Egyptians are up!

Martinus · August 17, 2001, 14:11

New Civ of the week - Egyptians - are up on the Civ 3 site.

For now two comments:

1. Firaxis is actually reading our posts here - Cleopatra is NOT black!

2. It seems that chariots have now 1 attack strenght. Probably they are weaker than cavalry then (which comes later on the tech tree). Do you think it is ok?

KrazyHorse · August 17, 2001, 14:23

Note that the two unique units we've seen so far have exactly the same stats. Cleopatra does seem to have gotten out of the sun a little bit, doesn't she?

August 17, 2001, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus
New Civ of the week - Egyptians - are up on the Civ 3 site.

2. It seems that chariots have now 1 attack strength. Probably they are weaker than cavalry then (which comes later on the tech tree). Do you think it is ok?

There a lot of if's.
A one man chariot could be weaker if it has no weapons attached to the Chariot. A two man Chariot should be stronger because one can drive and one can use a bow or spear or any other type of weapon that was available then.

Buck Birdseed · August 17, 2001, 14:26

So Horseback Riding now represents the Advance of the Stirrup (which made Chariots obsolete). Interesting.

KrazyHorse · August 17, 2001, 14:32

Makes sense from the point of view of the Mediterranean/ME, which is where chariots were most prevalent anyway. Even riding without a stirrup wasn't introduced until fairly late; it was easier to hitch a horse up to a chariot than it was to have to climb on its back. Horse-borne units are much more maneuverable than chariots, which were basically only good for an initial shock attack.

The diplomat · August 17, 2001, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Note that the two unique units we've seen so far have exactly the same stats.

Which seems to prove that unique units will be balance compared to other unique units of the same era. if the enemy builds their unique unit, I can build mine, and it will be a fair fight. It's just that unique units will be stronger than the standard unit!

By the way, I love your avatar. Is that your cat? It is so cute!

Dauphin · August 17, 2001, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
it was easier to hitch a horse up to a chariot than it was to have to climb on its back. .

According to the History channel or Discovery Civilization channel, in the early days before horses were being bred for specific tasks they were often not strong enough to carry the weight of a man and weapons on its back. So pulling things was a horses early use. Once the horses of the steppes had been bred with strong enough backs for people to mount, the horse became the dominant battlefield unit.

Maybe I missed something though, because it doesn't sound right to me. Can anyone confirm this?

The diplomat · August 17, 2001, 15:03

There is also 2 new wallpapers to go with the Egyptians.
One of them shows newspaper clippings with wanted ads that say stuff like:"Ask about our special unit, the Egyptian war chariot" and "Call Cleopatra 151-555-2213" It is hilarious folks!

KrazyHorse · August 17, 2001, 15:04

It makes sense. If I'm not mistaken, horses in pre-historical times were basically midway between a St. Bernard and a modern pony.

Provost Harrison · August 17, 2001, 18:07

Yeah, I noticed that newspaper clipping in the wallpaper:

Quote:

The Noble Egyptians

'The Children of the Gods'

Ask about our special unit, the Egyptian War Chariot.

In home consultation...worldwide delivery

Weddings, Parties, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, Special Events, Funerals, Birthdays, Hospitals.

Call Cleopatra

151-555-2213

WTF? Well they missed off the international dialling code for Egypt

Comrade Tribune · August 17, 2001, 19:23

I think they did everything possible wrong with those Egyptians:

-Standard chariots were not that bad. Assyrian chariots ruled! The Galatians conquered most of Europe with warriors and chariots. Bodicca screwed the Romans with her (chariot-using) Celts. 'Exploration-only' chariots are silly!

-Egyptian chariots are identical to Babylonian bowmen. But chariots are a strike unit, while bowmen are a support unit. They have to be functionally different.

-Where is the 'uniqueness' with such identical 'unique' units?

-Cleopatra was not even brown. Ptolemy was Greek, his children and their children always intermarried (brother married sister). Cleopatra´s brown-ness is super-silly PC.

-And now to something totally different: I just noticed they killed the caravan. Which means: They killed smuggling (and protection against). Which also means: Watering down the game again instead of adding complexity.

Just four words: Star Wars, Episode One.

Yin: Where are You when I need You?

My hopes will have to rest with Master of Orion III instead of CivSimDisney.

Transcend · August 17, 2001, 20:27

Cleopatra is a fairly common Greek name. Back at my high school we had a Greek girl named that way. Finding the name 'Cleopatra' in a newspaper is pretty easy.

down th' pub · August 17, 2001, 20:40

So is mocking one up.

Bereta_Eder · August 17, 2001, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Transcend
Cleopatra is a fairly common Greek name. Back at my high school we had a Greek girl named that way.

No it's not! At least not in Greece any way!

Here it sounds odd if not a bit laughable for a name

Apart for Christian names the most common are Alexander, Socrates, Helen, Penelope and the like.

Transcend · August 18, 2001, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

No it's not! At least not in Greece any way!

Here it sounds odd if not a bit laughable for a name

Apart for Christian names the most common are Alexander, Socrates, Helen, Penelope and the like.

Really? Well, I can only speak from my experience in Germany. I knew at least 2 Greek girls of that name there, one was even my classmate.

Dugrik · August 18, 2001, 01:36

Regarding the war chariot graphic -- its missing a man. They had a driver and a missileer, since it was impossible to do both jobs simultaneously.