Civilization specifics

[Duddha]

This information came from a PC.IGN Preview Summary done at civfanatics.com. I assume it is correct because the preview was a members only affiar at PC.IGN. The information is quoted directly from Civfanatics.com.

New Civs:

Carthaginians: Commercial/Industrius, UU is Numidian Infantry, spearman with increased attack/defense and no special resources
Koreans: Commercial/Scientific, UU is Hwacha, cannon with increased bombard and requires less special resources
Mongols: Militaristic/Expansionist, UU is Keshik, cheaper Knight that requires less special resources
Vikings: Militaristic/Expansionist, UU is Berserker, Longbowman with increased attack, defense, AND amphibious attack
Spanish: Religious/Commercial, UU is Conquistador, weak, cheap, requires almost no special resources, treat all terrain as roads, and doesn't replace anything
Celts: Religious/Militaristic, UU is Gallic Swordsman, swordsman with faster movement
Arabs: Expansionist/Religious, UU is Ansar Warrior, replaces Knights, and are faster and cheaper
Turks: Industrial/Scientific, UU is Siphai, a better attacking Cavalry

New information from Civfanatics.com

Keshik: 4/2/2
Conquistador: 5/3/3
Gallic Swordsman: 3/2/2
Sipahi: 7/3/3
Numidian Mercenary: 2/3/1
Ansar Warrior: 4/2/3
Medieval Infantry: 4/2/1
Guerilla: 6/6/1

So what do you think? Spanish commerical?huh, they stunk at economics. I'm disappointed that we're not getting a new elephant unit with the Carthaginians.

[Tiberius]

Is it a fact or only a guess?

[Palaiologos]

Yes, where did you get this information from?

Or is it just an estimate of your own?


Numidian infantry for Carhaginians?You mean Numidian cavalry.Massinisa, the cavalry commander of Hannibal,
led the excellent Numidian horsemen time after time against the Romans, before changing sides that is.That was the main reason Hannibal was defeated at Zama;Cavalry superiority was lost.

P.S Turks Scientific?

[Palaiologos]

It is true they employed Numidians as infantry,but these were lightly armed spearmen and were not considered first rate troops.It was the cavalry arm of the Numidians that made an impact.

I like that the beserker replaces the longbowman which is historical accurate.

[Duddha]

This information came from a PC.IGN Preview Summary done at civfanatics.com. I assume it is correct because the preview was a members only affiar at PC.IGN. The information is quoted directly from Civfanatics.com.

I have some problems with the turks being scientific too.

[Amadan]

The entire post over at CivFanatics also has info on new generic units, new victory conditions (Capture the Princess), and new city improvements.

[Tiberius]

The turks should be expansionistic or militaristic. If something, I know that. My ancestors fought for centuries against the ottoman expansion in this area (Central and Eastern Europe).
The city where I live was occupied by the turks for more than 150 years.

[Q Classic]

my problem is with the hwacha. don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but that's not what i'd've wanted for a UU. the kobukson turtleships would have been so much better.

ah, well.

[des-esseintes]

Sounds lame. I'm genuinely disappointed

vikings militaristic and expansionist? Why not commercial? We now have 3 civs with mil/rel and 3 with mil/exp. Why is this?

A spearman with 2 attack and 3 defense? A knight with 3 movement AND cheaper cost? Not very unbalancing to the Hoplite, the Bowman and the Rider now is it? And 2 movement swordsmen are just whack. Are you sure it didn't read Medieval Infantry? a 30 shields 3/2/2 unit would completely, pardon my french, fcuk up the game.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by des-esseintes
A spearman with 2 attack and 3 defense? A knight with 3 movement AND cheaper cost? Not very unbalancing to the Hoplite, the Bowman and the Rider now is it? And 2 movement swordsmen are just whack. Are you sure it didn't read Medieval Infantry? a 30 shields 3/2/2 unit would completely, pardon my french, fcuk up the game.

You're right. I also find some UU's very unbalancing.
The chartaginian UU is very weird

[kring]

I just joined PC.IGN for a trial period, and saw the whole article, I emailed it to Dan and MarkG. Also, there are a number of great screenshots there as well.

And it is Num. Infantry for the Carthage civ.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Tiberius
The turks should be expansionistic or militaristic. If something, I know that. My ancestors fought for centuries against the ottoman expansion in this area (Central and Eastern Europe).
The city where I live was occupied by the turks for more than 150 years.

Absolutely correct.The Turks are the classic example of an expansionist race.My ancestors (Byzantine Empire), fought for hundreds of years against the barbarians from the stepes.As did valiantly the Hungarians, Rommanians and Serbs.My own homeland (Greece) was occupied for 400 years, and Macedonia in particular for 500.

They should be neither militaristic since their leaders showed no special aptitude for millitary tactics and strategy(Bayazit excluded).As for their scientific trait the only reason they failed to expand their rule to western Europe was the great technological gap between them.I do not recall any great Turkish technological achievements.

And why the hell industrius?What did they built ?Roads?
Mosques?Universities? What?

I would suggest religious and expansionist instead.

P.S If only to satisfy my curriosity, could you tell me where are you from Tiberius?

[Palaiologos]

And as for the Numidian infantry they fought with a light javelin and shield.No armor, no heavy infantry tactics ,no long spear.

Greek hoplites and later phalangites under Alexander, had heavy armor, large shield , close-faced helm, fought in a tight phalanx formation with a huge spear and were professional soldiers(the phalangites).

How can Numidians have better attack and defence characteristcs?

I will go to the civfanatics site and check it out myself.It can't be true.

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Duddha
So what do you think? Spanish commerical?huh, they stunk at economics.

Yes the Spanish are everything else than good economists. They were only able to be the world leader for such a long time because of the gold and silver deposits they shipped from the New World but this has nothing to do with a strong economy as we see Spain more or less economically collapsed after the colonies get their independence and stopped the shipping. Religious is ideal for them plus they should be: militaristic (they conquered whole South America alone and this is really a militaristic masterpiece: wow ).

The Turks industrial and scientific? This is ridiculous they never had a strong industry nor where they ever good in science. Looks like Firaxis staff did this thing on guesswork or perhaps they dreamed about it . Should be militaristic too for reasons already mentioned (they devastated and oppressed the whole balkan before they were stopped by European powers).

[Duddha]

Yes the Spanish are everything else than good economists. They were only able to be the world leader for such a long time because of the gold and silver deposits they shipped from the New World but this has nothing to do with a strong economy as we see Spain more or less economically collapsed after the colonies get their independence and stopped the shipping. Religious is ideal for them plus they should be: militaristic (they conquered whole South America alone and this is really a militaristic masterpiece: wow ).

The Spanish were horrible at economics. They were the world leaders for only about a fifty year period and only because they got lucky in America. Any college level text book it will tell you that Spain economically collapsed after they imported gold and silver from the New World and were on the downturn even before the Armada(sp?) was defeated. Their currency inflated, everyone got lazy, and the system imploded. Spain was not militaristic. I hardly call taking over civilizations which practically roled over and died for the Spanish a military accomplishment. When faced agianst European opponents the Spanish were squarely defeated.

Turks industrial and scientific? This is ridiculous they never had a strong industry nor where they ever good in science. Looks like Firaxis staff did this thing on guesswork or perhaps they dreamed about it . Should be militaristic too for reasons already mentioned (they devastated and oppressed the whole balkan before they were stopped by European powers).

right on

[Jethro83]

Looks like there is a lot of modding to do when I get PTW.

"Carthaginians: Commercial/Industrius, UU is Numidian Infantry, spearman with increased attack/defense and no special resources"

The traits are OK. The UU seems a bit overpowered at the moment, not to mention inaccurate historically.

"Koreans: Commercial/Scientific, UU is Hwacha, cannon with increased bombard and requires less special resources"

The traits suit them. However, I was hoping the turtle boat would be their UU instead of the hwacha.

"Mongols: Militaristic/Expansionist, UU is Keshik, cheaper Knight that requires less special resources"

No problems here.

"Vikings: Militaristic/Expansionist, UU is Berserker, Longbowman with increased attack, defense, AND amphibious attack"

I was thinking the Vikings should be Commercial instead of Expansionist. As for the berserker, it seems a bit overpowered if they don't make it more expensive than a regular longbow (I'll be modding it to require Iron if it doesn't already).

"Spanish: Religious/Commercial, UU is Conquistador, weak, cheap, requires almost no special resources, treat all terrain as roads, and doesn't replace anything"

They were right about making Spain Religious. But as for Commercial, no way they were an economic powerhouse, as most of their vast weath was plundered from Central and South America. Militaristic or Expansionist would be a better trait for them than Commercial. As for the Conquistador, while there is some merit in choosing this as a UU, there probably won't be much use for it given the stats I've heard.

The Tercio would have been a more useful UU.

"Celts: Religious/Militaristic, UU is Gallic Swordsman, swordsman with faster movement"

No problems here.

"Arabs: Expansionist/Religious, UU is Ansar Warrior, replaces Knights, and are faster and cheaper"

Both traits suit the Arabs. I can't comment on the UU as this is the first I've heard of the Ansar Warrior. The only UU I could have come up with for the Arabs would have been the mameluke.

"Turks: Industrial/Scientific, UU is Siphai, a better attacking Cavalry"

Industrious/Scientific!? I don't know what traits would suit the Turks, but Scientific and Industrious do NOT suit them. As for the UU, again this is the first I've heard of the Siphai. I was thinking more along the lines of the Janissary being their UU.

[Darkworld Ark]

Rel/Com fits the Spanish, because Civ3's commerical trait doesn't nessicarily mean they are good with money, it means that they're able to hold on to large empires, which the Spanish did quite well.

As for the Vikings, expantionist doesn't quite fit them in my veiw, since they didn't have great land scouts or good relation with the natives. It would have been easier if Firaxis added the Maritime trait we asked for. I'm not quite sure about the Berserker though, the added 1 attack, 1 defense makes it a Midevial Infantry, so why not just make it a MI with anphibous attack?

[Antiochus VII]

I'm suprised the Carthaginians (i.e. Phoenecian) didn't get EXPANSIONIST rather than Industrious as they were some of the great explorers of the ancient world (commercial goes without saying).

The unique unit is strange too, though it represents THEIR (not the Numidian) African troops abilities around 250 B.C. Any Numidian unique unit should have been light cavalry.


I don't even want to get into the Turks traits

[Tiberius]

Off topic, for a quick answer:

Originally posted by Palaiologos
P.S If only to satisfy my curriosity, could you tell me where are you from Tiberius?

Timisoara - Romania; but my nationality is Hungarian. So I cover 2 out of the 3 nations you mentioned fighting against the turks. But I could find quickly some serbs, too. One of my work colleges, for example

On topic:
The traits that are OK in my opinion:
- Carthaginians, Koreans, Mongols, Celts

The others (IMO):
- Arabs could have been religious/commercial
- Spanish: Religious/Expansionistic. This is exactly what they were: religiously expansionistic; they tried to expand their religion in the whole world (and they succeded on one continent, right?)
- Vikings: I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard they could be commercial instead of expansionist or maybe instead of militaristic
- Turks: Hey Firaxis, are all the matching traits taken or what? Industrial/Scientific is ridiculous. I'd make them religious/expansionistic or religious/militaristic or something close to this.

[Palaiologos]

The Turkish UU is a Siphai.Not only i have never heard of it but i find it ridiculus to be a special cavalry.If the cavalry unit in civ3 represents the horsemen of 1650+ that means that Ottoman horse was better than the Prussian cavalry under Frederick the Great, French Dragoons and British Scots Grays.

The only cavalry i have heard of in Turkish history is the Spakhs(i am not sure if this how its written in English).And these were lightly armed as most units in the Imperial(Ottoman) Army.

As for the Carthaginian UU the choise of Numidian infantry is absurd.The Numidians were famous for their indeed excellent cavalry, not infantry, as i have written a few posts above.

If the UU represents their own African troops then why it is called Numidian?The Phoenicians of Carthage fought in hoplite style, phalanx formation.Their special corps was called by the Greeks "The Sacred Band" and were heavily armed and armoured.These white dressed elites however were decimated by Agathocles at the battle of Tunes(Tunis).

The black Numidians served in the army as mercenaries. The white Phoenicians rarely served as rank and file except as mentioned above.

[Palaiologos]

Thanks Tiberius for answering.I am Greek as you may have already guessed.


And as for the Turkish UU and traits i would like to hear the oppinion of a native Turk.

The Vikings were indeed known for their trading activities but only after they converted to christianity. They were raiders before that.


I checked the information on civfanatics myself and i found no reference on the new civ's leaders.Any hints?

[Duddha]

New information from Civfanatics.com

Keshik: 4/2/2
Conquistador: 5/3/3
Gallic Swordsman: 3/2/2
Sipahi: 7/3/3
Numidian Mercenary: 2/3/1
Ansar Warrior: 4/2/3
Medieval Infantry: 4/2/1
Guerilla: 6/6/1

[Tiberius]

The Turkish UU is a Siphai. Not only i have never heard of it but i find it ridiculus to be a special cavalry

I agree completely. I've never heard that the turks had some special cavarly unit, or generally were any good in mounted-combat
Why didn't they choose the so-obvious janissaries?

[Tiberius]

Damn! I've just realized that the turkish "siphai" is a misspell !!! It is not 'siphai' but "SPAHI", which were indeed famous ottoman soldiers (I didn't know they were mounted ).

I quote from britannica.com:

feudal cavalryman of the Ottoman Empire whose status resembled that of the medieval European knight. The spahi (from Persian for “cavalryman”) was holder of a fief (timar; Turkish: timar) granted directly by the Ottoman sultan and was entitled to all of the income from it in return for military service.

Now, the spahi are OK, but they were knigths, not cavalry! They fought for example in 1456 in the famous battle of Nandorfehervar (Belgrade) when Janos Hunyadi stopped the ottoman invasion of Europe (at least for a while), defeating Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinopole. So, this was in the 15th century, were there any cavalry units back then? Britannica.com says "feudal cavalry", now, that is not exactly the cavalry unit from civ3, is it?

Palaiologos, were you thinking of them when you said "The only cavalry i have heard of in Turkish history is the Spakhs"? Probably yes.

[Palaiologos]

Actually figured it out.It is not Siphai but Sipahi, there was obviously a spelling error.Yes, Sipahi are well known and i think they are the Spakhs i have mentioned but in Turkish.However these were lightly armed so an increased attack value is absurd.Perhaps increased movement?

Actually the turks were very good horsemen.When they made contact with the Eastern Empire they employed succesful hit and run tactics with horse archers, a legacy of their Mongol origins.

Also although it is not customed, i find it imperative to take back all the things i said about the turks not being militaristic.The Turkish military tradition made an impact on the Muslim world and all the training and strategical combat manuals were written in turkish.Moreover the military elite of the Islamic world spoke Turkish as their second laguage.

About the new stats posted by Duddha:

I agree with all of them, apart from the Numidian of course.I had hoped for a horse archer unit, but in vain.

[Palaiologos]

I 'll be damned Tiberius.I took notice of your new post as i was writting my own.While i was writing it i accidentally pressed backspace and i was taken to the apolyton forum.I had to rewrite the whole thing.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Actually the turks were very good horsemen.When they made contact with the Eastern Empire they employed succesful hit and run tactics with horse archers, a legacy of their Mongol origins.

Are you sure you're not confusing them with the hungarians? Because when they made contact with the europeans "they employed succesful hit and run tactics with horse archers, a legacy of their Mongol origins" ; and this was back in the 9th century.

I wonder how is more correct: spahi or sipahi? I've known them as spahi, but obviously others call them sipahi.

[Palaiologos]

Both Hungarians and Turks employed horse archer tactics "Parthian style".And both discarded them after coming into contact with europe, although the Turks much later.

In Greek it is Spakhides.I do not know about the other languages.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
I 'll be damned Tiberius.I took notice of your new post as i was writting my own.While i was writing it i accidentally pressed backspace and i was taken to the apolyton forum.I had to rewrite the whole thing.

So we basically figured it out in the same time. That's cute

[Palaiologos]

What about those Numidians? It is certain that they will be replacing spearman?will they be more expensive or perhaps a higher upkeep cost?Resourse requirments?

Hoplite and bowman become obsolete after the introduction of this superunit.