Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

[siredgar]

Does anyone know if Locutus is going to post the entire results of the poll? I'd like to see who didn't make the top 16 and their ranks. Sorry if this is not the appropriate thread to post this. NO FLAMES, PLEASE!

[Wernazuma III]

I've been to a town in the most northern part of Chile that is called Pucara (midway between Arica and the bolivian border. and has some inca ruins, so I dared to add it... . I'll add Tilcara too (it seems to be much bigger than Pucara


siredgar: The complete ranking is in locutus' "never ending story"-thread, post 2.

[Dr. Nick]

Weird... I didn't know that.

[Dinner]

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

This would ignore 40 years under Franco so I'm not sure Fascism would work either. This does raise another interesting question. What do we do with ancient civ which were mostly destroyed before the rise of democracy and republics? For example I've been contributing to the Celtic civ's discusion and that civ never really had an organized central government so it is difficult to say which types of government it liked or disliked.

So do what do we do about government prefrences for a civ like this?

[Wernazuma III]

Well Oerdin, I guess our only possibility is to "guess". For the Celts i.e. we could say that they shun Communism-even Caesar noted that Celts had many unfree populace, so "egalitarian" maybe is not a celtic quality. (Please, if you don't conclude with me in this point: Celts will be discussed in part 3).

And it will often happen that a Civ once in its history had the "shunned" gov. Just look at France: They shun Monarchy, yet people from the time of Louis XIV wouldn't understand that at all!


BTW: Changed favoured incan gov to Communism. I know that they were a monarchy, but many scholars concluded that incan society had many communistic elements (and after all: what communism did NOT have some elite class? )

[siredgar]

Incan civilization

How long did this Incan civilization last anyhow? I read somewhere that it lasted less than 200 years (flourishing between 1438-1534). The Mayans seemed to be much more significant, lasting over a thousand years.

Regardless, I don't know if I'd put the Mayans in a Civ III expansion pack when there are already the Aztecs. Weren't the Aztecs vis-a-vis Mayans similar to dynasties in China?

By the way, the Portuguese and Dutch have more global influence, the Turks have greater territorial reach, and the Koreans have an older civilization (5,000 years) than any of these.

Anyhow, I'd put the Incans down a few notches just based on lack of longevity.

Rank #4: laughable.

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Incan civilization

Originally posted by siredgar
How long did this Incan civilization last anyhow? I read somewhere that it lasted less than 200 years (flourishing between 1438-1534). The Mayans seemed to be much more significant, lasting over a thousand years.

The Aztec empire didn't last longer and the mayans didn't even have an empire. The Incan like the Aztecs built on a long row of states and civilized peoples that inhabited the same space, therefore their civilizations lasted as long as the mayans. With the names "Aztec" and "Incan" all those peoples are integrated (same goes for iroquiois and babylonians if you remember)

Regardless, I don't know if I'd put the Mayans in a Civ III expansion pack when there are already the Aztecs. Weren't the Aztecs vis-a-vis Mayans similar to dynasties in China?

They are as distinct from each other as french are from german, persians from babylonians or egyptians from arabs and I can tell for I work on both of them.

By the way, the Portuguese and Dutch have more global influence, the Turks have greater territorial reach, and the Koreans have an older civilization (5,000 years) than any of these.
Anyhow, I'd put the Incans down a few notches just based on lack of longevity.

Rank #4: laughable.

Opinion, as valid as all others, though it wouldn't be difficult to challenge. But the point of the poll was a democratic decision and it has been made, so this is not the place to disqualify it, especially not with a 3 sentence critique that lacks substance.
I'm always in the mood to discuss such stuff, but not in a thread that shall be constructive and your post is not constructive for the purpose to make only minor arrangements to general decisions already made.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
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?

Aahh, sorry, think we must be at cross purposes. I meant Abdul/Abd ar Rahman, founder of Umayyad Caliphate in Cordoba. Not so objectionable, I believe...

[Caesar2760]

Might I suggest that the Mongols be given a better advantage than their UU would imply? Perhaps it would have no iron necessary, or something like that. Also, it should have low production to build it, as it was more its numbers than its power that would allow a Mongol army to defeat one lead by knights.

[Wernazuma III]

I think that Horses should still be required for mongol UU and that a movement bonus (3 movement after all!) gives quite a bonus. But maybe I'm wrong, so please correct me (after all I'm not good at Civ3, I only play on regent )

[Stefu]

I think 5/1/3 is a pretty good unit. You can use it to strike quite fast, and while defense is what it is, movement 3 gives them a good chance to clean out units seeking to strike at them before they get at any distance.

[Dinner]

Since we are listing some of the UU already I'd like to point out that all of the official UUs from firaxis were preexisting units which had no more then one +1 to either movement, attack, or defense. A few lucky units also don't need a strategic resource that everyone else needs but mostly Firaxis was careful not to make an "uber" unit.
Some of the units I've seen proposed in threads have way more then just a simple +1 bonus. I suggest we stick to Firaxis's plan and make it a rule that no unit will get more then one +1 and that no more then a single strategic research requirement be waived. This will prevent one super civ from dominating the entire game.

[Wernazuma III]

Oerdin: You're right that the UUs are the most delicate thing about the Expansion Pack. I try to care that no UU gets too strong. I kinda have the feeling that the mongol UU is maybe too strong. When we finally get to make the pack, we'd need 4 or 5 testers who take a look at game balance. But if you have suggestions for the UUs, please go ahead. BTW, you're mostly right, but the Impi gets 2 bonuses (and is therefore more expensive) and the War Elephant needs neither horses nor iron.

[Wernazuma III]

molly: I didn't know that there is more than one Abdul Rahman, now I understand! Nevertheless I won't add him, because if I confuse him with the Hamas leader, most people who know the name Abdul Rahman will have this association.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
molly: I didn't know that there is more than one Abdul Rahman, now I understand! Nevertheless I won't add him, because if I confuse him with the Hamas leader, most people who know the name Abdul Rahman will have this association.

Perhaps if we change it to Abd ar Rahman, then the Cordova caliphate will still get a mention? It's one of my favourite civs, or offshoots of a civ, because of its tolerance, public works, architecture, zest for knwoledge, etc. Ah, well, we live in hope...

Fine work, by the way.