Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

[Stefu]

About Arabs and communism: Yemen was once divided to South Yemen and North Yemen, Southern one of which was Marxist and connected to Soviet Union? So, there we have at least one communistic Arabic nation.

[Wernazuma III]

ranskaldan: I think I might even have been to fast posting part 6. In most threads there are still open points and I don't want to rush to fast...

[HO0p]

Where can I find those files?
Civ packs?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by HO0p
Where can I find those files?
Civ packs?

What files?
If you mean the Extra Pack: It's not done yet, we're still discussing. I don't know when we'll be finished, but it might need quite some time...

[JamesJKirk]

While I've largely just lurked through most of this discussion, I really do agree that no more Knight-replacing UUs are necessary. Both the Horse Archer and the Camel Rider could replace Horsemen, as Mongels weren't particularly scientifically advanced at the point of their expansion, and the age of the Arab Golden Age is being discussed as being early middle-ages, when at least a fair number of civs would still be using Horsemen. Perhaps the stats could be 3/1/3 for the Horse Archer (or 3/1/2 with low cost), and 2/2/2 for Camel Rider or something. I'm just throwing this out there, the stats are worth debating, but definitely I'll agree that there are already far too many Knight-UUS

[Wernazuma III]

Jim : I think it could be a good idea for the arab camel rider, as the main arab expansion happened in the 7th/8th cent., before the rise of the knight. But the mongol Horse Archers did so well against knights so that I'd keep it.

[Locutus]

Hi all, long time no see. I happened to pass by here (searching for info for my own modpack ) and noticed that Ulaan Bataar was addded to the Mongol city list. This is an error though, as it's already there, under it's 'pre-Russian' name Yihe Huree. One of the 2 should obviously be removed (FYI that city was once also called Niyslel Huree, so don't bother adding that one either ). This is why I always posted short explanations with all city names: in many cases it might be overstating the obvious but it does prevent mistakes like this...

[Locutus]

(testing, please ignore)

Edit: hmm, that was a weird bug. Seems to gone now though...

[Eye Of Moron]

Uh, I hope this doesn't sound overly critical or anything but you do realize that the 16 choices for civs you mentioned is going to cause OBSCENE crowding in the Europe/Mediterranean/Middle East on an earth map with historical start locations. Take a look at northern Europe (ignoring the Mediterranean)... you have:
Vikings, Celts, English, Portugese, Spanish, Dutch, French, Germans, Poles, Russians (10 civs west of Russia!!!). Not to mention the Mediterranean/Middle East: Romans, Greeks, Turks, Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabs, Pheonicians, Babylonians, Persians (9 civs west of Persia). So there are a total of 18 (!!!) civs north of the Sahara and west of the India. Oh boy... As long as you stay away from earth maps with random opponents it should be fine, but even on the biggest world map, those European civs are gonna be dropping like flies while civs like the China, the US, even Japan are gonna have a cakewalk by comparison. Not to mention Khmer, Inca, and Zulu are gonna have almost uncontested expansion possibilities. Personally, I'd axe some of the "geographic redundancies" like Portugal/Spain (pick 1), Holland, Hebrews/Arabs/Pheonicians/Turks (pick 1 or 2), and maybe even Poland. Maybe put someone in Indonesia/Australia, eastern South America, and West Africa instead. I dunno, just a suggestion.

[King of Norway]

Vikings

Vikings?
Or Swedes?
Or Danes?
Or Norwegians?
There have been made a Swedish civ and a Danish civ, so here I will look at what we could do with the Norwegians, and since I\m a Norwegian myself, well, her we go!

Leader: Harald HÃ¥rfagre (Haarfagre)
He was king of one of the many quarelling small states in Norway, and at the age of 18, he took on the task on conquering all for a mighty kingdom, for the reason of that the maid Gyda, famous for her beauty, would not marry him until he ruled all of Norway. After many years of fighting, he had made Norway a full country around year 900 AD. The name HÃ¥rfagre he got because he swore not to cut or shave his hear or beard until he had united Norway. It means Great Hair, beautiful hair or something like that.

Militaristic and expansionist

Favourite government: Republic or Monarchy
The government when Harald made Norway one state, was a mix of Monarchy, Republic and Despotism, with a clear leader, but also a "ting" where the chieftains met and voted for a leader, not sure how to translate it, not exactly a parliament.
Shunned government: ?

Unique unit: Viking Raider/Berserk (4.2.1 and Amphibious)
Fearless Swordsman who could launch attacks from the sea onto settlements. (or maybe 3.2.1?)

I`ll try to search on the net for a leader picture and put it in the appropriate thread

City names: We`ll think about that later. For starters: Viken (now Oslo), Tunsberg, Nidaros

[Signa]

Idea for Current UU's

Now, this may break up your discussion here, but I have an idea, and a most likely a good one.

Roman Legionary (3.3.1)
Persian Immortal (4.2.1)

Humm... Decent, but we can do better. I think they should switch stats, giving the Legion an extra attack and the Expendable and extra defense. Historically I think it makes sense. Right now, Immortals can attack and beat Hoplites, and when Legions attack its a even fight. That clashes with history. The Legions wasted the semi-Greek kingdoms Phalanxes (Pompey's conquest, the destruction of the Antichoius, Selecid, and Ptlometic empire). During the Persian wars, and even Alexander conquest the Hoplite beat up the Immortal (especially in the Persian Wars) almost every time. Right now it is the reverse of history (Immortal beat Hoplites, Hoplites beat Legions, while it should be the opposite [Legions beat Hoplites, Hoplites beat Immortals]). And it even says in the Civolpida thing "the legions where weak on defense". Now, the Legions where well led, but that should account for their offensive potential over defense. The Legions, when finally forced into a defensive posture (thank you Hadrian) they failed miserably in a few centuries aganist the Brittanic and Germanic tribes (plus the Ostrogoths and Persian raiders). While earlier in their history, while attacking (Caesar's conquest of Gaul, Scipio's attack at Zama) they won gloriously. While defending (Cumae, aganist Sparticus for a few examples) they where almost wasted. The Immortals however, lost at Marathon and Arbela while attacking the Greek/Macedonian Phalanxes. They where the King's elite GUARD, not offensive force, also prompting a bonus in defense over offense. The switching of the stats to make the Legionary {4.2.1} and the Immortal {3.3.1} makes nothing but sense to me. Point it out if I am incorrect, and try and ignore the bad spelling at some points.

WHY CANT I SPELL!

[dunk]

Why so many knight replacements?

Mongol UU should replace horsemen and be 2-1-3.