 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Alfonsus71
|
 |
Spain
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
LEADERS:
Male: Philip II.
Female: Elizabeth I.
GENERALS:
Ancient: Viriato.
Middle: The Cid, Gonzalo Fernandez (Great Captain), Hernan Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Alejandro Farnesio.
Modern: Gálvez (Governor of spanish Lousiana), Castaños.
Navy: Juan de Austria, Blas de Lezo, Churruca, Pascual Cervera.
SPECIAL UNITS:
TERCIO: A mix of pikemen an harquebussiers, with the firepower of an early musketeer unit and special bonus against cavalry attacks.
SPANISH GALLEON: High cargo capacity + defensive bonus.
GUERRILLERO or BANDOLERO: Ignores ZOC, all as road, low building cost?, no manteinance?.
CARAVEL: ?
I don´t know if this will be useful, we still don´t know the level of customization that Civ 3 will allow, but it´s funny anyway.
Fiera, you were absolutely right in your column "worst fears come true", it´s even worse after the exclusion of our glorious spanish civilization. The only good points I see in civ 3 are the new combat system, with units agruped in armies (but I don´t like the mobilization rules and i still demand recruiting instead of building of military units) and the trade system (I would like to see how can this affect diplomacy in multiplayer games, and if an "autarquic" player could survive).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
 |
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
Return to the topic. I am agree with the spanish civ, but we need a general from Al-Andalus... Perphas Almanzor? And, I think that the Firaxis official civs will have only a one special unit, from the Golden Era of the civilization(My favourite is the Tercio)... I love many  , but this can be not equitative with official civs.
In the other hand, perphas the most hard work with a custom civ will be the graphics... All oficials civ must have 3D leaders!
More generals from the Ancient time can be Trajano (he was a great one!) or Teodisio (I don't like him too much)...
But, if we can have more than one special unit, What about the Almogávares? They had brigth and dark sides, but they are awesome!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alfonsus72
|
|
New units:
ALMOGAVERS (from yarolav): what about a middle-age normal infantry unit with dissembark capability (an early marines)?
CONQUISTADORES: An explorer unit with some combat capability, and x2 versus ancient age units.
Of course, I know 1 civ only has 1 special unit, so my intention is people to vote their favorite one. Considering that the civ golden age starts when the special unit wins its 1st combat, I guess CONQUISTADORES is quite good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alfonsus72
|
|
I have different user names cause I post both from home and work, and i allways forget my password. Originally i was "Alfonsus", but as i forget the password and lost my é-mail account, I created "Alfonsus71" and now "Alfonsus72", sorry for the inconveniences. Will check the Bolivar (TRAITOR!!!!) scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Waku
|
 |
Cádiz, Spain
Nov 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfonsus72
Bolivar (TRAITOR!!!!) |
to what?
Perhaps a handful of peninsular bolivars were needed at that time in Spain.
Last edited by Jay Bee on 31-08-2001 at 00:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alfonsus72
|
|
North America independence was a real revolution (the American Revolution as they called it), they proclame human rights and the first modern contitution (still on), and from a cruel war they created a real democracy and later the richest country in the world.
In the other side, South and Central america independences were not liberal movements, they were only big oportunities for some chiefmans (Bolivar, San Martin and others) to increase its power and privileges, they created cruel dictatorship and in the long term underdeveloped countries. The new states mistreated the indians much more than the colonial administration (in fact, most indians joined the loyal armies during the independence wars).
I don´t feel any simpathy for both the caracther and the historical role of Bolivar.
I think is accurate to call them traitors, they commited traition to Spain, their country in wich army they served (some of them with honour). If they should have lost after rising against their country, they should have been called traitors by history (as now are those independentist who lost, mind Jefferson Davis and Bobby Lee from the Confederancy, and how badly they are considered now in the USA). As they won, they are "patriots" or "libertadores" (liberators from what?, to accept that terms means to accept than the spanish rule was evil). For me they will allways be guilty of the sin they did, of word they broke, of TREASON.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Waku
|
|
Cádiz, Spain
Nov 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfonsus72
North America independence was a real revolution (the American Revolution as they called it), they proclame human rights and the first modern contitution (still on), and from a cruel war they created a real democracy and later the richest country in the world.
|
is there still slavery in USA?
USA is not the reachest country because of its revolution
quote:
Originally posted by Alfonsus72
In the other side, South and Central america independences were not liberal movements, they were only big oportunities for some chiefmans (Bolivar, San Martin and others) to increase its power and privileges, they created cruel dictatorship and in the long term underdeveloped countries. |
They were liberal movements, creoles were 2nd class spanish, and they kept for years claming for the same rights than the peninsular spanish had.
Washington doesn't differ from what you've just said about Bol/SM/etc
They didn't became underdevelopped because of them
quote:
Originally posted by Alfonsus72
The new states mistreated the indians much more than the colonial administration (in fact, most indians joined the loyal armies during the independence wars).
|
Exactly the same happened in N/America
quote:
Originally posted by Alfonsus72
I don´t feel any simpathy for both the caracther and the historical role of Bolivar.
I think is accurate to call them traitors, they commited traition to Spain, their country in wich army they served (some of them with honour). If they should have lost after rising against their country, they should have been called traitors by history (as now are those independentist who lost, mind Jefferson Davis and Bobby Lee from the Confederancy, and how badly they are considered now in the USA). As they won, they are "patriots" or "libertadores" (liberators from what?, to accept that terms means to accept than the spanish rule was evil). For me they will allways be guilty of the sin they did, of word they broke, of TREASON. |
According to this Franco is also a traitor
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2001 15:46
this time I don't know if u r serious or you're j/k so:
|