A profile for the unofficial spanish civ

[Jay Bee]

XarXo, help us fill the gap with some Catalano-Aragonese big men!

I think Castilians, Catalans, etc is fine for modpacks etc. People out there often do not perceive the differences as decisive. Sad but true and leads one to ponder...

A final note of wisdom. I know people here are mature enough not to need this kind of warning but just in case..... talking politics in this forum is absolutely prohibited. There is an OT forum for that. This is a forum where Hispanics and friends get together to talk primarily about Civ. Period.

[Waku]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
talking politics in this forum is absolutely prohibited.

this time I don't know if u r serious or you're j/k so:

< seriously>
imho civ2 is somehow a political game so I find quite difficult to talk about civ2 w/o involving politics.
< /seriously>

< kidding>
dictator
< /kidding>

[kIndal]

Per que no es pot parlar de politica?????

Amb lo divertit que es

[Jay Bee]

I was referring to Spanish nationalistic tendencies. For once I was being serious. To make it crystal clear, I did not like what I saw in the Civ3 forum and would not like a bis repetita in this forum. That kind of conversations only leads to bad feelings, and since I'm the mod here...

[yaroslav]

Return to the topic. I am agree with the spanish civ, but we need a general from Al-Andalus... Perphas Almanzor? And, I think that the Firaxis official civs will have only a one special unit, from the Golden Era of the civilization(My favourite is the Tercio)... I love many , but this can be not equitative with official civs.

In the other hand, perphas the most hard work with a custom civ will be the graphics... All oficials civ must have 3D leaders!

More generals from the Ancient time can be Trajano (he was a great one!) or Teodisio (I don't like him too much)...

But, if we can have more than one special unit, What about the Almogávares? They had brigth and dark sides, but they are awesome!

[Alfonsus72]

New units:

ALMOGAVERS (from yarolav): what about a middle-age normal infantry unit with dissembark capability (an early marines)?

CONQUISTADORES: An explorer unit with some combat capability, and x2 versus ancient age units.

Of course, I know 1 civ only has 1 special unit, so my intention is people to vote their favorite one. Considering that the civ golden age starts when the special unit wins its 1st combat, I guess CONQUISTADORES is quite good.

[Jay Bee]

Alfonsus, why have you gained one point? You were 71. Now you're 72.

PS. There's an open slot in the PBEM game we're organizing. You might be interested. Look in the Bolivar thread,

[Alfonsus72]

I have different user names cause I post both from home and work, and i allways forget my password. Originally i was "Alfonsus", but as i forget the password and lost my é-mail account, I created "Alfonsus71" and now "Alfonsus72", sorry for the inconveniences. Will check the Bolivar (TRAITOR!!!!) scenario.

[Waku]

Bolivar's

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
Bolivar (TRAITOR!!!!)

to what?

Perhaps a handful of peninsular bolivars were needed at that time in Spain.

[Jay Bee]

Although I feel little or no sympathy for Bolivar (the man, not the ideal) I am with Waku on this one. He did the right thing. Later he screwed up, but hey, after all he had 100% Spanish blood, so what would you expect?

[Waku]

I know this is too simplicist but to sum up peninsular spanish preferred despotism to liberalism.

[Alfonsus72]

North America independence was a real revolution (the American Revolution as they called it), they proclame human rights and the first modern contitution (still on), and from a cruel war they created a real democracy and later the richest country in the world.
In the other side, South and Central america independences were not liberal movements, they were only big oportunities for some chiefmans (Bolivar, San Martin and others) to increase its power and privileges, they created cruel dictatorship and in the long term underdeveloped countries. The new states mistreated the indians much more than the colonial administration (in fact, most indians joined the loyal armies during the independence wars).
I don´t feel any simpathy for both the caracther and the historical role of Bolivar.
I think is accurate to call them traitors, they commited traition to Spain, their country in wich army they served (some of them with honour). If they should have lost after rising against their country, they should have been called traitors by history (as now are those independentist who lost, mind Jefferson Davis and Bobby Lee from the Confederancy, and how badly they are considered now in the USA). As they won, they are "patriots" or "libertadores" (liberators from what?, to accept that terms means to accept than the spanish rule was evil). For me they will allways be guilty of the sin they did, of word they broke, of TREASON.

[Fiera]

I agree that's too simplicist. Don't forget that, after Riego's Pronunciamiento, absolutism was brought back to Spain by the foreign powers.

Shall we open a separate thread, Jesús?

Pretty please?

[Jay Bee]

Make it so Fiera, make it so

Alfonsus, you summed it up well the reasons why I dislike Bolivar the man. However, what he did had to be done no matter what. As I said above and repeat again, he didn't do it better cos he didn't know. And he didn't know cos he was 100% Spanish blood. And that saddens me very much

On the other hand there were men like Marti.... what a disgrace this man had to die so soon

[Waku]

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
North America independence was a real revolution (the American Revolution as they called it), they proclame human rights and the first modern contitution (still on), and from a cruel war they created a real democracy and later the richest country in the world.

is there still slavery in USA?
USA is not the reachest country because of its revolution

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
In the other side, South and Central america independences were not liberal movements, they were only big oportunities for some chiefmans (Bolivar, San Martin and others) to increase its power and privileges, they created cruel dictatorship and in the long term underdeveloped countries.

They were liberal movements, creoles were 2nd class spanish, and they kept for years claming for the same rights than the peninsular spanish had.
Washington doesn't differ from what you've just said about Bol/SM/etc
They didn't became underdevelopped because of them

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
The new states mistreated the indians much more than the colonial administration (in fact, most indians joined the loyal armies during the independence wars).

Exactly the same happened in N/America

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
I don´t feel any simpathy for both the caracther and the historical role of Bolivar.
I think is accurate to call them traitors, they commited traition to Spain, their country in wich army they served (some of them with honour). If they should have lost after rising against their country, they should have been called traitors by history (as now are those independentist who lost, mind Jefferson Davis and Bobby Lee from the Confederancy, and how badly they are considered now in the USA). As they won, they are "patriots" or "libertadores" (liberators from what?, to accept that terms means to accept than the spanish rule was evil). For me they will allways be guilty of the sin they did, of word they broke, of TREASON.

According to this Franco is also a traitor