11-12-2001 19:30									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Hum, Wernazuma III, could you please change the name of the Portuguese leader to Joćo II? Ecowiz is right, there were 5 kings called Joćo.

And where in the world did you get the idea that the Portuguese shunned Democracy?!?
Portugal Democratical revolution was one of the most peaceful in the world. Only one person got killed in the whole country!
I propose that the shunned gov should be Despotism. Because there wasn't any Despot in the Portuguese history (or that I can remember).

The portuguese unit, if it is the Nau (we, portuguese, haven't really decided what will be our final word about it), it must have at least 5 movement points, to reflect the exploration of the seas. And it must be able to cross over oceans (the Discovery of Brazil in 1500 reflects it).

	11-12-2001 22:52									#32
	Tired of ads?

Fresno: Changed the Meppel/Hoggeveen thing. I want to keep up the title king, because "Stadtholder" seems to be too diminutive. It's like calling the american leader "governor" or "viceroy", after all stadtholder was the title under spanish rule, wasn't it?

Zealot: Changed Joao to Joao II

quote: I propose that the shunned gov should be Despotism. Because there wasn't any Despot in the Portuguese history (or that I can remember).

*cough*Salazar*cough*
I'm thinking about making Communism the shunned government, but I'm not really sure, AFAIK the portuguese democratic tradition doesn't trace very far back. Most people here would wish "their" civs to favor democracy. We all hope though that Civ XXXVI in 2100 will be able to make the portuguese favored gov. democracy

I made the Nao a Caravel with one more movement point. caravels can cross oceans anyway. 5 movement seems exaggerated to me, and we decided (in part1 I think) not to give 2 extra bonuses without severe reason.

	12-12-2001 01:42									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III *cough*Salazar*cough*

Salazar wasn't a despot, he was a fascist. It's different!
Besides, Salazar was still the Minister of Finances in the last 2 years of the first Republic (wich was pretty democratic, trust me). Then the military started a revolution, wich made them put who they wanted in government. And Salazar was chosen the leader of the "Council".

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III I'm thinking about making Communism the shunned government, but I'm not really sure, AFAIK the portuguese democratic tradition doesn't trace very far back

The Portuguese Democracy started back in 1974. And the people didn't want communists to rule the country, but there was still a considerable number who suported the communists. Despotism is better chosen.

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III I made the Nao a Caravel with one more movement point. caravels can cross oceans anyway. 5 movement seems exaggerated to me, and we decided (in part1 I think) not to give 2 extra bonuses without severe reason.

I don't agree.

	12-12-2001 02:12									#34
	Tired of ads?

Celts: While I'm not going to deny that the chariot was important to the Celtic culture, you can make the argument that chariots aren't really *specific* to their culture. The unique units aren't just about importance--they're also supposed to be something that comes to mind automatically when you think about the culture under consideration. After all, virtually everyone in the Mediterranean and Europe used chariots. So what you should ask yourself is what sort of warrior leaps to mind when the average person (not necessarily a trained historian) thinks of a particular culture. Hence, France-Musketeers, Japan-Samurai, and even the infamous Iroquois-Mounted Warrior (if you're sufficiently idiotic to confuse the Iroquois with the Sioux). When I (not a trained historian) think of Celts, Scottish Highlanders jump to mind. If calling them Woad Warriors makes the Irish feel better, well all right then. Chariots just don't seem unique enough or sufficiently identical with Celtic culture to justify making them a UU. So that's my case for Highlanders (or Woad Warriors... whatever) at 3/2/2 replacing swordsmen, requires iron.

Dutch: Have you considered perhaps adding Capetown, Pietermaritzburg, and Pretoria to this list? The Boers were at least nominally Dutch.

That's all I've got...

	12-12-2001 03:20									#35
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Zealot Salazar wasn't a despot, he was a fascist. It's different!

And which of civ3 governments does represent fascism better?

quote: The Portuguese Democracy started back in 1974. And the people didn't want communists to rule the country, but there was still a considerable number who suported the communists.

I don't know much about modern portuguese history but that'smore or less what I think too.

quote: Despotism is better chosen.

Regarding the short democratic history I have to disagree. Shunning Despotism should be reserved to few civs. Of the original civs Despotism is shunned by Greece (long democratic tradition), Babylon (No clue why, I see no reason), India (because India is Mahatma Gandhi ) and England (long democratic tradition)

quote: I don't agree.

Stepping down is not one of your strengths, is it?


edit: typo

	12-12-2001 03:29									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Bad Ax: I agree with you about the uniqueness-feeling, so Woad Warrior still is a good possible choice (although in this case the "feeling" will be reserved to native english-speakers, I've never heard the term before. Nevertheless I let it open yet, maybe some people don't agree (I don't want to act like a fascist... err... despot )

quote: Dutch: Have you considered perhaps adding Capetown, Pietermaritzburg, and Pretoria to this list? The Boers were at least nominally Dutch.

Good idea, I've added colonial cities for the dutch already, so why not.

	12-12-2001 06:01									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III Bad Ax: I agree with you about the uniqueness-feeling, so Woad Warrior still is a good possible choice (although in this case the "feeling" will be reserved to native english-speakers, I've never heard the term before. Nevertheless I let it open yet, maybe some people don't agree (I don't want to act like a fascist... err... despot )

Except, except....consider the received general impression of Boudicca, strengthened in people's consciousness by the statue group on the north bank of the Victorian Embankment by the Houses of Parliament; it features in tourist literature, on guides issued by the local council, and reflects what is known and written about by contemporaries of the Celts. Now consider the cheesey neologism 'woad warrior'- frankly, it brings to mind Mel Gibson in Mad Max, with a lisp!
People also talk about the Spanish U.U. being the conquistador- its ahistorical, anachronistic and offensive to many of the Spanish/Hispanic/Native American element on the board- I mean, seriously, it's like having the Crusader as the early U.U. of the Western European states, busily slaughtering Jewish communities, breaking treaties, and generally being an uncouth rancid boor in the Middle East.
Now as regards the Scottish Highlander- you're missing the point. We're talking about a Celtic U.U.- by the time the fighting unit 'The Highlander' came to prominence, Scotland was no longer Celtic, but rather a mixture of Norse/English/French and Scots elements- the highlander I would assert, is associated with the Jacobite Rebellions, Waterloo and various other military engagements of the British Empire.
I don't believe that the Expansion Civs should reflect the inaccuracy of earlier Civs, and from the comments of some of the Spanish and South American (and Dutch) posters, I think I'm not alone in this. I mean, honestly, if the Iroquois become Plains Indians, then why not make the Japanese U.U. a Mongol horseman, and the Roman an elephant mounted archer?

	13-12-2001 02:15									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm, I will probably will get stoned for this, but when I think of Celts I think of Druids and Green Beer. Since Beer cannot be a unit, I would go with a Druid - an upgraded version of a warrior, something like 2/1/2, or 2/2/1, or whatever. But Chariots ... only Russians didn't use them (probably cause we're too lazy to)

As for Hebrew UU - I would definately go with Maccabee, and I would definately make it replace swordsman, with 3/3/1, or 3/2/2.


just thought I throw in my 2 cents ...

	13-12-2001 03:27									#39
	Got spare money?

I see your point about the Woad Warrior. Right now I'm surfing through celtic warfare sites to get a more valuable opinion. As I've said: Never heard the term before.

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom People also talk about the Spanish U.U. being the conquistador- its ahistorical, anachronistic and offensive to many of the Spanish/Hispanic/Native American element on the board- I mean, seriously, it's like having the Crusader as the early U.U. of the Western European states, busily slaughtering Jewish communities, breaking treaties, and generally being an uncouth rancid boor in the Middle East.

I actually wouldn't have minded the Crusader being a UU, i.e. for the french...
What they have done in history is not directly reflected in Civ3. I mean who thinks of the Cossacks as "happily pillaging tartar villages" or who minds aztec warriors "joyfully bringing back thousands of captives for sacrifice"...

Anyway, I'm not willing to get blamed not to listen to others, I'll start a poll on this rightaway

	13-12-2001 07:07									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Celts go into battle:

'On another occasion the Romans experienced a new form of noisy warfare: 'for standing up in chariots and wagons, the armed enemies came at them with the great noise of hooves and wheels so that the unfamiliar din terrified the horses of the Romans.' '

www.ealaghol.demon.co.uk/celtenc/celt_c3.htm

Boudicca addresses her army:

'Boudicca, in a [chariot], with her two daughters before her, drove through the ranks. She harangued the different nations in their turn: "This," she said, "is not the first time that the Britons have been led to battle by a woman. But now she did not come to boast the pride of a long line of ancestry, nor even to recover her kingdom and the plundered wealth of her family. She took the field, like the meanest among them, to assert the cause of public liberty, and to seek revenge for her body seamed with ignominious stripes, and her two daughters infamously ravished. '

from Tacitus

In Celtic Irish legend and history:

'The legends-especially the Ulster Cycle, the Tįin Bó Cśailgne-celebrate the heroes of a society dominated by the tśath (tribe), each with its rķ (king), druids and cuire (priestly cast). Chariot warfare, beheading, feasting and cattleraiding were the everyday exploits which occupied the heroes.'

www.tairn-gire.net/celtswar.html

Diodorus Siculus and Julius Caesar:

'Diodorus said that the chariot was drawn by two horses, and could carry a driver and a warrior. In battle the driver controlled the chariot, whilst the warrior would throw javelins at his opponents. The warrior would then dismount and fight on foot while the driver would take the chariot away to a safe distance. At the first sign of difficulties, the driver would dash into the battle, pick up the warrior, and withdraw to safety. Caesar's account is similar, but adds that chariots were used against cavalry with great effect, and only against infantry in short skirmishes. Caesar admired the charioteer's skills, and described warriors running along the chariot pole and standing on the yoke over the horse's shoulders.'

some lovely illustrations too:

www.gallica.co.uk/celts/chariot.htm

The Gallic War:

Chariots
(Caesar, Gallic War V,1, 1st century BC)
"in chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponent's ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariots and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying- power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning ."

www.gallica.co.uk/celts/warriors.htm

	14-12-2001 01:39									#41
	Tired of ads?

More Hebrew/Israeli city names, at Eli's request:

Gilo
Lachish
Ramla
Lod
Efrat
Beit Shemesh
Shomron
Dimona
Bnei Brak

	14-12-2001 04:08									#42
	Wernazuma III couple of things... Tired of ads?

For the Hebrews...

-Moses should be one of the great leaders

-I suggest Golda Meir instead of just Meir

-Juda Maccabaeus should be Judah Maccabbee

-Macabee is Maccabee

-the name of the nation should be Judah (not from the above leader, but one of the 12 tribes). After Solomon's time as king, the kingdom split into two, Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. Both were destoryed, but Israel first by ~140 years. the problem is that we have the leader as King David, when the nation was one. But we (should) have the UU be the Maccabee, which came roughly 1000 years later. After the Maccabees won they named the liberatied nation Judah.

and if you could, please show anymore changes on the first page. thanks.

(facts taken from "Jews, God, & History")

	15-12-2001 00:08									#43
	Put an end to popups!

I have concern for the poor dutch UU.

While a good merchent ship is certainly fitting the civ, recall that a golden age doesn't start untill a UU wins a battle.

With such poor attack stats (suited to the current unit), the dutch will have a hard time ever getting their golden age.

I'm also a little iffy on the shunned government. The communist party has a long history in dutch politics, and frequently get memebers elected.

	15-12-2001 04:13									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Not Like Tea: I agree with you that the dutch UU seems a bit weak. But they should be able to get to the golden age, after all the defence is still at 3. Yet I want to evade adding two bonuses beforehand, without testing the pack.

Solomyr: I'm very busy today, I'll comment your post tomorrow.

	15-12-2001 04:49									#45
	Wernazuma III... Full PM-box? Change here!

not to worry, i should be soending more time studying, but the lure of civ3 and apolyton commands my attention , more than it seems many other people on these threads. but i am remembering how to be paticent. good luck with whatever commands your time.

Solomyr

	15-12-2001 18:24									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

Thanks Solomyr, aztec afterlife beliefs took my time in the past few days...

I'll change Moses and Golda in the leader list.
I don't agree however about changing Israel to Judah. Although our extra pack Hebrews are more "ancient" hebrews than modern Israeli, IMHO that Israel is more popular and "Israel" is more representative to ancient as well as modern hebrews

About the Macabee UU: Neither "Zealots" nor "Macabee" were actual "Units". Zealot as a synonym for religion crazed fundamentalists is probably no good choice (though it's still in the list) and the Macabee were an aristocratic family but no unit. It's like adding the "Sassanid" as a persian UU. Does anyone maybe know how they called their soldiers or unit, that would be a great help.

	15-12-2001 21:40									#47
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by NotLikeTea While a good merchent ship is certainly fitting the civ, recall that a golden age doesn't start untill a UU wins a battle.

This is just false. The Golden Age *can* begin when the UU wins a battle, but I have actually never experienced such an entrance. I almost always get a golden age from building an appropriate combination of Wonders. Read the Civilopedia.

	15-12-2001 22:16									#48
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Wernazuma III:

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III Fresno: Changed the Meppel/Hoggeveen thing. I want to keep up the title king, because "Stadtholder" seems to be too diminutive. It's like calling the american leader "governor" or "viceroy", after all stadtholder was the title under spanish rule, wasn't it?

Thank you for changing the city list.

The title of stadtholder wasn't the title under the Spanish rule: the stadtholders ruled the Netherlands from about 1500 till 1800. In this time the Netherlands were independent again.

Under Spanish rule, however, the Netherlands were ruled by the king of Spain, who appointed a viceroy (which isn't the same as 'stadtholder.' In Dutch, the word for 'viceroy' is 'landvoogd').

The title of king is actually more diminutive for the Dutch, since it were England, France and Austria who decided the Netherlands should become a monarchy, without consulting the Dutch people.

So I think the title of stadtholder would be historically more accurate.

	16-12-2001 00:51									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Fresno The title of stadtholder wasn't the title under the Spanish rule: the stadtholders ruled the Netherlands from about 1500 till 1800. In this time the Netherlands were independent again. Under Spanish rule, however, the Netherlands were ruled by the king of Spain, who appointed a viceroy (which isn't the same as 'stadtholder.' In Dutch, the word for 'viceroy' is 'landvoogd'). The title of king is actually more diminutive for the Dutch, since it were England, France and Austria who decided the Netherlands should become a monarchy, without consulting the Dutch people. So I think the title of stadtholder would be historically more accurate.

Thanks Fresno, I didn't know that! In this case I'll change the title to Stadtholder, it adds more uniqueness AND is more accurate, so it's a good choice.

	16-12-2001 05:03									#50
	Got spare money?

Your list looks good, though personally I think the Hebrew civ should be Religious...

	16-12-2001 14:34									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

More cities name for the Israelies:

Arad
Ramat Hasharon
Herziliya
Ra'anana
Kfar-Sava
Rishon-Lezion
Naharia
Petah-Tikva

	16-12-2001 14:51									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Kfar-Saba

	16-12-2001 14:54									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Actually, I am preety sure the proper translation to English (at list, what appears on the map) is Kfar-Sava.

	17-12-2001 03:02									#54
	Tired of ads?

My Israeli map says Kfar Sava, and that would also be consistent with what we're doing with other city names - Beer Sheva and not Beer Sheba.

	17-12-2001 03:22									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, I can tell you that it's pronounced Be'er Sheva - not Be'er Sheba - and Kfar Saba, not Kfar Sava.

Edit: the confusion comes from the fact that in hebrew, B and V are one letter (formally, a dot in the middle of it means Bet, and lack of dot means Vet, but that dot is almost never used).

Last edited by Gholam on 17-12-2001 at 03:32

	17-12-2001 20:18									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III About the Macabee UU: Neither "Zealots" nor "Macabee" were actual "Units". Zealot as a synonym for religion crazed fundamentalists is probably no good choice (though it's still in the list) and the Macabee were an aristocratic family but no unit. It's like adding the "Sassanid" as a persian UU. Does anyone maybe know how they called their soldiers or unit, that would be a great help.

well, we can always use the "Merkava", and I don't mean a chariot, I'm talking about the tank ...

And yes, how come Hebrews (Israelis, or whatever name will be used) are not Religious? I say it should be Religious and Expansionist

	18-12-2001 00:32									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

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

Again, I cite Dimont's "Jews, God and Histroy"

	18-12-2001 01:09									#58
	Support Apolyton

I dont know about the UU Solomyr, but concerning the expansionist issue... Can you compare the expansion of David to the expansion of the Brits for example? So David conquered some lands here and there, but giving an expansionist trait is overexaggeration IMO.

	18-12-2001 03:42									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

About the CSA: It came in by accident. As I've mentioned somewhere in this thread, I decided to discuss them seperately. Commercial/Industrious is how I found the CSA on locutus' homepage. I agree though that religious is a good option. We'll discuss this in part 5. For now, I've deleted the CSA from the first post.

	18-12-2001 03:45									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hi. Haven't posted here much but as someone who would like to see a "Hebrews" civilization, I'll add my two cents.

First of all, I think religious/scientific or religious/commercial is the correct mix. The Hebrews/Jews never expanded to the extent of most other civilizations.

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.

Wouldn't democracy be the preferred government? While they were a monarchy 2000 years ago, throughout the exile the Jews subsisted thanks to representative decision making bodies such as the Sanhedrin. Today they are the only democracy in a region of monarchies and despotisms. Plus, democracy means more commerce, less war, which while some might disagree (since 1967), seems to be in the Jews nature historically.

Also, the idea of Golda Meir as a military leader is a bit silly.

Aaron