Civ of the Week no. 5: Persians

[lockstep]

http://www.civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm

Leader: Xerxes
Unique Unit: The Immortal

[ixnay]

Immortal is an upgraded swordsman(3-2-1) with an extra attack

[Tarquinius]

The new about the Persians isn't really shocking IMHO.
The leader and capitol are as I expected, and the Immortal is a bit suprising, but it's stats are not that good that I am going wild (it'll have to be really good if that is gonna happen )

Probably the Roman Legion will have the same stats, there isn't much option, it could be a 3/3/1, but that would be suprising, as the description of Legion in Civ 1 there is said they were strong on the attack, but relatively weak in defense. (they were only a 3/1/1 there)

Any other thoughts?

[The diplomat]

Did anyone notice that Firaxis has tweaked the special abilities. The Persians used to be "militaristic" and "commercial". They are now "Commercial" and "scientific".
Conversely, the chinese are now "militaristic" and "industrious".

So, they switched one special ability between the chinese and the persians.

I guess they did that for play-balancing reasons.

[Steve Clark]

Than I would fully expect that the Romans will be next week's civ, thus we'll find about the Roman Legions at that time.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Did anyone notice that Firaxis has tweaked the special abilities. The Persians used to be "militaristic" and "commercial". They are now "Commercial" and "scientific".
Conversely, the chinese are now "militaristic" and "industrious".

So, they switched one special ability between the chinese and the persians.

I guess they did that for play-balancing reasons.

And it can be tweaked again by modifying the rules.txt file. I wonder, though, if changing the civ's attributes, do the trigger for the Golden Age change as well or perhaps, that is something that is editable in the txt file as well?

[mactbone]

The bits of info are getting funnier

[tniem]

Originally posted by Tarquinius
Probably the Roman Legion will have the same stats, there isn't much option, it could be a 3/3/1, but that would be suprising, as the description of Legion in Civ 1 there is said they were strong on the attack, but relatively weak in defense. (they were only a 3/1/1 there)

Or possibly an added movement bonus. It doesn't seem to make much sense but the Romans did take over a wide treck of land and this would require good movement in Civ III.

[Rhysie]

Romans did all those nifty defense formations with the tortoise and all that, I think its highly probably as a result the legions will have extra defence. The civ 1 legion description probably is describing swordsmen in general rather than legions in particular, as legions in civ1 were a general unit.

[Skanky Burns]

Good: The description is factual, interesting, humorous, and did i meantion interesting?? The infrequent jokes add to the piece rather than detracting from it.

Apparently, "Expendables" didn't have quite the same ring to it.

That quote was very funny

Bad: Is it just me, or does that background make the text a bit too difficult to read?? Maybe a shade or two lighter, or a couple of shades darker with light writing

Ugly: As is becoming a standard, the leaders face is, well...

[Transcend]

I'm not too impressed with the Persian Immortals. Its extra attack is pretty insignificant, and Immortals will have trouble overcoming any units with a defense of 2 or better. Also, a Greek Hoplite should be able to stand up to it most of the time.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Transcend
Also, a Greek Hoplite should be able to stand up to it most of the time.

As they should. They did win historically, after all.

I think the Immortals might be too strong; they shouldn´t be 'legions in disguise'.

Also, the Persians were a 'horse civilization'. They should have the 'Chinese' special unit. (Parthian cataphract)

Also, Persians should be religious. Zoroaster was of enormous significance...

[tniem]

I would just like to ask why is Xerxes the leader?

Read this quote from Civ3.com:

Although successful in the pacification of Egypt and suppression of a Babylonian revolt, the Greek city-states eventually got their act together and whipped Xerxes, spelling the beginning of the decline of the Persian Empire. With his pride still stinging from his defeats, Xerxes decided to retire. In his last years, he squandered the once-enormous treasury he had gathered through trade and taxation by launching vast construction programs, but most of these were never finished

So why is he considered their great leader, especially when he follows Dairus I and Cyrus the Great?

[d_dudy]

first, i would like to say I SOOOOOOO FREAKIN CALLED THE IMMORTALS AS THE PERSION UNIQUE UNIT!!!!!!! (in another thread where many people called this idea silly)

to all the history "they were horsy people" weenies. (no offense comrade, i'm really steering this towards the jerks in the other thread who thought there could be no way the immortals were the unique unit.)

i would also like to say i share tniem's reservations about xerxes. he doesn't sound all that great especially next to darius.

[Alexander I]

I concur with d_dudy. I was the first one to even suggest the Immortal as the Persian unit, back when other people were shouting that they weren't in (Sabre2th). In fact, it was my post in the CivIII scenarios thread that got Firaxis to spill the beans that Babylon and Persia were even in!

Immortals were the most reasonable choice. Come on people. Cataphracts? Try Byzantines, please. (Maybe in the expansion).

[Steve Clark]

Good call, Alexander01.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by d_dudy

i would also like to say i share tniem's reservations about xerxes. he doesn't sound all that great especially next to darius.

No, but he DOES have a really cool name. I wanted to name my kid Xerxes, but my wife told me I was nuts. Too bad.

[jsw363]

Bravo to Alexander. I must admit that I was a bit skeptical, but....

And yes, all the leaders are UGLY.

And finally, there description of Xerxes doesn't really match up with him being their leader. Kind of odd, no?

[d_dudy]

i think his having a cool name must be the only reason for him being the leader.

think about it, how ignorent is it to say how he near single handedly brought down his own great civilization and then make him their leader?

nice to see people actually realize i'm posting things, i might use caps more often


edit: i always have typos!

[Buck Birdseed]

All I know is that a lot of people would chose the king who lost most of the swedish territorial possessions, Charles XII, as the Swedish leader if such a civ ever would be made, because he's interesting and had some brilliant victories (Narva, most famously) before succumbing to Peter the Great's forces. *shrug*

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Come on people. Cataphracts? Try Byzantines, please. (Maybe in the expansion).

I knew someone would be ignorant enough to say this.

The Byzantines did already use Cataphracts when they were still Romans. And the Romans, an infantry civilization, if there ever was one, didn´t invent Cataphracts, either.

Guess from whom they copied them.

[splangy]

Persians are nice but nothin special. I DO like the imortal though, that should be a ***** to hold against.

[Alexander I]

Hold on a second, Comrade Tribune. Take your communist attitude with you. I never said the Byzantines were the ONLY civ to have Cataphracts. Yes, the Romans had them. As did the Parthians. But YOU'RE the ignorant one if you think Parthians are bonified Persians.

And anyway, the unique unit should be something the civ is renowned for. The Romans are more famous for their legions than for cataphracts. In the Persian situation, the Immortal best fits the Persian persona.

So please, stop spewing insults and go back to history class.

[Felch]

True dat, Alexander. What's important in terms of the UU is not the inventor but the most famous civilization to use it.

Germany didn't invent tanks, Britain did.

America didn't invent jets, Germany did.

Babylonians didn't invent bows, they've been around sinceprehistoric times.

Egypt didn't invent the chariot (I think that's their UU), it was used against them by an invading army, and the Egyptians modified the design and became a dominant power.

What's significant is not who used the weapon first, but who was most influential with the weapon or tactic.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Alexander01
But YOU'RE the ignorant one if you think Parthians are bonified Persians

No insult here, but it's funny that you call someone else ignorant and then use the term "bonified". Those of us who have seen it in print usually spell it "bona fide", from the Latin for "in good faith". I usually screw things up the other way around; I mispronounce things I've seen written, but have never heard spoken.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Alexander01
And anyway, the unique unit should be something the civ is renowned for. The Romans are more famous for their legions than for cataphracts. In the Persian situation, the Immortal best fits the Persian persona.

So please, stop spewing insults and go back to history class.

It´s all real history vs. popular history.

The Immortals were mostly "renowned" for losing big time against the Greeks. On the other hand, Parthian and later Persian Cataphract armies annihilated Crassus and fought all Roman Emperors who tried something and even the master general Belisarius to a standstill.

Brush up your historical knowledge, before I am going to take any lessons in your history class.

[d_dudy]

you know, i don't think anyone cares

[Fiil]

I think the Persians look good. I like the firaxis' choise of the immortals and compared with the other leaders he Xerxes looks allright. Ofcause they could have chosen Darios but Xerxes is the most famous.

I think the two pictures of Xerxes look very different (the one on the main page and the one under civ-of-the-week). It's probably just the costume but both of them look ancient, and I assumed there would be only four different costumes to cover the timeline. The previous leaders wore the same clothes on both pics!!

[eNo]

I'm suprised noone's mentioned this but if I understand the background of the Immortals correctly, then the unit chould be weaker than its standard counterpart but much cheaper to produce. Maybe half the shields? two third's of the shields?

And yeah..Xerxes does seem an odd choice for a leader. Except it might be that fame versus accuracy thing.

[d_dudy]

they cost the same but have more men in a unit, making their attack greater

i think it makes sense