Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Phoenicians and Dutch

[Alexander I]

Locutus -

Questions:

Should Antwerp be included?

I have seen Flemish/Belgian territories referred to as the Netherlands also. (Spanish/Austrian Netherlands as opposed to the early Republic of the Netherlands to the north).
Why shouldn't the others be included, considering Civ Games are supposed to be all encompassing with their civs (Can anyone say Iroquois?) and they wouldn't be in otherwise?

[Locutus]

Alexander,
Belgian cities like Antwerp should not be included because Belgium and the Netherlands are two different countries and represent two different civilizations. Sure, they share a part of their history but so do Spain & Portugal (Roman empire/Arab rule/Reconquista/colonial age), France & Germany (Holy Roman Empire) and the US and Canada (Brittish & French colonies, gold rush). Belgium may have been called 'the (Spanish/Austrian) Netherlands' for a long time but the Byzantine Empire and Germany were both known as 'the (Holy) Roman Empire', doesn't make them part of the same civ as the Romans. Like explained above, the North and South went seperate ways with the formation of the League or Arras and the Union of Utrecht in 1579; but even long before that there were important differences in language, religion and culture (the seperation between north and south was by no means a random one). The reason why Iroquois and Zulu are 'all encompassing' is political correctness. The only other Civ in Civ3 that represents more than just the civilization which name it carries is Babylon, but this merely is because most of the Fertile Crescent civs ruled over exactly the same area and cities and, if included seperately, would have the exact same city lists (with only the capital different). The Netherlands and Belgium never shared any cities, Antwerp has always been clearly Belgium, Rotterdam clearly Dutch. As I said above, it's like having Montreal or Quebec as American cities: theoretically it might be a possibility (though not a very good one IMHO), in practice it's just not done. (Just think of all people that would be insulted and all the complaints Firaxis would be getting!)

[Panzer]

Another Dutch Great Leader: Johan de Witt.

[Tventano]

Locutus,
my compliments, good overview and comments.

Antwerpen, Brugge, Brussel, Rijssel (Lille), Atrecht (Arras), Luik (Liege), Duinkerken, etc. should not be called dutch cities, although they share part of there history together with the Netherlands.
Discussion about which cities to include are always possible. I would include a few more colonial cities like Paramaribo and Willemstad.

[Saint Marcus]

How about the Fokker as a special unit? Planes of Dutch design who did great work for the Germans in WW1, and also served in Dutch and Finnish airforces in WW2. The G.V. (ww2) had a 1:16 kill ratio.

[Waku]

Name variants
If Carthaginians are included, a good option for an adj would be "punic" which refers to both (phoenician and cathaginian)
History:
Alphabet.
They controlled the tin traffic, essential to build bronze weapons.
other Leaders: Himilco, Magon.

PS: Gades/Gadir: the first one is the roman name

[Locutus]

BTW, Mark L, Peter Stuyvesant does not seem like a very suitable Great Leader to me. It's true that he was a 'great Dutch leader' but as I understand it, all Civ3's Great Leaders are supposed to be military men (generals and conquerors and stuff). Peter Stuyvesant was quite the opposite: rather than conquering territory from the American Indians, he improved relations with them and expanded mostly (if not exclusively) in a peaceful fashion. I agree on all the other suggestions though, and on the Fokker as a possibility for a Dutch Unique Unit (only problem is that it doesn't correspond with the Dutch Golden Age but other than that it's a good choice).

Waku,
Yes, and Carthago is Roman too. And 'Phoenician' is Greek. What's your point? Personally I would prefer names in the 'local' language as much as possible but if an alternative name has better name-recognition, I don't think it should be ignored. Which name should be chosen should IMHO be determined on a case-by-case basis, so in case of doubt I mentioned both and I'll let Firaxis decide...

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Waku
History:
Alphabet.

Some background details: the Fenicians were the
first ones to develop a written language, where the
letters stood for different nouns.

They controlled the tin traffic, essential to build bronze weapons.

And they traded also with purple.

[Ribannah]

Two more Dutch leaders: Jan van Speyk and Karel Doorman.
In the naval battles during the 17th century the Dutch used the same type of ships as their opponents (mainly the English): men-of-war, fireships, frigates and ships-of-the-line. However, in all battles the Dutch ships were able to survive much more damage. Thereby, the Dutch achieved several victories in battles where they were clearly outnumbered.

http://www.marinemuseum.nl/uk/default.htm

Even today, Dutch warships are most notable for their defensive capabilities. During the Gulf War, Dutch (improved) 'Goalkeepers' protected the allied fleet against a possible anti-ship missile attack.
So IMHO the Dutch UU should be a naval unit with extra defence points.
One of the most famous Dutch warships of old is De Ruyter's flagship 'De Zeven Provinciën', a Ship-of-the-Line with 80 guns (1665-1694). If the name isn't already used in the game, I'd vote for simply Ship-of-the-Line (improvement over the man-of-war or frigate, whichever is in the game).

The Fokker is not a good choice since it is not related to the Golden Age.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Mark L
Planes of Dutch design who did great work for the Germans in WW1, and also served in Dutch and Finnish airforces in WW2.

Fokker DX - one of the most used Finnish fighters
in the Winter War, but one of the worst ones too.
Was also able to carry a small load of bombs.

[Gangerolf]

dp

[Gangerolf]

The Fokker is not a good choice since it is not related to the Golden Age.

...and the name is pretty fu*ked up too.:

[Alexander I]

Well, it looks like we've just about wrapped up this thread. I'll polish it up a little bit, but I think it's time to move on to the next group.

Any further ideas are of course welcome.

[Locutus]

what do you mean 'wrapped up'? We don't have any kind of history or strategy yet for the Phoenicians and a very incomplete one for the Dutch. I have a lot to say about both civs but little time to say it (esp. since there are also half a dozen other threads in this very forum to keep track off...) Hopefully I'll have some more elaborate & complete comments sometime this weekend...

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Locutus

I have a lot to say about both civs but little time to say it (esp. since there are also half a dozen other threads in this very forum to keep track off...)

Me too. I have a modem connection, so how on
earth should I be able to reply all interesting topics?
I could tell more, but I should cut my surftime.