Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part 3)

[Gholam]

Originally posted by aschatz Nobody seems to have brought up the idea that the Hebrews/Jews unit should be a modern one. But, with the exception of the reign of David (quite short), the Jews have never been warriors until post-1947. I think that some sort of fighter, bomber, or tank makes the most sense. Something with high defense, since the ability to defend a small sliver of land stands out the most in recent times.

To my knowledge, the entire history of the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Israel is a history of warfare - the initial conquest of Canaan, expansion under David, later warfare against Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc - this little strip of land was JUST the place where armies clashed back then.

As for modern UU, it should probably be a modern armor with either 1 extra movement of 4 extra offense (Merkava tank)... but I still think that a 3.2.1 settler or settler upgrade should be the Hebrews UU

[Dr. Nick]

Well, the Merkava stresses survivability of crew, so I think it should have extra defensive points rather.

[aschatz]

After the expansion of David's kingdom, however, all of those were defensive wars or rebellions. Not really how a warrior nation works, I think. But it emphasizes that the unit should be defensive.

[Myrddin]

There is some confusion about the Celts, as there are 2 possible eras to place the core of the civilization

First pre-Roman conquest led by Boudacea, with chariots as UU, woad, druids etc, possibly Europe wide city list

Second post-Roman pre-Saxon invasion led by Arthur, with a fast defensive unit as UU, Irish mythology and early Christianity, focussed on Britain and Ireland

My preference is for the second, mainly as it should be easier to get something coherent given the limited information about the early Celts

In either case the civilization should be Religious and Expansionist with Monarchy/Democracy

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Myrddin
There is some confusion about the Celts, as there are 2 possible eras to place the core of the civilization

First pre-Roman conquest led by Boudacea, with chariots as UU, woad, druids etc, possibly Europe wide city list

Second post-Roman pre-Saxon invasion led by Arthur, with a fast defensive unit as UU, Irish mythology and early Christianity, focussed on Britain and Ireland

My preference is for the second, mainly as it should be easier to get something coherent given the limited information about the early Celts

In either case the civilization should be Religious and Expansionist with Monarchy/Democracy

I've been basing my posts on the European wide Celtic civilization, although the starting place for the Celts will presumably be (on the real world map) somewhere in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Its interesting to note that chariot warfare persisted in Great Britain and Ireland long after it was superseded on the mainland of Europe by warfare on horseback. In Irish mythology, there is a mention of chariot warfare as late as the 8th or 9th century, if memory serves me correctly. As regards Arthur, I'm in two minds about this: I realize the fame of the 'Arthur' persona, but given the mists of mythology that shroud the character, and doubt as to who exactly 'Arthur' was, or indeed, how many of them there were, or where 'he' operated, an historical personage seems to me a better bet- Boudicca, Cartimandua, Brennus, Vercingetorix, for instance.

[Wernazuma III]

aschatz et al.: Take a look in my CSA thread, we're doing CSA discussion there. Please keep in mind that beside the best CSA combination for every single civ we have to take a look on overall balance, so we're trying to find out an acceptable combination of CSA for all civs.
For the hebrew UU: I seem to remember darkly that there has been a poll on that by locutus but I couldn't find it and don't have the time to look up right now (sorry, I really spend most of my scarce free time here but). Does anyone know where it is. We could base our decision on the poll then.


To the "Celts": You mentioned a good point: We yet have to decide on the celtic capital as it will also be the starting location. We should try to go midway between the most important place and a favorable starting location. Maybe Ireland would really be better because we already have so many continental civs.
I also think we should keep the celts as "pan-european" and don't make them only britannic celts.

[hoevenpe]

Hi,

I am just reading this thread for the first time and I must say that I can not wait until playing it.

Perhaps these remarks have already been made about the Dutch, but just to be sure I have some points to make:

- the dutch ruler should be :'William of Orange' instead of 'William Orange'

- the full leader names should be: 'Piet Heyn', 'Michiel de Ruyter', 'Maarten Tromp', 'Maurice van Speyk', 'Johan Thorbecke', 'Johan van Oldenbarnevelt'. (Thorbecke and van Oldebarneveld are in fact not a military leaders but a political ones. 'Witte de With' or 'Jacob van Heemskerck' could be very well known military replacements).

- a suggestion for the UU could be some kind of early marines. The dutch were the inventors of the 'marines'. The 'Ship of the Line' should have an extra movement point as well (5 instead of 4) because this enables faster sea exploration.

- at last: I think the dutch should be commercial/scientific. I can think of Expansionistic also but in my opinion the scientific achievements (especially during the 1600s) substantially outperform the expansionistic ones.

Keep on the good work!

[hoevenpe]

Correction:

It should be 'Jan van Speyk' instead of 'Maurice van Speyk'. My mistake...

By the way:

That upgraded defence for a rifleman unit could also be a good idea... combined with coastal assault should this create the 'early marines' (or something like that) special unit.

[Myrddin]

My preference is for the later post-Roman Celtic civilization, as it can rely on more specific known sites and leaders, given that there are few cities today with a clear Celtic founding. Also this will help fill the timeline of when Golden Ages fall

If the choice is for an earlier era than a reasonable capital might be Ynys Mon (Anglesey), an island between Britain and Ireland and site of the sacred Druid groves

While much of Arthur's story was written by much later romantic writers there is little doubt he is based on a leader who helped stop the Saxon invasions of Britain, at least for a time

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Solomyr
Expansionist? I disagree. There were periods of expansion in Jewish history, especially during King David’s time, but for the most part, they only wanted their little sliver of land at the east end of the Med. I think religious is important, but C/I aren't a travesty. Expansionist is.

As I understand you're saying we're not expansionist.

I fully agree with it.

We are not expantionist.

Neither are we religious.

The bible is full of examples how we betray the Lord at any time we can.

Only in the days of the second temple did we become religious.

And it went away too, in the middle ages.

Then came back with the reformation and anti-reformation (Haredim)

And Wernazuma III, I disagree with you on the UU still. The Maccabees we not a family, despite with Jewish tradition teaches. Mattathias and his sons were part of the Hasmonean house. They lead the revolt against the Assyrian Greeks, and they and their forces become known as the Maccabees. Either from the Hebrew work for 'hammer' or an acronym for a war cry invoking the name of God. So I still say Maccabee...besides, it doesn't look like we have any better ideas

Very exact.
Maccabee was the nickname of the young leader Juda.

Maccabee could stand for "Mi Camocha Ba Elim Yehova" - "Who is like you among the gods, Jehova" - meaning - no one comes close.

Or a hammer - Makev.

Depends how you spell it.


I still say Merkava is a very good option.

so is a Mossad agent.

If not for our intelligene we'd be long gone.

[Faust]

An interesting UU for the Celts could possible be an upgraded Longbowman. This would be unique from other Civs (not another Swordsman/Warrior upgrade) and would be ofcourse somewhat historically correct. While of course it was the English who made the Welsh Longbow famous, they adopted the use of them after years of fighting and subdueing the Celtic Welsh.

[Eli]

By making the Merkava an Israeli unique unit you move the golden age to the modern era. And i'm not sure we have agreement over that.

[Killerdaffy]

For overall game balancing reasons I would prefer to have some more civs with later UUs. As it is the ancient times are rather crowded (even more so after the additions in this pack) and we don't have anything like a tank with higher defense yet (or a mech inf with higher offense). A mossad agent would be really unique as well (too bad they took out spies, for that matter). I wonder what kind of unit that would be, though.

[Solomyr]

i might be mistaken, but i thought that some spying ability could be given to regular units, specifically to look at a city. i can't check this because i forgot my civ3 disk in at school and i am now at home

can someone check this, if it's possible, we might be able to upgrade a marine into the Mossad agent. of course, this makes the golden age modern, so i vote to have Golda as the leader, just for equality

[Eddin]

Communism/Democracy?

That should properly be: shunned: Despotism (Communism would also do however, even though our socialist party has always been big, but since that failed revolt some hundred years ago, you could call us anti-communist, if you were a fool. The Despotic centralist government in the Netherlands against which we revolted seems a much better choice)

Favoured: Republic (we have never been an actal democracy, we've been a monarchy, a republic and a despotic colony of spain/germany/france/burgundy/rome. Furthermore, during the Republic we had our Golden age. And in my opinion, Republic best expresses the lust for personal freedom the dutch possess

[Wernazuma III]

Eddin, I tend to agree with you. Anyone with another opinion? Otherwise I'll change the gov. preferences for the dutch.

[hoevenpe]

Sounds good to me as a Dutchman...

I can't wait playing as 'William of Orange'... That 'Bismarck' guy is getting a hard time...

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by Solomyr
i might be mistaken, but i thought that some spying ability could be given to regular units, specifically to look at a city. i can't check this because i forgot my civ3 disk in at school and i am now at home

can someone check this, if it's possible, we might be able to upgrade a marine into the Mossad agent. of course, this makes the golden age modern, so i vote to have Golda as the leader, just for equality

I just tried it: It actually works! I gave a settler the recon ability and a range of two. You might even give him air bombardment abilities, even though I haven't tested that yet. Would he get intercepted by a fighter, though??

I'm not sure whether the Marine would be the best unit to replace. I was thinking more along the lines of the civ2 spy, something like an explorer with recon and bombardment abilities...

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Eddin, I tend to agree with you. Anyone with another opinion? Otherwise I'll change the gov. preferences for the dutch.

I completely agree with you about the republic.
BTW, I would like the Netherlands to become a republic again, also in real life.

Further, I've got a question about the city-names. We've added a lot of colonial Dutch cities, but shouldn't we also (or maybe instead) add some early Flemish towns? I mean, the Dutch and the Flemings are traditionally the same people, with the same language, the same culture and the same medieval history.

I could go further into this, and add some more historical information about Dutch and Belgians, but for now I hope this will do.

[Eli]

Golda as a leader??? I'd rather play with the Arabs than with the Hebrews in this case.

Maybe we can make a swordsman spy?(not realistic, but I'll agree to everything to make sure Golda stays out )

[Wernazuma III]

Eli: Beside the fact that you obviousky don't like Golda, I thinkwe can remove her anyway (she was no general after all...).
Although I'd like a Civ-story from you playing the Arabs

And please no Spy-swordsman-settler, this really wouldn't add anything but unbalance.

[Trifna]

mmm... anyone already mentioned that Betlehem was not a big city or anything? It is well known because Jesus was born there. Am I wrong?

[Graeme the mad]

I think we need lots more kmodern SU and think the hebrews have an oppurtunity to have one.
Modern Israel has I believe some of the best tanks in the world so the hebrew SU could replace the modern armour (possibly +2 attack and +1 defense) - I could find out the name of the good Israeli tank if someone else doesn't know it.

WE NEED MODERN UNITS

[Killerdaffy]

The name should be Merkava then (was mentioned somewhere above). Wouldn't it make sense to have it use one less resource (e.g. no aluminum), reflecting the ability of the Israeli Army to get large supplies from the US when needed?

[Gholam]

PLEASE not Golda, her actions got us into the fine mess of October '73 (way too many blame intelligence for that ****up, but the truth of the matter is, intelligence warned her and she didn't heed those warnings - mobilization is costly, and can destabilize political situation in the region).

The current IDF Main Battle Tank is Merkava Mk.3, with Mk.4 supposed to become operational soon.

[Fresno]

Nobody reacted to my question about the Flemings. I really hope they will be included as Dutch.

Don't forget Belgium used to be called 'Spanish Netherlands' under the Spanish rule and 'Austrian Netherlands' under the Austrian rule.

[Wernazuma III]

Fresno: I'm not sure. It's a possibility, but such things are always a sensible topic (see polish/german discussion). I'd like to hear more opinions.

[Fresno]

I understand that. I'm keen to see what other people think about it.

I have very strong feelings about this. Maybe because half of my family is Flemish.

[Wernazuma III]

So, everyone: Shall I change the Hebrew UU to Merkava. Personally, I don't mind? Please suggest the values we could give the Mercava

[Gholam]

Merkava series of main battle tanks. I'm writing this summary from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Development started in late 60s, when England refused to sell Israel Chieftain MBT's. Project was directed by Maj.Gen. Israel Tal, himself an armored corps officer. Top emphasis was crew protection and tactical mobility (ability to move under fire) as opposed to strategic mobility (ability to move quickly from one place to another). The resulting tank weighted 56 tons, powered by a 900hp diesel engine, resulting in max speed of 46 km/h (on roads). In addition, the rear hatch originally designed for safer crew evacuation (if you evacuate through hatches on top, you're going right into enemy fire, and if you go through hatches on tank's bottom, you often have to crawl through burning diesel fuel that has spilled out of the tank) turned out to be an effective way to transport infantry (up to ten men, at the cost of ammunition carried) or wounded. Armament consisted of a 105mm rifled cannon (based on British L7), a license-manufactured 7.62mm FN MAG machine gun coaxial with it, two more MAGs on flexible mounts on top of turret, a 60mm mortar operated by loader, and an optional remote-controlled M2HB .50cal machine gun on top of turret, above the cannon. It was also equipped with an extremely effective automatic firefighting system - of the 50 Merkava tanks knocked out during clashes with Syria in Lebanon in 1982, not one burned, and only 9 crew members were killed (only seven tanks were complete losses, the rest were repaired). However, it was found that protection is not enough to counter the 125mm smoothbore cannon used by USSR-made T-72 and later tanks, and a new version of Merkava was put into production, named Merkava Mk.2 (english translation - in hebrew, it's Merkava Siman Shtaim, which translates as Mertava Mark Two), featuring improved armor protection.

In 1989, Merkava Mk.3 went operational. Although name suggest a further modification of the original design, it's an almost completely new tank, featuring a 120mm smoothbore gun (a modified Rheinmetall design, similar to the M256 gun used on M1A1 Abrams MBT) modular armor (meaning that repairing damaged modules is extremely simple - you just take them off and put on new ones), a new 1200hp diesel engine (resulting in top speed of 55km/h on roads), and numerious other changes, mostly to crew protection, increasing weight to 61 tons. Price went up (in 1989 prices) from $1.8 million for Mk.2 to $2.3 million for Mk.3 (which is still very cheap - unit replacement cost for M1A1 Abrams is $4.3 million, M1A2 Abrams is $6 million, Leclerc runs approximately $10 million).

Scheme of Merkava Mk.3's turret armor modules:


Links with info on Merkava (various models)

FAS.org Military Analysis Network
Army Technology Industry Projects


Suggested stats: 28.20.2, perhaps 15-20% lower cost than regular modern armor.