Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Mongols and Spanish

[kIndal]

and where is AlmerÃa in the Spanish cities list

[kittenOFchaos]

The Spainish have to be in to keep the poles and hungarians out...at least the conquistadors would be a wonderful UU...treats all terrain as roads would be a good ability for it considering some of the great journeys undertaken by these greedy, violent and courageous men.

Jeez they'd have Lithuania using virtually the same arguements as for the poles...

Why so keen on keeping the minnows out...cos they would get the civ benefits and unique units that would allow them to compete with their historic betters

[Locutus]

Alexander,
First of all, I don't think it's a very good idea to discuss too many civs in the same thread at once. For now we should focus on the Mongols and the Spanish and, more importantly, on the format, and once that's done focus on other civs (but IMHO still no more than 2 per thread or things will get too confusing).

As far as the format of your post goes, it's not quite the same as mine so we should first work that out (if we're gonna send this stuff to Firaxis it would be best to have everything in the same format). In your post you don't tell anything about the history and acoomplishments of a civ (maybe you planned on doing that at some other time?) but you focused entirely on the role that they should play in a Civ3 World Map scenario. Personally I feel that that is not the right approach: in order to show the importance of a civ to Firaxis we should IMHO describe it's history and accomplishments, not prescribe it's role in Civ3. The people at Firaxis are professional game developers who are payed to design games so I think we can safely assume that they know how to implement various civs in the game once they've decided to go with these civs. However, these people probably don't however have the same thorough knowledge of history that the collective minds of all Apolytoners have, so they might be able to use our help in deciding which civs they want to go with. So that's what we should IMHO focus on with these descriptions: show to Firaxis why the most popular civs from the XPC thread are so historically important and give them some pointers in terms of possible leaders, unique units, city names, etc. If it matters at all how exactly the civs should behave in the game (IMHO it shouldn't matter: it's Civ, not a history simulator), we should IMHO leave it up to Firaxis to decide upon this. Let me know if you (or anyone else for that matter) disagrees though and think that we should pay at least some attention to their role on a Civ3 World map as well...

Wernazuma,
Great tips, those are all very helpful, thanks! I updated the descriptions to take those into account (changes in green). Your offer to help with the Maya and Inca, though not new, is gratefully accepted as well...

kIndal,
Hmm, you're right, I don't know why I didn't include those. I replaced Badajoz with Almeria, I think that is a good deal (let me know if I'm wrong though).

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Locutus
Ribannah,
The mention of slave trade seems rather unimportant to me as the idea is to tress why a civ was great (and slavery is not exactly a great achievement) and because until the 19th century slavery was absolutely normal and everyone did it (yes, I know all about the cruelties

I have to disagree... if it was fair game for Firaxis to mention cannibalism amongst the Iroquois, I see no reason why slavery should be ignored when discussing the Spanish (or the French or the Brits or the Dutch or--especially--the Americans). Simply mentioning some of the less-than-honorable portions of history does not negate all the good various civilizations have done.

[cyril25376]

Locutus, very informative I have learned much. Great work, well done

[Jay Bee]

Locutus,

I agree with all of Wernazuma's comments. It's only that you may have misinterpreted him with regards to something... it's not that Christians took over Arab universities, it's the knowledge that the Christians learned from the Arabs and took with them to the Christian Universities. The University of Salamanca in particular was at a time the most important center of knowledge of the European Middle Ages.

I suggest to drop Gibraltar. It wasn't an important Arabic city either.

More later.

[Alexander I]

Well...alright, Locutus.

But I don't understand the problems with format. I think your format is quite nice, though the history is a bit longish, though not uninteresting. Perhaps it should be limited to a "Civ-of-the-Week" length.

I don't think that we should limit our ideas to a predesigned barrier, though. For instance, we should come up with all sorts of expansion ideas, like a title, for one thing. My idea is CivIII Expansion: Lords of Sea and Steppes, though I'm sure someone else will make a much better one.

In regards to the stratgy section, I don't think it should be completely eliminated, but should rather remain short - a simple addition for extra interest. After all, we want to at least consider the ramifications of adding a civ in the game world.

And ok to two civs per thread, though can we make the next one Phoenicians and Dutch since I already got that going?

By the way, for the expansion, do you think this list of 16 is reasonable?

1. Spanish/Armada (or whichever)
2. Mongol/Mangudai
3. Phoenician/Quinquireme
4. Dutch/Fluyt
5. Portuguese/Carrack
6. Celt/Woad Raider (or a better term)
7. Viking/Bersirk or Longship
8. Israelite/Slinger
9. Ethiopian/Camel Rider
10. Maya/Plumed Archer?
11. Inca/ War Party or Llama Rider?
12. Polish/Lancer or Winged Hussar
13. Korean/Turtle Ship
14. Arab/Xebec
15. Turk/Jannisary
16. Sioux/Brave

Since Firaxis apparently desires to make generalized civs, I feel that the Byzantines don't have a chance. Therefore, since the Sioux were in CivII and the Iroquois monopoly needs fixing, I suggest Sioux as #16.

In regards to my format for civ elaboration, I was merely posing suggestions to initiate commentary, and was actually hoping for more input from yourself, as opposed to a finite definition. Nothing is concrete yet.

So the format:

Civ, country, adjective, noun
Leader
Capital
Unit
Attributes
Cities
Generals
History
Strategy

Anything else to add?

[Locutus]

Guynemer,
Well, I think one of the main reasons why Firaxis mentioned cannibalism is because it's a pretty exceptional situation, very few civs are known for it. Slavery was until 100-150 years ago the most normal thing in the world and in some way or another, (almost) everybody did it: Romans, Greeks, Mali, Chinese, Indians, Spanish, English, Dutch, Americans, etc. It was not something specific to the Spanish (even though their practices might have been more cruel than those of FE the Greeks) and that's what IMHO these summaries are about: to show what is unique about these civs (note how I kept the part of Spain after the War of Succession extremely short: Spain went through the same things as the rest of Europe then, not much unique about that period) and what makes them worthy of a place in Civ3. Also, as I said before, we're not describing the complete history of these civs (something like that could never be summarized in 1000 words), we're trying to convince Firaxis that these civs are important enough to include in Civ3. Additionally, one could argue that if you mention the Iroquois's cannibalism and Spain's slavery practices just for their cruelty and 'barbarism', you should also mention the cruelty in which the Romans dealt with Christians and other 'criminals' but I don't remember Firaxis mentioning this either.

Jay Bee,
Of course, you're absolutely right, I will fix it.
Okay, I'll drop Gibraltar then and bring Badajoz back. Let me know if anything else needs changing.

Alexander,
I agree that the history part is a bit long. As I said before, I originally intended to make them of the same length as CotW. However, there was just too much stuff that IMHO just *had* to be mentioned and I personally do think that most of Firaxis' CotW features leave out some important things, so I figured it was okay (and since you're the first to complain I think the rest of the guys think it's okay as well). If you think they should be shorter, do you have any suggestions on what parts to leave out for FE the Spanish? I for one feel everything currently in it *should* be in it but I'm open for suggestions.

I don't know what exactly you're thinking about with 'predesigned barrier' but my intention is to only make suggestions to Firaxis on Civs, at least in this thread. If you want to brainstorm about the title or other features of an expansion pack, I suggest you start a new thread about this. I personally think it's way to early to discuss what new features or whatever should be in an expansion pack: we haven't even played the game yet! Civs can IMHO be discussed because we already know which ones are in and which ones aren't but anything else would IMHO be very premature (that's also why I gave several alternatives for leaders, unique units, abilities, etc: we don't know enough yet to make specific decisions on those).

With regards to a strategy section, I explained my opinion and yours is pretty clear too, I would love to hear some other people's opinion about it. One thing more I'd like to add about this: a big problem with a strategy section is that you should know which civs are in and which civs aren't and we only know this for the 16 civs that are already in Civ3. If you want to discuss the strategy for the Phoenicians it's quite important to know whether or not the Turks, the Arabs and the Hebrew are gonna be added as well, something which we simply don't know (maybe they are high in the top 16 of the XPC poll but that doesn't mean Firaxis will automatically include them).

As far as 'the next thread' goes, I think we should first divide the work and then all start working on it. Since for example Wernazuma is doing the Maya and Inca, I think he should decide for himself when the best time is to start (a) thread(s) about them and other relevant details. As far as I'm concerned, he can start the thread as soon as we've agreed on the format but he can also wait a few weeks (to do some research, to prevent too many civs are being discussed at the same time, etc), whatever he wants. Maybe we could coordinate things a little bit so we don't flood the forum with Expansion Pack related threads but I wouldn't want to force anyone to (not) start a thread at a particular time. If you want to volunteer for the Dutch and Phoenicians you're welcome to start a thread about them as soon as we agree on format (though it might be an idea to coordinate some things with me as I know quite a bit about both civs and already have a complete city list for both FE). If you don't want to volunteer for them you'll have to wait for someone else to start threads (whenever that may be) but I'm sure that this person will take the info you already provided into account.

As far as which civs to cover, that's very simple: whatever civs are in the top 16 of the XPC thread plus hopefully a couple of good alternatives from the next 16 (FE number 17 to 25, but details can be decided upon later, depending on how it all works out) in case Firaxis for whatever reason doesn't like some of the first 16. You may not like the Byzantines, I personally don't like the Sioux. We all have our preferences but the 'people of Apolyton' should decide over this, not the two of us (or any other individual(s)).

On the format, I kind of like your suggestion of adding Great Leaders (I assume you mean this with 'Generals'), do we know yet if these will be civ-specific? I.e. can you only get Ceasar if you play with the Romans or can you get him if you're any other civ as well? Either way, if others like the idea, it might indeed be a good idea to also add a few possibilities for Great Leaders and possibly even Wonders (any other suggestions?) for each civ...

[Waku]

Originally posted by Ribannah
If anyone flames me ("you are an idiot"), previously ignored, Waku gets it.
If anyone makes any racist remarks ("Iroquois are chimpansees"), Waku gets it.
I'm sorry for Waku (well, not really), but since I am outnumbered 10:1 I have no
options. He can escape by apologizing or by convincing his buddies to behave.

I've never written such things, if someone wants to know what I post should read my posts not the Ribanita's posts.
You still see ghosts everywhere, I am sorry for you (really).

[Martinus]

Also, since probably the Rib's comments are addressed partially against me, I never said anything like Iroquis being chimpanzees.

So, please, Miss, be more specific with your accusations, because without factual grounds for them they are just slander.

[Locutus]

Can we keep this thread on topic, please? Guys, if you have a problem with Ribannah, take it elsewhere. Ribannah, if you have a problem with these guys, take it elsewhere. The mods are far more likely to close this thread if it gets out of hand than to just remove offensive posts, so for the sake of this thread, please play nice...

[Alexander I]

I don't know what other qualms or questions there are about the format, with the exception of the hisotry length and strategy inclusion. On other points I believe we all concur. No one at least has objected. Locutus, I don't think anyone would mind if you proceeded.

In defense of strategy, everything is potential. I'm not suggest we make Prima's Official Strategy Guide to the Expansion of CivIII. That would be ludicrous. It is merely a set of ideas for how a civ can be utilized. I suggest that it be done from a point-of-view that the top 16 civs from the Expansion thread are included.

As far as I am concerned, you can retain your length of the history section. If your only goal is to convince Firaxis to include a civ, you've got plenty of information.

By the way, YES I did mean great leaders by generals.

So let's move on.

[Dr. Nick]

One thing I don't agree with here, why are cities like Veracruz and Buenos Aires down for the Spanish to found? It's not like they ever were Spanish cities, and it's not like the English can found New York, or any of their other colonial cities.

[Dr. Nick]

Inca/Llama Rider

Sorry to sound pedantic, but you can't ride llamas.

Incas should have some special unit that can move all as roads across the mountainous andes.

[jdd2007]

One thing I don't agree with here, why are cities like Veracruz and Buenos Aires down for the Spanish to found? It's not like they ever were Spanish cities, and it's not like the English can found New York, or any of their other colonial cities.

i definitely agree with this point, but your example, is *wrong.* new amsterdam was founded by the dutch and taken over in sixteen hundred something by the duke of yorks brother and renamed New York...