Siege unit is better.
Siege unit is better.
Best threads in one conveniate spot here http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...to-Civ5-Forums including this very tread.
Franks became the french (along with normans). When the franks finally united, they named their country after the weapon that let them do it. The Francesca. (which they gave to the iroquois when they met them and BAM. thats how we get tomahawks)Originally Posted by Hawk
True, the Assyrians were the originators, but including an Assyrian archer is a bit redundant since a version of it already exists.
On a more constructive note, what kind of powers would the siege tower have? Major city attack bonuses and no need to set up at the cost of being significantly weaker against units in the open field (offense and defense).
That idea sounds fair to me. I would be more inclined to play as the Assyrians if their unique unit is a siege weapon.
The descendants of the Franks are both the French and the Dutch. They controlled quite a large chunk on Europe.
That's interesting about the tomahawks...I thought that there were tomahawks before Europeans arrived in the Americas though?
Yeah, come to think of it, the siege UU makes sense.
After all, we're looking for uniques with some genuinely new flavor. A siege tower would definitely add to that.
I'm not sure how to feel about the Franks. One one hand, like the Romans, they were the foundation for many great European powers. However, said powers had a significantly more far-reaching impact on the rest of the world, given that they still exist to this day and had a major influence on world history through the Colonial Era. I'm not sure who to give my vote to.
Personally I'm not gonnu vote for the Franks, but I can understand why some want them, and so I don't mind them on the voting list. If they make it into the game then I'm ok with that...I just probably won't play as them very often.
I have another lead in my hunt for an Inuit leader...A separatist political party in Greenland called the 'Inuit Ataqatigiit'. Still deciphering if any of its past leaders are good choices or not.
Well, I'll take another stab at the Assyrians.
The UA Kevik posted is kind of loaded down with all the extra unhappiness conditions, and is also kind of questionable in terms of validity because the Assyrians were pretty effective at policing their captured cities and cooked up an innovated method for dealing with that very problem--namely, the systematic and forced relocation of conquered peoples, which would lend itself to giving the Assyrians less unhappiness from conquered cities, rather than more.
The other issue is that disagreements are prone to arise as to what sort of unique units they should have. This is because the Assyrians excelled at every aspect of ancient warfare, and did so for many centuries during which they refined and reshaped their war machine. I could say chariots, and someone else could just easily argue for mounted units, spearmen, or siege weapons. Even when agreeing on a type of unit, there could be different permutations: they had archer units that used shield-bearers up front for protection, and they had archer units that sent slingers up front to break up enemy formations. And all of this could be accounted for simply through promotions, which suggests that the Assyrians should be designed to favor XP-boosting buildings.
So, I'm going for a different sping and steered away from unique units altogether.
Assyria
Capital: Kahlu
Leader: Ashurnasirpal
UA: Primeval War Machine: Influence with military city-states does not decrease while at war. Iron and horse deposits are doubled.
UB: Resettlement Center: Production 100, Maintenance 6. Like the courthouse which it replaces, a Resettlement Center eliminates the unhappiness generated by occupied cities. It has a lower cost to produce, but the maintenance is slightly higher.
UB: Ekal Masharti: Production 80, Maintenance 1. Replaces the barracks. The ekal masharti provides +15 XP for all new land units. In additon, it provides a +25% production of land units while in the ancient era. This bonus decreases by 5% with the passage of each era.
Strategy Playing As: Dominate early. Research Bronze Working and Mathematics for the buildings they offer as well as the units. Take advantage of the barracks to quickly build units. Seek out iron and horses aggressively. Form Alliances with military CS's and once you have them, and keep the fires of war burning to maintain influence. Pursue Honor and Patronage policies.
Strategy Playing Against: Use their warmonger nature to rally other civ's against them. Target military CS's for conquest, or at least try to beat the Assyrians to alliance. Aggressively deprive them of strategic resources.
Last edited by steveg700; 01-18-2011 at 01:16 PM.
Yep, this is the problem with the Assyrians. The Babylonians incorporate their cities and one of their unit types. I suspect the deisgners agglomerated them, which sucks frankly. The Assyrians are a considerably more interesting civ IMHO. I guess the Babylonians are a little more prominent as a supposed "cradle of civilization", but not by much.
Hebrews Idea:
Capital: Jerusalem
Leader: David Ben Gurion (OR) King David
UU: Maccabee - The Maccabees were a Jewish rebel army who took control of Judea, which had been a client state of the Seleucid Empire. They founded the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE, reasserting the Jewish religion, expanding the boundaries of the Land of Israel and reducing the influence of Hellenism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Maccabeus
UU: Merkava Mark 4 - MK4 is a revolutionary Israeli tank. he Mk-4 is equipped with a 120 mm gun but the new gun is designed to sustain higher pressures, generating higher muzzle velocities which are an essential feature for advanced kinetic energy ammunition. The Merkava Mk4 can accomodate various 120mm ammunition types, including 120mm APFSDS-FS (kinetic) rounds, and their training derivatives, HEAT (hollow-charge) types and anti-personnel/anti-material ammunition which have already been used in combat operations with previous Merkava types. The tank will also be able to accommodate the Lahat missile as it becomes operational. The loader can load the gun from a fully automated, fire-proof magazine which accommodates up to 10 ready rounds and deliver up to four types of ammunition types to the loader.
http://defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm
UA: City defenses can attack twice each turn instead of once.
I'd love to see siege towers added as a general unit that's unlocked by researching the wheel. It would fill a number of niches. First, it would provide a simple siege unit that doesn't require iron to construct (and the simplest siege engines certainly did not require iron). Secondly, In the early game, players are attacking cities with pretty much everything except siege units, simply because it's too much hassle to get through both iron working and mathematics, especially given the general effectiveness of swordsmen (who also consume iron). Thirdly, the wheel is in the right place on the science track, right before mathematics, and the chariot isn't really pulling its weight.
The argument against it is that the developers simply may not want players to go city-busting quite that early in the game. The players clearly do though.
Maybe Strength 8 with the standard siege unit properties, and automatically destroyed when attacked by melee units.? Or maybe a one-shot item for attacking cities? Tough to gauge, because at such a low strength, percentile modifiers have to significant to make even a point's worth of difference.
Last edited by steveg700; 01-18-2011 at 01:15 PM.
I don't know about making a siege tower a normal unit. It would work just fine as a replacement for the Catapult, since some siege towers were outfitted with arrays of archers and catapults (later cannons). A unique power it has would be to negate the effects of any city defense structures upon attacking, or just a simple combat bonus against cities.
Good to see some are doing their research! Your ideas are certainly well thought out (Although I'd probably still chose Assur for their Capital).
As for their UU though, we have managed to narrow it down at least. Firstly, even though they were exceptional at chariots, so where the Ancient Egyptians, who already have this as their UU. The Archer with the shield bearer would suit them too, but the Babylonians already have this. Horsemen were used by the Ancient Assyrians, but not as much as their chariots and other unit types. In comparison, other civs used horsemen a lot more effectively, so this doesn't suit them as well as other UU ideas. Slingers have been claimed by the Inca, which basically leaves us with either a foot soldier or a siege weapon. I think most of us would prefer a new siege UU anyway, but this really does suit them, as well as their warmongering nature/flavour.
Most of us are likely more familiar with Nineveh than other ancient Assyrian cities.
The Mayans
Capital: Tikal
Leader: Pakal II (603-683)
UA: The Great Tikal - The Palace receives a bonus +1 production, science, gold, culture and defence for every social policy
UU: Holkan. Replaces Spearman. Strength 6 not 7, Move 3 not 2, +75% str bonus vs. mounted not 100%, +50 str bonus vs. melee units. (melee units include: spearman, swordsmen, pikeman, Longswordsman)
UB: Ball court. Replaces Colosseum. +5 happiness not 4, +5 golden age points when empire is happy (giving a net total of +10 to golden age counter, instead of just 5 from happiness)
Pretty blandLike Babylon really. The Ball court was an idea I had to make the Persian Satrap's Court more useful considering how late it comes and the happiness changes, but it still works for the mayans, who doesn't like golden ages?
The replacement of units is somewhat odd to me personally. I imagine, for instance, that the Persians actually had plenty of regular spearmen in addition to their immortals. Why not let Persia have spearmen, and then Immortals as a premium-cost version of them? Or for that matter a Persian-exclusive promotion rather than a different altogether?
That's why I'm not so crazy about swapping out a siege tower for a catapult; more of an issue with the general design of the game than anything else. Like I said already, there's a niche for filling in the siege unit category, namely a pre-iron ancient-era unit.
As to the Assyrians in particular, they didn't even make it to the classical era. Their claim to fame isn't really based on having unique units, but rather they were just the first to use certain units as major players on the battlefield. There's nothing to an Assyrian siege tower that's distinctive from a siege tower anybody else ever employed.
Having said all that, I'm not that opposed to any particular thing about the Assyrians as long they have a good unique ability that incorporates military CS's in some fashion.
Appreciate the compliment, Hawk.
Well, I went with Ashurnasirpal as the leader--who basically spearheaded Assyria's last and greatest expansion--so I paired up the capital as the one that was extant during his reign. The only possible significant distinction over Nineveh is that Babylon already has Nineveh as a city, but I don't think they have Kahlu (feel free to correct me on that). On the whole, I'm fairly "meh" about which leader or capital to go with.
Granted, horsemen didn't play a role in Assyria's early dominance in Mesopotamia. However, hit up Google and do a search on "Assyrian cavalry" or "Assyrian horsemen" or "hurricanes on horseback". The wikipedia page for "Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire" refers to the word "cavalry" no less than 21 times.As for their UU though, we have managed to narrow it down at least. Firstly, even though they were exceptional at chariots, so where the Ancient Egyptians, who already have this as their UU. The Archer with the shield bearer would suit them too, but the Babylonians already have this. Horsemen were used by the Ancient Assyrians, but not as much as their chariots and other unit types. In comparison, other civs used horsemen a lot more effectively, so this doesn't suit them as well as other UU ideas.
Disagreements about capitals and units go back to what I mentioned earlier; the sheer enormity of Assyria's history as a powerful civ creates a bit of a trap when saying "they were well-known for this" or "they didn't do that". They had three major eras of expansion separated by centuries. In overall terms of ancient warfare, they innovated and refined methods other civ's would adopt. To me, the salient elements to reflect are A) they were the earliest example of an empire whose NGP revolved around military conquest, and B) they were the first civ to transition from bronze to iron weapons and armor. The rest is open to various interpretations.
That they're snubbed in favor of Babylon blows my mind.
Last edited by steveg700; 01-20-2011 at 02:31 PM.
Babylon makes it because of Hammurabi's code of laws. Although the Assyrians were great warriors, there have been other great military powers. Before the Babylonians, no one had ever codified their laws before. That and the fact that more people would recognize Babylon over Assyria. Not saying its a GOOD rationale, just that its A rationale.
Babylon should not have Nineveh as one of their cities. They may have conquered it, but they did not build it in the first place. They should fix this in a patch if they decided to add the Assyrians as a new civilization.
Babylon came up with code of laws (a tech which doesn't exist in this version of the game), while Assyrians got the jump on iron working. Both are pretty significant accomplishments. I acknowledge Babylon's contributions, but the Assyrians were no second fiddle. It would be cool for these two millenia-long rivals to co-exist and be able to square off. It's like Athens versus Sparta, but writ on a larger scale.
Come to think of it, what the heck do spawning great scientists have to do with Babylon? Hammurabi's code falls into the realm of social policies. while Nebuchadnezzar was more of a great-engineer sort of guy.
Last edited by steveg700; 01-21-2011 at 10:50 AM.
WAT? This actually surprises me! I didn't realize that it wasn't in the game! And I've put 260+ hours into this game...fail.
Anyway, you have a valid point. Babylon was more of a socially progressive nation, so something like cheaper social policies would've made a lot more sense. Still, they may have gone for science because there aren't any distinctively scientific nations out there in Civ...
DLC Scenario - Battle for America, all Native American Tribes! America will show up in late game as a Super Villain you have to defeat :P
If we are lucky they will add a couple more Native American civs into the game, which would likely by the Mayans and the Sioux (and this is a popular idea as well when you look at some of the poll results in the forum). Other tribes that seem pretty popular are (in order of popularity according to the polls): Apache, Navajo, Inuit. Personally, for a bit of diversity, I'd probably prefer the Inuit out of those three - I think they'd be interesting to play as too! Although in my opinion, the more the merrier!
We're hoping that they also add a Polynesian civ, which have a somewhat similar culture.
A recommendation for Portugal's unique trait; make their trait expire at Steam Engine. Navigation was when exploration became a big deal in the real world, so making their power cancel out right when it should become most useful and relevant defeats its purpose. Unless you're playing on a Pangea or in some cases an Archipelago, you're still going to have a lot of territory to explore once you get Navigation.
Considering the popularity of the Apache (ok, so not quite as popular as the Sioux, but still, a lot of people want them in the game, and I wouldn't mind seeing them myself. Besides, they are a very iconic Native American people, so they at least should be considered), we should add their stats up on the first page. I'll need some help with this, and I'm sure some of you know a lot more about the Apache than I do, but I'll get it started anyway:
Leader: Geronimo (I think we would all be in agreement here)
Capital city: Silver City?
UB: Wickiup (Open for ideas?)
Starting bias: Desert/plains, inland.
What would be a good unique unit for the Apache? Medicine man came to mind, but I'm not sure how this would work. Maybe as a good healing, support unit, with low attack/defence?
Nah make medicine men the UA, like cities and units heal +1 per turn and units in friendly boarders heal +2 a turn or you can have each unit start out with a free medic promotion.
I like that idea! Very handy indeed.
Here's a UU idea that I think suits them...
Apachean Braves: Javelin throwers who are effective at both ranged and melee attack.
Medicine man could be a great person variation, like a great merchant unique. Its special tile improvement grants extra happiness, maybe? However, I'd say it would be implemented better as a unique attribute.
So, an Apachean Brave would be an archer unique, with 6 strength and 6 ranged, capable of both melee and ranged? Not bad.
Apachean brave makes sense to me.
Medicine is the translation for spiritual magic. Which is why almost every tribe in NA has a medicine man. Its there spiritual leader. Which is why its not unique...
Its still sorta unique and it has yet to be done (though if we do get another Native American tribe I think we would be rather lucky) Well its not my area of expertese but I know some things ( Few not many)
The Maya are definitely the civ I'm waiting for.
My advice though, is that Pacal was a leader of the city state of Palenque. Therefore if he were the suggested leader then I would make Palenque their capital. Alternatively, Tikal could be used with one if it's more successful leaders, such as Jaguar Paw. Also, the name of Tikal when it was built and in use was Yax Mutal. The name Tikal was only given to it after its rediscovery in the 1840s and so Yax Mutal would be a more correct name to be used in game.
You are right. That is why I think Apachean Braves are the appropriate choice.
I know the discussion is on the Apache, at the moment, but I just noticed that the Celtic UB is outdated with the last patch. All defensive structures are now maintenance-free, so the Dun is essentially a weaker castle for nothing. So, a suggestion would be that you can keep the weaker defense, but double it if the city is built on a hill. Or, all soldiers built in the city get a rough terrain combat bonus or something.
Hmm, it does seem to need something extra now. Maybe they can build it earlier? Having the Dun early would be a good bonus for the team.
Or, you could make the Dun replace the Walls and give it a similar effect. It would complement well with their ability as it is. Another idea is +0.5 defense for every forest or hill in the city radius.
A few other observations; the East Indiaman's ability to earn gold equal to its strength for every battle sounds more like being a privateer than anything (which the Dutch were not). Its too bad the English and Ottomans are already in, because a Seahawk or Barbary Pirate unit that used said ability would have been awesome for them. Heck, a general pirate unit (with no nationality) would be pretty awesome. Oh yeah, and the Poland-Lithuania Civ is a breeding ground for ICS. Some will like, others will despise...just some constructive comments.
Thats why I wanted the priviteer unit back then I coud attack anyone without being at war with them. ( also a mecenary unit for land would be cool too)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote