Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

[Dr. Nick]

The Arabs should shun communism. In fact, any civ with "religious" should shun communism.

[Akka]

Just adding my own two cents

For the Spanish :

UU should be the conquistador in my opinion. They do represent the peak of Spain, as they conquered what would give to Spain it's power for the next century. I like the idea of them being musketmen with an added movement point.
The favored government should be monarchy. I don't really know for the shunned government... Communism perhaps, as Spanish were extremely religious by this time.

For the Arabs.
Camel Riders are ok. Hashishins, though were a good idea and could be used. I would see them as pikemen with a added movement, or a added attack point.
Shunned government should be communism, for the same reason as the Spanish.

For the Mongols :
Here I would like to propose something else : the Mongols were immensely powerful through their use of light cavalry and a wild conquest of the world. Though, they lasted not very long, and they were not very civilized. In game terms, I would give them Despotism as favored government, democracy as shunned one. Their UU would be a vastly improved horseman, not knight. I think of something like 3-1-3.
With this kind of UU and government preference, the Mongols would be some kind of "double bet or die" : they would have a MASSIVE advantage while they have their UU. Though, if not able to take an equally massive advance, they will soon be left behind due to their government preference.
I know that it's perhaps not good for game balance, and that human players will only get the advantage, chosing whatever government they like. But I just like it, feeling it somewhat more accurate.

[Dr. Nick]

Akka, if you're going to make a musketman then by jeez call it a tercio... why are people so HELL bent on maintaining an ignorant stereotype with regards to the Spanish?!

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
For the arabs: Some democratic tries and "first steps" in a few parts of a largely despotic arab world is not enough to make them shun any other gov.

My question is: Why are you hell-bent on making them shun democratic governments?

My comment is: Most Arab governments are monarchies.

My counterpoint is: I think having the French shun Monarchy is silly.

EDIT: Fixed result of Netscape malfunction.

[Dr. Nick]

I still believe that this whole shun/adore government feature is bollocks. I mean, people are pushed to it by other conditions than their culture most of the times.

[Wernazuma III]

el awrence: you are right: the shunned/fav. gov. thing is not really the best of the best, but anyway the AI doesn't seem to care too much. Every game in modern times, when a civ goes to war it will turn to Communism, no matter what gov. preference they have (The AI had the American Communism EVERY single game...). Thus it's not so important to cross the swords here IMHO

bad ax: the border between monarchy and despotism is sketchy at times, I agree though and take back my words... Yet you'll have to agree that over the most time, democracy wasn't too popular, so I still don't understand why you are SOOOO against it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Bad Ax


My question is: Why are you hell-bent on making them shun democratic governments?

My comment is: Most Arab governments are monarchies.

No they aren't- 7 Arab states have either constitutional monarchies or in the case of Saudi Arabia, an absolutist monarchy.
13/14 members of the Arab League are either republics or a variety of dictatorship, military or civilian. Chaos reigns in Somalia, there is a civil war in Sudan and in Algeria, and personal freedoms are somewhat limited to say the least, in Iraq and Syria.
Slavery still exists in Mauritania.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Akka, if you're going to make a musketman then by jeez call it a tercio... why are people so HELL bent on maintaining an ignorant stereotype with regards to the Spanish?!

I entirely agree El Awrence- a bit of research could tell people all they need to know about the tercio:

'There were no standing armies as we know it, although there were a few more-or-less permanent establishments in France. In the aftermath of the Hundred Years War, Charles VII dealt with the problem of unemployed men-at-arms pillaging the countryside by forming permanent standing compagnies d'ordonnance, which were composed of 50 - 100 lances. A lance was a single fully armored knight, with his squire, page, groom, and at least two archers. François Ier created standing provincial "legions," large bodies of infantry inspired by Roman models. The Spanish had great success with something similar, the tercio, but the discipline, support logistics, recruiting and training needed to sustain such a military organization didn't quite develop in France. In addition to these institutions, there was a modest royal guard, well-known for its stylish outfits. '

https://www.lepg.org/warfare.htm

This is also of interest:

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lorddacre.org%2Fhistory%2Fbpc.html

and:

War With the Empire.

In 1519, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I dies. His successor is Charles V, who by virtue of his inheritances now unites a vast Hapsburg empire (including Spain, Austria, Naples, Sicily, the Low Countries, and Spanish America). In 1520, a league of Spanish cities (the communeros) rebels against Charles and receive French support. Charles puts down the uprising. In 1522, Charles and his allies (the Pope, Mantua, and Florence) expel France from Milan. The French retake Milan in 1524, but at the Battle of Pavia (1525) the king's horse is shot out from under him and he is captured. While a prisoner, Francis signs the Treaty of Madrid (1526), renouncing his claims in Italy (and elsewhere).
Once freed, Francis claims that the treaty was extorted from him. He forms an alliance (the League of Cognac) with the Pope, England, Venice and Florence. In retaliation, Charles V sacks Rome (1527) and takes the Pope prisoner. The French lay siege to Naples (1528), but a severe typhus epidemic forces the besiegers to retreat. The wars ends with the Peace of Cambrai (1529), in which Francis once again gives up all claims to Italy.
Francesco of Milan dies (1535), ending the Sforza dynasty. Francis again claims Milan, allying with Suleiman the Magnificent (ruler of the Ottoman Empire). The French take Turin (1536), aided by Turkish fleets ravaging the Italian coast. The allies besiege Corfu (1537), which is successfully defended by the Venetians. The war ends inconclusively with the Truce of Nice (1538), followed by the Treaty of Toledo (1539).
In 1543, Francis sacks the imperial city of Nice with the aid of a Berber pirate, Kheir ad-Din Barbarossa. After two years of war, the Treaty of Crespy-en-Valois (1544) is signed in which Francis gives up claims to Italian territory. This is followed by the Peace of Andres (1546). Francis dies in 1547.
Henry of France Invades Italy. Henry II's army attacks Florence, but is defeated at the Battle of Marciano (1553). The French besiege Siena, but are forced to surrender by an imperial army (1555). The Spanish are victorious at the Battle of St. Quentin, driving the French from Italy. The war ends with the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1559). While celebrating the treaty at a tournament, Henry II receives a mortal head wound (as foretold by Nostradamus).

Consequences of the Wars: Italy loses its independence, and is dominated by Spain for nearly two centuries.

https://www.theminiaturespage.com/ref/history/reninfo.html

[Akka]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Akka, if you're going to make a musketman then by jeez call it a tercio... why are people so HELL bent on maintaining an ignorant stereotype with regards to the Spanish?!

"tercio" is the name of the military formation of spanish.
"conquistador" is the name of the spanish soldiers that conquered central and south America.
I don't care what was the military organisation used by the conquistador, I care about how they do represent Spain at its peak.
Following your idea, the "F-15" unit should not be called "F-15", it should be called a "wing" or a "squadron". It could also be called a "F-16" or a "F-22" or anything this like.
Same as legion : do you think they were only footmen ? There was several hundred mounted fighters in a legion.
UU are a SYMBOLIC unit of the golden age of each civilization. They don't means to EXACTLY represent a precise kind of unit, they do symbolise the special enhanced power of a precise civ at a precise time. The F-15 represent the whole aerial supposed superiority of USA in the late 20th century ; the legion represent the military organisation of Romans at the highest of the Empire ; samely, the Conquistador represent the bold and agressive spanish soldiers that conquered America and gave to Spain its power. That they used the Tercio organisation is irrelevant : SYMBOLICLY(spelling ?), they were only "conquistadores".

[Akka]

Originally posted by molly bloom


No they aren't- 7 Arab states have either constitutional monarchies or in the case of Saudi Arabia, an absolutist monarchy.
13/14 members of the Arab League are either republics or a variety of dictatorship, military or civilian. Chaos reigns in Somalia, there is a civil war in Sudan and in Algeria, and personal freedoms are somewhat limited to say the least, in Iraq and Syria.
Slavery still exists in Mauritania.

1) Slavery was abolished in Mauritania in 1985

2) We don't care about the actual Arab states. The Arab civilization that I think we all speak about is the great Empire build by Mahomet and his successor from the VIIth century to the rise of the Ottoman or Mameluk empire. Talking about actual Arab states is as relevant to the ancient Arab Civ than comparing the Egypt of Pharaoh to the Egypt of Nasser.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


"tercio" is the name of the military formation of spanish.
"conquistador" is the name of the spanish soldiers that conquered central and south America.
I don't care what was the military organisation used by the conquistador, I care about how they do represent Spain at its peak.
Following your idea, the "F-15" unit should not be called "F-15", it should be called a "wing" or a "squadron". It could also be called a "F-16" or a "F-22" or anything this like.
Same as legion : do you think they were only footmen ? There was several hundred mounted fighters in a legion.
UU are a SYMBOLIC unit of the golden age of each civilization. They don't means to EXACTLY represent a precise kind of unit, they do symbolise the special enhanced power of a precise civ at a precise time. The F-15 represent the whole aerial supposed superiority of USA in the late 20th century ; the legion represent the military organisation of Romans at the highest of the Empire ; samely, the Conquistador represent the bold and agressive spanish soldiers that conquered America and gave to Spain its power. That they used the Tercio organisation is irrelevant : SYMBOLICLY(spelling ?), they were only "conquistadores".

Oh my God! You haven't even hit a single one in the nail... But it's okay, never mind

[Dr. Nick]

Let me tell you a bit about tercios- tercio would be the equal of a legion. Conquistadors were the LEADERS of the expeditions. Conquistadors: Hernan Cortez, Francisco Pizarro, Martin Coronado, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca. Conquistadors figure into the great leaders section, NOT the UU. Tercio is the fighting formation of the unit that was called tercio by the Spanish because it contained three different type of men-at-arms. But still, tercio WOULD be a good representation because it IS what the joint unit was called, comprised of pikemen, harquebusiers and the third slips my mind, but Conquistadors were great leaders, not common soldiers. THAT is why the tercio should be the Spanish UU, because it perpetuates the ignorant thought that prevails in the world that the soldiers were conquistadors, when the conquistadors were the leaders, the soldiers were tercios.

[Bad Ax]

Wernazuma III:

I'm simply trying to point out that Communism makes more sense as a shunned government than Democracy. It seems to me that you've approached this discussion with the assumption that your placement of Democracy in the "shunned" category was right, and needed no justification. I've just been trying to point out that when you compare governmental principles with cultural values, past and present, Communism is significantly less compatible with Arab social mores than Democracy. My indignation has less to do with my personal beliefs about the structures of Arab governments than with your apparent resistance to debating the subject. If making rational decisions isn't the point, why post these civ packs to the forums at all?

I'm not SOOO against making Democracy the shunned government, but I think the decision to do so reflects a modern view of Arab societies as primitive and despotic, whereas in reality Arabia was for some time the most civilized and enlightened area of the world. We can't ignore that Arab society produced the humanitarian ruins of the Middle East today, but at the same time we mustn't forget that the same society produced the Dome of the Rock, the Alhambra, and was exemplary of religious tolerance. I think that a slight change to history could have brought that enlightened society to the present, and that democracy might be its end state. I do not, however, feel that anything but a major upheaval in the character of Arab society (namely, the abandonment of Islam) could have allowed the society to become Communist.

el Awrence is right, though. This shunned/favored stuff is pretty much crap. But if we're going to do it, we might as well do it right.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Bad Ax
Wernazuma III:

I'm simply trying to point out that Communism makes more sense as a shunned government than Democracy. It seems to me that you've approached this discussion with the assumption that your placement of Democracy in the "shunned" category was right, and needed no justification.

I've tried to compile most things from the other threads and Loc's homepage and only fill in the gaps. I've changed quite a bit from my starting assumptions, but I didn't see a good reason why Democracy should not be shunned, or why Communism seems so much a better option (see comment at the bottom)


I'm not SOOO against making Democracy the shunned government, but I think the decision to do so reflects a modern view of Arab societies as primitive and despotic, whereas in reality Arabia was for some time the most civilized and enlightened area of the world. [/quote]
Sorry, but this is completely unfounded. If it were that simple I'd have put Despotism as the favorite government and not Monarchy. I do know quite a bit about arab history and its achievements until the late middle ages, but yet I can't see any Democracy there (no communism too, right). But you think you can judge what I thought without good reason?

I think that a slight change to history could have brought that enlightened society to the present, and that democracy might be its end state. I do not, however, feel that anything but a major upheaval in the character of Arab society (namely, the abandonment of Islam) could have allowed the society to become Communist.

But it hasn't. The tabuization of the Koran hindered an Enlightenment as 18th cent. Europe had it. Thus neither democratic nor communist ideas could gain a real foothold in the arab world. No laification->no Dem., no Communism
Democracy never was strong in the Arabic world and it almost always tends to become autocratic

[Wernazuma III]

News to all Tercio guys: Based on the poll I've made, I've changed the Conquistador to Tercio. Not really fun but democratic.