Announcement

**Stefu** · December 1, 2001, 17:15

Looks good to me.

However, one thing about the Arabs. If Arab capital city is Baghdad, wouldn't that place them *way* too close to Babylonians in real Earth map, provided we get a map with stable starting locations?

**tomcat ha** · December 1, 2001, 17:53

the turks woud be scientific and expansionist or religous.
UU woud be a patriot unit thingy. means lower coat than normal infantry.
or jantisar higher attack and able to built and convert workers in to jantisars.

**Wernazuma III** · December 1, 2001, 18:59

Why can't newbies read?

The turks are not subject of discussion in this thread. Subject is only the 4 civs I put down right now and not generally but only in detail!
There are threads about all EP-civs, post there if you feel like it. We've discussed this over and over, this is stage 2!

Next time some other newbie will propose which Civ HE wants to have added...

**Wernazuma III** · December 1, 2001, 19:01

Stefu, you're right on this. Let's wait for the first patch to come out. If we're then in the position to make correct starting locations, we probably should change the capital to Mekka.

**Jay Bee** · December 1, 2001, 19:20

I believe the Incas would not be very happy with a city called Trujillo. That's precisely the Spanish town were Pizarro was born. In his honor a city with the same name was founded in Spanish Peru.

**Wernazuma III** · December 2, 2001, 05:03

Gracias Jay Bee!

Although there are some Incan ruins near Trujillo you're absolutely right! You picked up exactly my example of what this thread is about.

-->Changed

**Wernazuma III** · December 2, 2001, 05:18

I'd really appreciate help on the UU abilities. That's probably the hardest part, at least for me. Neither make them useless nor too powerful. Please help me especially in this aspect.

**Rosacrux** · December 2, 2001, 07:16

You asked for it, here it comes:

Spain

Conquistador - if you make him a replacement of the explorer (thus rendering him really useless, mind you) you should give him an extra movement point. If you take into account that the conquistadores were nothing more than footsoldiers (or mounted standard soldiers) and that the fireguns gave them that advantage over the American natives, you should maybe think of making them the replacement for the musketman - with an extra movement point. But then they would be too strong... I don't know, I'll try to think this over.

Arabs

Mameluke - nice choice. A knight who doesn't require iron (maybe no horses too) what about that? Another war elephant, huh? Maybe one more point on the offense and no iron requirement (you still need those horses) that should make them viable and handy to have (and not too overpowered).

Mongols

Horse archer - cool. That's easy: 6-1-2. Or 5-1-3. The advantage of the Mongol horse archers was their superior mobility and the devastating blow they delivered when on the offense (defense was not their game). If you want to represent both, take no2. If only the latter, take no1.

Incas

Forgive me, I kinda tend to forget some things... Is the plummed archer an inca or aztec warrior? It would be nice to have an updated archer (none of them exists in the game, anyway) with one extra movement (a very handy unit for early expansion) or attack (they would look just like swordsmen then, though).
If not... sun warrior is ok, and the 2-1-1 looks kinda good to me.

About the shunned/favoured govs, I think Spaniards shouldn't shun communism (they always had large socialist/comunist parties

) but if you were to chose freely I'd say "Fascism"... they ain't such gov. type in the game though

Great job Wernazuma, carry on

**Wernazuma III** · December 2, 2001, 14:41

thanks rosacrux

I updated the mongol and arab UU.

I tend to leave the inca UU as is. Although it's historically not very correct, we could make the plumed archer the mayan UU, for the other possibility would be "Balam Warrior" what means "Jaguar Warrior" and would be the same as the aztec UU...

We could make the shunned gov. of Spanish Democracy

*fears arrival of spanish crowd*

**molly bloom** · December 2, 2001, 23:54

Re: Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Arabs

Names: Arabia, the Arabs, Arab
Ruler/Title: Harun Al Rashid/ Caliph
Leaders: Umar ibn al-Khattab, Al Tarik, Zenig, Baybars, Saladin, Nuredin, Amr ibn al-As, Arafat
UU: Mameluke (5/3/2); Horses; replaces Knight
CSA: Religious, Commercial
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Democracy, Monarchy
Cities:
Baghdad
Mekka
Samarra
Cairo
Damascus
Medina
Tangier
Raqqa
Beirut
Basra
Er-Riad
Mosul
Beirut
Cordoba
Aden
Algier Mahdia
Quahran
Port Said
Dschidda
Kuwait
Rabat
Kirkuk
Oujda
Bengasi
Sfax
Abu Dhabi
Ad-Dammam
Al-Hafuf
Hodeida
Al-Taif
In Salah
El Faiyam
Meknes
Tunis
Fez
Doha
Dubai
Palmyra
Casablanca
Manama
Sana
Qum
Homs
Amman
Qazvin
Halib
Barqa
Tripolis
Marrakech

Qom/Qum is a city in Iran, not an Arab city. Possibly replace with Kairouan? Or Tetouan? or Najaf and Kerbala?
Also, Baybars was a Turkish slave who became a Mameluke ruler, and Salah-ud-Din was a Kurd, and Tarik was a Berber. How about Muawiya, Abdul Rahman, al-Mamun, or Khalid ibn al-Walid?
The Mamelukes are not an Arab unit, in the sense we know it. The camel rider is:

651: Naval battle of the Masts against the Byzantines.
652: Discontentment and disaffection against the rule of Hadrat Othman.
656: Martyrdom of Hadrat Othman. Hadrat Ali becomes the Caliph. Battle of the Camel.
657: Hadrat Ali shifts the capital from Madina to Kufa. Battle of Siffin. Arbitration proceedings at Daumaut ul Jandal.

mb-soft.com/believe/txh/aisha.htm

and later, too!:

https://www.dnai.com/~soongliu/SavageAndSoldier/articles/africa/camel1.jpg

**LoD** · December 3, 2001, 13:33

Wernazuma III: I have collected most of the neccessary info about the Poles. Where should I post it?

**Wernazuma III** · December 3, 2001, 13:36

Oops, how could Kairouan be lost on the way

I replaced Qum for Kairouan.

About the leaders: I know, that the Mameluk government in Egypt was carried by former turk-people slaves and that Saladin and Baybars were not arabs. Nevertheless they were parts of the arab "oikumene", the arab world, so I'd like to let them where they are.
I look up about the other leaders you mention and see if they would be a good addition. Abdul Rahman though is NOT a good idea, we don't want to offend Israelis here too much, don't you think?

**Wernazuma III** · December 3, 2001, 13:40

LoD: I think, the Polish Civ has been discussed at length now, so I suppose, you now have a more or less "definitive version" already. If so, just send me a pm or mail me. The polish Civ will be in part 4 of the finalization project, so there is still time to discuss it in another own thread if you think that will still bring up good new ideas.

**Dr. Nick** · December 3, 2001, 15:32

BTW, Pucara is not a city... Pucara is the quichua word for "fortress". I don't think you should add Pucara as a city. Tilcara, that is a pucara, but it's a town.

Calling an Incaic city "Pucara" would be like calling an English city "City".

Announcement

Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment