

Saracens

Name: Arabia? The Levant?
Leader: Saladin
Unit: Mamelukes (souped-up cavalry)

Turks

Name: Turkey (or Turkestan or even Anatolia!)
Leader: Suleiman the Magnificent
Unit: Janissaries (musketeer or pikeman)

Spanish

Name: Spain, Castille or Aragon
Leader: Philip II or Isabella
Unit: Armada (warship) I don't think Conquistador would work, they were explorers and vagabonds that got lucky, rather than some sort of elite military squad.

And three more:

Celts

Name: Celtic Lands? They lived from Ireland to Turkey originally -- widespread and disjointed tribes...
Leader: To heck with Cunobelin, I say Vercingettorix! (maybe Boadicea if they want that affirmative action female thing)
Unit: I hate to copy Age of Empires II lingo, but Woad Raiders. Can anybody find a better name for the bloodthirsty painted Picts?

Hebrews

Name: Israel
Leader: David
Unit: David's 300 Mighty Men (unless someone can find a more official name) or Prophet/Levite/Priest - what would they do? Some kind of elite diplomat Prophet can call down fire from heaven on pagan unbelievers if they don't repent (ie peace Treaty?) But they're not available in Anarchy, Communism or Nationalism -- too busy calling their OWN people to repentance.
(Wickedness Warning ability)

Carthaginians

Name: Carthage
Leader: Hannibal (kind of like Joan of Arc, unless someone can find a proper political leader for them)
Unit: War Elephants! Unless they already belong to India...

Any guesses?

[DarkCloud]

Apologies, I was thinking about Eric Bloodaxe.

A failture in many aspects.

954 the last Viking king of York, Eric Bloodaxe was driven from his kingdom.

Mayhaps I remembered wrong about Gerhalt

[Urban Ranger]

Incas: perhaps religious and expanisonist.

Mogol special unit: +1 attack and +1 movement

[Harlan]

The Mohammed issue: having Mohammed in Civ3 is not just a bad idea, its sacreligious. Muslims have a strict rule against the physical depiction of Mohammed, especially his face. Even Hollywood, when making an epic of Mohammed a few decades back starring Anthony Quinn, didn't show the face of Mohammed in the entire movie! If even Hollywood, which screws their facts up often enough, has the tact to not show his face, Civ3 should do the same.

As an aside, there was an interesting book I once read called "The 100" by Michael Hart, that lists the most important people in history (according to the author anyways). Of course, every person who would write a book like this would have a different list, but his reasoning for his choices make interesting reading just the same. I mention it because the person in the number 1 spot is Mohammed. The book makes no judgement of good or bad, just impact, and his argument is that Mohammed is the only figure very important both religiously and politically, starting a new religion and a major empire.

But lacking him as Arab leader, I'd go with Caliph Umar I if you want historical accuracy, or Saladin if you want a figure popularly known in Western countries.

By the way, here's Michael Hart's entire list, in case you're interested, in order of impact on people's lives (earlier people have an advantage of more generations of lives to impact):

Muhammad
Isaac Newton
Jesus Christ
Buddha
Confucius
St. Paul
Ts'ai Lun
Johann Gutenberg
Christopher Columbus
Albert Einstein
Louis Pasteur
Galileo Galilei
Aristotle
Euclid
Moses
Charles Darwin
Shih Huang Ti
Augustus Caesar
Nicolaus Copernicus
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
Constantine the Great
James Watt
Michael Faraday
James Clerk Maxwell
Martin Luther
George Washington
Karl Marx
Orville Wright Wilbur Wright
Genghis Kahn
Adam Smith
Edward de Vere (Shakespeare)
John Dalton
Alexander the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Thomas Edison
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
William T.G. Morton
Guglielmo Marconi
Adolf Hitler
Plato
Oliver Cromwell
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander Fleming
John Locke
Ludwig van Beethoven
Werner Heisenberg
Louis Daguerre
Simon Bolivar
Rene Descartes
Michelangelo
Pope Urban II
'Umar ibn al-Khattab
Asoka
St. Augustine
William Harvey
Ernest Rutherford
John Calvin
Gregor Mendel
Max Planck
Joseph Lister
Nikolaus August Otto
Francisco Pizarro
Hernando Cortes
Thomas Jefferson
Queen Isabella I
Joseph Stalin
Julius Ceasar
William the Conqueror
Sigmund Freud
Edward Jenner
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen
Johann Sebastian Bach
Lao Tzu
Voltaire
Johannes Kepler
Enrico Fermi
Leonhard Euler
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Nicoli Machiavelli
Thomas Malthus
John F. Kennedy
Gregory Pincus
Mani
Lenin
Sui Wen Ti
Vasco da Gama
Cyrus the Great
Peter the Great
Mao Zedong
Francis Bacon
Henry Ford
Mencius
Zoroaster
Queen Elizabeth I
Mikhail Gorbachev
Menes
Charlemagne
Homer
Justinian I
Mahavira

[Harlan]

Some more thoughts:

On the Carthaginian/Phoenician special unit. I'm sure India or Persia has the elephant already (the picture for the Polytheism tech is an elephant, which is wierd if no elephants are in the game). Carthage/Phoenicia was mainly a naval civ, so it should have a ship unit. The quinquereme would be a good one. It was kind of a trireme plus, and was the backbone of the Carthaginian navy.

Mongol special unit should definitely be the Horse Archer, though maybe Mangudai is a better word for it (I've never heard that word, maybe someone can explain).

What did the Vikings call their homeland? I don't like Scandanavia, since it is a geographical feature, not a country.

One possiblity for an Arabian special unit would be the Cameleer. Rather than yet another horse unit, having a camel would be something more interesting, and the Arabs did use them alot. They could have special abilities on Desert and Plains (I hope the game allows that kind of thing!).

The Turkish special unit could actually be the Mamelukes - they weren't Arabs. The Mamelukes were the name of the Turkish horsemen who were either captured and made slaves or were mercenaries for Egypt since at this time horsemen in central Asia were so much better than those in the Middle East. They were typical of the Turkish horsemen through the centuries, and horse based warfare was definitely the Turkish military speciality.

Definitely Longship and not Berzerkr for the Vikings (more ship special units are needed anyways), and Suleiman for the Turkish leader.

[static]

I think an interesting top four would be:


Mayans - One of the great scientific powers of all-time.
Empire Name: Maya Empire
Leader: Yax K'uk Mo
Special unit: Mayan Worker - Would somewhere between a worker and engineer. Here is a quote about them. "A sizeable labour force was organized to build and maintain the waterworks and tend the cornfields. These innovations set the stage for increased food production, creating a surplus that led to enhanced trade with neighbouring states, and subsequent population growth."
Civ Abilities: Religious, Scientific. Same as Babylonians.
Extra: If they let us edit the abilities of Wonders, then I would add the "Mayan Calendar", and give bonus cultural points when discovered.


Atlanteans - Yeh, I know they probally didn't exist. But I think it adds an interesting strategic element to game.
Empire Name: Atlantis
Leader: Atlas, according to Plato.
Special unit: None - They get an extra civ ability.
Civ Abilities: Scientific, Commercial, Industrious. They were supposed to have been a highly advanced, rich, and civilized empire.


Mongols - The greatest military of all-time, considering their era.
Empire Name: The Mongol Khanate
Leader: Genghis Khan
Special unit: Mongolian Cavalry, +1 attack and +1 movement, they were devastating force.
Civ Abilities: Militaristic, Expansionist. The initial expansion of the Mongols was perhaps the most devastating and successful series of invasions in history.


Spaniards - Once was the dominant civ in the world.
Empire Name: Spain
Leader: Isabella
Special unit: Somekind of transport ship??, allow two extra passengers and +1 movement.
Civ Abilities: Religious, Expansionist. They imposed their religion onto Europe for centuries, and were very successful explorers.


Lastly, I would change:

Americans - Expansionist, Industrious, Commercial (Capitolism).
Romans - Militaristic, Industrious, Expansionist.
Iroquois- Religious, only ability that they should have and reflects their power.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think any built-in civilisations should have more than two special abilities. For example, why should the Amicans get 3 but not the British? Afterall they were in a dominant position longer, and you can just easily argue that they were expanisionist, industrious, and commercial. What about the Chinese? The imperial dynasties were expansionistic too.

Unless you setup a scenario I don't think it's right to give any civ more than two special abilities.

[static]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't think any built-in civilisations should have more than two special abilities. For example, why should the Amicans get 3 but not the British? Afterall they were in a dominant position longer, and you can just easily argue that they were expanisionist, industrious, and commercial. What about the Chinese? The imperial dynasties were expansionistic too.

Unless you setup a scenario I don't think it's right to give any civ more than two special abilities.

True, perhaps it would throw the game out of balance. Though I am curious how a 3 special ability civ would affect gameplay.

[Stefu]

Okay, so now we have:

Mongols
Empire Name: Mongolian Khanate
Leader: Genghis Khan (the obvious choice)[/b]
Special unit: Mangudai, Knights with greater movement.
Civ Abilities: Militaristic, Expansionist. This makes them the equivalent of Green Menace of Africa. Don't piss off the Mongols, man.)

Vikings
Empire Name: Norse Kingdoms
Leader: Knut the Great.
Special unit: Longships. These are like caravels, but with bigger movement. And they come earlier, 'course.
Civ Abilities: Commercial, Militaristic (Vikings didn't really achieve much in department of stable expansion, did they? And they were traders as well as warriors.) This makes them equivalent of Persians, which doesn't sound that right, but there are already two Commercial Expansionist nations in N. Europe.

Arabs
Empire Name: Arabia
Leader: Saladin
Special unit: Mamelukes, Knights that are bit cheaper.
Civ Abilities: Religious and Expansionist. In the end, I picked Expansionist, because they created truly whopping empire, and in Earth map, they basically start out in the middle of desert and having scout to check out for new cities will be crucial.

Inca
Empire Name: Inca Empire
Leader: Atahualpha
Special unit: Does anyone have suggestions?
Civ Abilities: Industrious, Expansionist Amongst current Civs, Americans are industrious and Expansionist. It's something in the continent, I'm sure.

Turks
Empire Name: Turkey
Leader: Suleyman
Special unit: Janissaries, Musketmen with extra movement point.
Civ Abilities: Militaristic, Religious. This combination is shared by the Aztecs and Japanese.

Now, while we're at it, let's do the 6 next!

Carthaginians
Empire Name: Carthage
Leader: Hannibal
Special unit: War Elephants, I don't know if there is going to be unit equivalent to Chariots or Elephants in Civ3, but if there is, Elephants is like it, but with extra point of attack.
Civ Abilities: Commercial, Industrious This makes them the French equivalents, which is not intended as an insult.

Maya
Empire Name: Mayapan
Leader: Hmm... who would this be? There haven't been any famous-to-western-world Maya leaders in vein of Atahualpha/Montezuma.
Unit: I don't know. Keep in mind, it has to be a military unit so it can trigger the Golden Age.
Civ Abilities: Scientific, Religious This makes them rather like Babylonians - not too bad as an comparison, methinks.

Dutch
Empire Name: Netherlands
Leader: William of Orange? He was Dutch, right?
Unit: Hmm. Flyute? Merchantman? It would be a Galleon with extra speed/carrying capabilities.
Civ Abilities: Commercial, Industrious. Another France-like nation.

Celts
Empire Name: Celtic Lands?
Leader: Boudicca (Gotta think of that female quotient)
Unit: Woad Raiders (I've played AoE too ) What would be they like, though? Maybe warriors with bigger attack?
Civ Abilities: Religious, Industrious? Currently, the Egyptians have this combination.

Hebrews
Empire name: Israel
Leader: Solomon
Unit: Well, this is where I draw a blank.
Civ Abilities: Religious, Commercial. More and more Indians - does this mean that they'll also love plotting cities in the middle of my Empire?

Portuguese
Empire Name: Portugal
Leader: Henry the Navigator?
Unit: Maybe something naval-related? What are Portugal's contributions to the world? I forget, Brazil.
Civ Abilities: Commercial/Expansionist. It's the only one that seems fitting.

Looking back, I see I haven't managed to fit the Militaristic/Scientific combination on anything. Cripes.