View Full Version : MOD: Mongols


Luca Brasi
Dec 31, 2001, 04:32 PM
I'm really surprised no one has posted a Mongol mod yet (unless I missed it and then I appologize), so here's something I cooked up. Since I edited not the original files, but the civ3mod I always use, it has Spain instead of Persia and the Eiffel Tower wonder insted of Longevity. The Mongol special unit is the Raider, which is a cheaper Knight which doesn't need iron. Mongols start with The Wheel and Warrior Code, so that they get horses on the map ASAP and so that you can research Horseback Riding ASAP as well.

Instructions in readme.txt

atonfive
Jan 22, 2002, 05:07 PM
Thanks for the mod. What was Firaxis thinking leaving out the Mongols and the Spaniards, anyway?

animepornstar
Jan 25, 2002, 02:44 PM
i was working on a mongol civ during the holiday, but the files are on a computer far away now. the uu was a cavalry archer (knight 5.2.3) and i had finished the run animation for it. the animations were a mix of the cossack and the mangduai from aok2.

Sobieski
Jan 31, 2002, 11:30 AM
What Firaxis was thinking, was that the Mongols were nomads, not a civilization, since they didn't really build any cities.

Stereophobia
Jan 31, 2002, 11:45 AM
maybe not but they stole plenty

LordAzreal
Feb 01, 2002, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Sobieski
What Firaxis was thinking, was that the Mongols were nomads, not a civilization, since they didn't really build any cities.

People only think that the Mongols didn't build any cities because Genghis Khan is the most well-known Mongol leader and under him, no cities were built. He did take some, but he burned most them to the ground. However, after Genghis Khan, the Mongols divided up somewhat. The Mongol ruler Tamerlane actually rebuilt Samarkand (which Genghis Khan destroyed) and established it as the capital of his empire. Tamerlane may have been of the Islamic faith, but he was of Mongol heritage. The Mongols DID build cities, only that was under their not-so well known rulers. As is the consensus in this thread, it was a bad decision to omit the Mongols from the game as they forged a legacy that surpassed Alexander the Great. Genghis Khan's empire at its peak was even larger than Alexander's at its peak. Don't forget that Genghis Khan took most of China when he went eastward and move far enough west to be able to ransack the Saracen empire (including their capital in Baghdad).

God
Feb 01, 2002, 01:55 PM
Well his name was Timur the lame. He claimed to be related to Genghis Khan. Europeans interpreted the name wrong hence Tamerlame.
Anyway he was far more destructive than Genghis khan. He sacked Delhi and made a pyrimaid of skulls.

LordAzreal
Feb 01, 2002, 10:14 PM
Correct. But I was only using his example to prove that the Mongols actually did build cities.

Sobieski
Feb 02, 2002, 12:22 PM
Yes, but they did not build them to the degree that I think would be needed to be considered as a civilization.

I understand that it isn't clearcut. You can't see this group of people were civilized and this group was not. I'm just saying that they were not a civilization in the literal sense nearly as much as any of the ones in the game (save the iroquois, but I don't think they should be in their either, and I do NOT mean that in a racist way). Ghengis' Mongols and Kubilai's Mongols were not much in terms of building civilizations. They were more involved in terms of taking over other people's civilizations and then just integrating into them. When most people say that the Mongols should be in the game, those are the Mongols they are usually referring too. If that was the criteria, then the Manchu should be in the game, cause they would just take over China and integrate into it, rather than building anything themselves. But then again, maybe the peole that were suggesting the Mongols, were using them as a generalization for all the peoples of that part of the world including the Manchu.

So all in all, in my opinion the Mongols were not involved enough in building civilizations to be considered for the game. Maybe they shouls be a group of super-barbarians, but I can't see that happening. I am pretty sure that most of the ancient cities of Central Asia were built by the non-Mongol tribes that lived there, but people migrated so much in that area, it is really hard to tell.

Sobieski
Feb 02, 2002, 12:25 PM
The Mongols didn't build cities (in general) they just sacked other people's cities.

I do think they should have some significance in the game however, because after all if they hadn't come west, they would not have brought gunpowder, magnetism and other technologies from China and the east which were absolutely crucial for Europe dominating the world. The Mongols are of huge significance to history, but perhaps more for destroying civilizations and maybe INDIRECTLY improving some, rather than DIRECTLY contributing.

During their peak they did not do much in terms of civilization. Hell if we counted what civilizations have done throughout their entire history, then we should include the Indonesians (Jakarta has 10 million people), and Nigeria (Lagos is pretty large).

Besides you cannot necessarily say it was the Mongols who built Samarkand because the leader might have been partly Mongol, because by that time the Mongol bloodline was all over the Eurasian continent. Hell lots of Poles would have been of part Mongol or Tartar descent. Hahahhah sorry I forgot where I was going with this. Oh ya. When you consider when the Mongols were powerful in comparison with the civilizations of the world, they were not much involved in building civilizations.

Montezuma
Feb 02, 2002, 03:06 PM
2Sobiesky and together

It's bull****! Europocentrical arrogance is only. In 300 AD the World (Oicoumena) was hellenistic. In 1400 BC World was mongolistic. Lots and lots of states from China to Poland, from Russia to India are heritige of Mongol Imperia. Government system even dynasthios is originated from Mongol 'barbarians'.
Yes, Mongols was ruined many cities, ruined Great Wonder of Central Asia - irrigation, died millions of people. But what european barbarians was in Middle East? Ruined ancient cities, died millions during Crucados, Quonquista in Americas. Why Americans is civ in Game, and Incas, Mongolians, Yoruba, Ethiopians etc isn't? It's wasp racism only.
Don't flame, man.

Luca Brasi
Feb 03, 2002, 11:37 AM
Well, the Mongols were both in Civ I and Civ II. They're the only nation from Civ I not in Civ III.

Sobieski
Feb 03, 2002, 12:39 PM
First of all I am not an anglo-saxon protestant (though I am white) so I do object that generalized racist remark.

I didn't say that the people of Central Asia did not have some great civilizations. I am saying that the MONGOLS as a tribe, in the period of time which MOST people suggest they should be in the game (In the times of Ghengis and Kubilai), were still not civilized, and I do not use the terms non-civilized as meaning barbaric. Just cause you don't understand the literal meaning of civilization, you don't have to lash out at me. During the time of G and K, the kingdoms "created by the Mongols" had not yet begun becoming civilized (building cities, although they of course were using farming). During the time frame which MOST PEOPLE seem to be recognizing as the time which the Mongols should be in the game, they were still pillaging and had not yet begun to integrate much into the local civilizations, but rather just rule them.

CIVILIZED DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD
UN-CIVILIZED DOES NOT EQUAL BAD
I am not being racist towards the Mongols

On the other hand, if they were to make a civ that represented all the people of Central Asia, then they SHOULD be in the game. However there were so many different non-Mongol tribes that were powerful as civilizations that it would not be accurate to label the civilization as Mongols, as they were only in control for a brief, yet significant period of time. After all you say that the Mongols moved in and had a significant impact on the local blood lines, well there were other tribes that moved around and had signifcant impacts on other tribes (including the Mongols) as well. The whole area is a giant melting pot of people, and it is not fair, in fact if might even be RACIST, to label them all as Mongols. It is similar to labelling most white North Americans as WASPS.

Sobieski
Feb 03, 2002, 12:42 PM
Hell, why don't we just call them the Huns. Or, we could even call them the Tartars. Or to represent the northern tribes, why don't we even try Russians.

Sobieski
Feb 03, 2002, 12:50 PM
And remember the definition of civilization is to take part in the act of building cities and agriculture. It is hard for us to argue about something when we are arguing about different things. I am giving my point-of-view based on that criteria. Now if you can use that criteria to explain to me why the Ethiopians should be in then you will probably make an excellent point, since I honestly do not have much background knowledge on the non-modern Ethiopians, especially before Euro-domination of Africa. I understand your point about the Incas, and in fact I think that they should maybe be in instead of the Iroquois, considering that the Iroquois (representing North American natives) do not fit my criteria as well as the Incas (which should be used to represent all the civilizations of South America)

I am by no means racist towards the North American natives. As a Canadian who is very environmentalist in cause, I believe that there is incredible wisdom that can be learned from these tribes, and although many will say that they were not advanced in terms of "civilization", they were far advanced past any European nation in terms of their attitude towards the environment, and sustainable living.

I am looking forward to hearing your reponse Montezuma, as I always enjoy a good debate.

Exsanguination
Feb 03, 2002, 02:41 PM
2 things:

1) arent the mongols the turks (or the turks descedants of the mongols)? If not, dont shoot me. If so, then the mongols definetely count as a civ

2) THIS IS A GAME. Hell, I'll make a mod that makes garbagemen a CIVILIZATION if i want to... who cares?

Sobieski
Feb 03, 2002, 09:59 PM
I am not saying people shouldn't make mods, I am just trying to give to the players what I think Firaxis was thinking when making this game.

I personally think they should make a civ that represents all the people of central asia. Maybe they should call them the Turkic people, but then that would exlude a lot of other people in that area that should also be in it.

That is the neat thing about mods. You can make anything you want.

Ad Hominem
Feb 04, 2002, 08:40 AM
Now, that would be an extremely interesting Civilization to meddle with. The Redneck Moronians. Leader could be George "Shrubya" Bush :cry: and I guess Blair could play a significant role in it. Other great leaders: Iron Maggie, Reagan, Simitis (the Greek PM - fits like a glove in the "Moronian" civ) etc. etc.

J/k :D

Steve Morse
Feb 04, 2002, 08:44 PM
in response that the mongols and turks are one and the same it is complicated. the mongols used mostly turkic troops in their wars, so the russian word tartar means mongols as well as turks (as in crimean tartars) turkic people should definantly get their own civ, as earlier said. Central asia has long been an area of great civilization and should get recognition. as for the mongols, they were in control of many of the civs in the game like the chinese and russians, and their effect on them should count for it's own civ, as they follow in the traditions and common background of the huns, avars, and khazars before them
:confused:

God
Feb 10, 2002, 04:55 PM
Tatars are a Turkish tribe that was brought under control of the Mongols and in the army. Russians started to call Mongols Tartars, which is a common mistake.
Under Mongols, almost all of Asia and Europe(known world) was in peace called Mongol peace.
Mongol conquest also led to establishment of Silk Route by Kublai Khan which helped make Renaisance possible in Europe, which led to colonization of Americas and world, and later domination of most of the world.
So if Genghis Khan decided he didn't want to go out and steal some gold, the world would be quite different...:p :D :crazyeyes

Even if Mongols aren't a civ Luca Brasi has made a nice mod and we should be happy with that.

Sobieski
Feb 10, 2002, 11:02 PM
I thought I mentioned the Mongol's impact on European development. Well anyways, two major things that they brought from the Chinese civilization were gunpowder and magnetism

kittenOFchaos
Feb 11, 2002, 02:14 AM
"I thought I mentioned the Mongol's impact on European development"

So did the Black Death but we don't give it a civ...

*a cheap-shot by a eurocentric!*

I will definitely be considering the Mongols as the civ replacing the Americans (this "civ" is a descendant of European colonialism which at present can be simulated) in my "civ3 on Earth" mod for no other reason perhaps than to keep Siberia and Central Asia free of "civilisation" for longer (I'd definitely be crippling this civilisation to prevent it being a true playa!).

Dracleath
Feb 14, 2002, 09:31 PM
Well, the mongols and turks were actually pretty distinct as groups of people. IIRC the turks began as a group of tribes around the uzbekistan/afghanistan area ( in what is now sometimes called turkestan). When the mongols went west, they conquered the areas the turks were in and pushed the turks out to the Turkey/Iraq area, as well as using a lot of turks in their armies and things like that. I think both distinct groups should really be represented in civ.

Just looking at the mongols, how can you not include a civilization that at one time or another most of the civilizations in the game now? India, China, Persia, the area represented by Babylon, Russia... And this wasn't just a flash in the pan, a lot of the empires set up by the mongols lasted for hundreds of years.

As for the turks, well, they knocked out the vestiges of the greeks and romans, conquered the Iraq and Persia area, Egypt, and got as far into Europe as Vienna and the Italian coast. They also maintained a presence for 1000 years and were on the technological level of the major European powers for most of those.

I think leaving both of these out is more a symptom of just the makers of Civ ignoring the middle ages. Most of the civs in now are either late colonial era to modern civs or ancient ones, there isn't really any civ at all that really peaked between 400-1600 ad. There's a lot of room for expansion here, including Mohammed's arabs would be nice, maybe also the Poles, Spanish, Dutch, etc.

Too bad there's still that bug which prevents you from adding more civilizations than were originally in the game.

furtigan
Feb 16, 2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Ad Hominem
Now, that would be an extremely interesting Civilization to meddle with. The Redneck Moronians. Leader could be George "Shrubya" Bush :cry: and I guess Blair could play a significant role in it. Other great leaders: Iron Maggie, Reagan, Simitis (the Greek PM - fits like a glove in the "Moronian" civ) etc. etc.

J/k :D

Stop ... wait ... you're killing me! What keen insight, what brilliant sarcsasm ... can't stop laughing. You are truly a person with an intelligent and nuanced view of the world. Please, share more of your piercing wit with us.

Plexus
Mar 04, 2002, 08:00 PM
Why so much friggin' animosity twords America? Huh? Hell, w/o them, there wouldn't even be a UK or France or Poland or even Russia for that matter. So, i think all of you should give America a break, they have impacted the world quite a bit durng these 2 and a quarter centuries. Also, what the hell is wrong w/ G.W. Bush? I think he is a great president. Anywho, that's just my opinion. :D

Mattius41
Jul 19, 2002, 02:08 PM
Iam fed up listening to yanks telling everyone how if it wasnt for them the nazis and the japs would have steamrolled over all opposition... face it Soviet Russia bore the brunt of German arms and it was her endurance that broke the back of the German Army. The UK, had the Americans not intervened, would still have survived but not as a victor but as a german/soviet lapdog...we turned out american lapdog instead.

As for japan it is clear to most historians that there bid to knock britain and US out of asia would always be hindered by china and india.

America didnt save the world only grew rich of the economic ruin of others, commandering markets and dominating the world through UN

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Mattius41
Iam fed up listening to yanks telling everyone how if it wasnt for them the nazis and the japs would have steamrolled over all opposition... face it Soviet Russia bore the brunt of German arms and it was her endurance that broke the back of the German Army. The UK, had the Americans not intervened, would still have survived but not as a victor but as a german/soviet lapdog...we turned out american lapdog instead.

As for japan it is clear to most historians that there bid to knock britain and US out of asia would always be hindered by china and india.

America didnt save the world only grew rich of the economic ruin of others, commandering markets and dominating the world through UN

That is an interesting theory, and is probably correct on many fronts, but you also have to remember, that it was North American supplies that contributed a lot to Russia not collapsing. One example is the tens of thousands of trucks that America sent to the Russians, that helped Russia keep their front operational.

American money bought Russian blood.

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Plexus
Why so much friggin' animosity twords America? Huh? Hell, w/o them, there wouldn't even be a UK or France or Poland or even Russia for that matter. So, i think all of you should give America a break, they have impacted the world quite a bit durng these 2 and a quarter centuries. Also, what the hell is wrong w/ G.W. Bush? I think he is a great president. Anywho, that's just my opinion. :D

A good chunk of the American public didn't even want to go help those countries in the first place. They didn't go til the battle landed in their own backyard.

What is even funnier to most people outside of the US is that many Americans don't even see why people laugh at them over dubya.

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
"I thought I mentioned the Mongol's impact on European development"

So did the Black Death but we don't give it a civ...

*a cheap-shot by a eurocentric!*

I will definitely be considering the Mongols as the civ replacing the Americans (this "civ" is a descendant of European colonialism which at present can be simulated) in my "civ3 on Earth" mod for no other reason perhaps than to keep Siberia and Central Asia free of "civilisation" for longer (I'd definitely be crippling this civilisation to prevent it being a true playa!).

I didn't quite understand your post. Were you calling ME a eurocentric? Or were you saying your comment was eurocentric?

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Dracleath

I think leaving both of these out is more a symptom of just the makers of Civ ignoring the middle ages. Most of the civs in now are either late colonial era to modern civs or ancient ones, there isn't really any civ at all that really peaked between 400-1600 ad. There's a lot of room for expansion here, including Mohammed's arabs would be nice, maybe also the Poles, Spanish, Dutch, etc.

Too bad there's still that bug which prevents you from adding more civilizations than were originally in the game.

The Poles were pretty powerful in the late middle ages. With sixteen civ choices you probably couldn't include, them, which is why I think they should include like 50 civs, so that you can have the more minor but no less interesting civs such as the Poles and Dutch, and the Mongols, and the Huns, and the Turks (well they were actually quite major, not just in power, but also in keeping much of the old Greek knowledge alive, while western Europe plunged into the dark ages).

thisismysn20
Oct 19, 2002, 06:57 PM
This post has been over for quite a while but I'd like to say a few things...

First off, America has done more in it's little time then most other countries have EVER done... so **** off!!!

Secondly, President Bush is a good President, he is straight forward and tells it how it is. He isn't like these other political ******** that change their opinion every other day because of this or that...

Lastly, Most of Europe would be nothing if it wasn't for us during WW2. Face it, France was gone, Russia was getting it's ass knocked around, not to mention tons of deaths. G.B. was having London bombed to the ground!!! We gave money, supplies, and eventually military support to you guys.

Perhaps some of the European countries would have stopped Germany and crew, but who? G.B. probably, but that is it.

Don't talk about Russia, they were slaughtered... they were sent into the war without sufficient fire power. Hell, when one soldier died the next one in line picked up his rifle because he didn't have one!!!

So **** off with the American sarcasm! If anything we should be shown a little respect for helping out even before we were bombed.

Mattius41
Oct 21, 2002, 06:32 AM
What it comes down to is a simple opinion, I belive wars, total wars, are won on land with infantry and tanks, with airpower giving one side an advantage. In world war two America could bomb the nazis and the japanese all they wanted, bottom line was they were always going to have to invade and destroy them to end the war. Had Germany not commited its forces en masse against the USSR D-day would have been impossible, as its success against a weakened germany was only possible through hitlers blunders in tactics and straTEGY. The real war in europe was the eastern front, the battles there were far more ferociuos and on a much bigger scale in size and ghastliness. I am sorry but i cannot say America deserve the main credit for defeating Germany, they intervenred when they had to as Germany declared war and took them three long years to build up an invasion force and tackle a weakened enemy exuasted by 5 long years of fighting. meanwhile Russia had to face the brunt of a massice invasion force(biggerst in history) which took them suprise while they were purging their army and they still held on, bled the germans white , moved industy east churned more guns and men and simply wouldnt give up....America never had to face such a trial or MOST IMPORTANTLY the brunt of the days best army the Wehrmacht.

Nobunagatenno
Apr 04, 2003, 11:15 AM
The Mongols changed the history of the countries they once occupied a lot. Their militaristic government had deeply affected the structures of government of China and Russia.

Before Mongolian rule, Russia was still a place in Medieval age. A lot of duchies or kingdoms were in Russia. The Muscovy imitated the police state style of Mongol government. This increased his relative strength and laid the foundation of the Russian Empire.

The Chinese government was based on scholar. The came from the villages and served in the government to balance the king's view. After Mongolian rule, the absolutism nature of the Chinese government dominated the formation of the officials. The bureaucrats could no longer balance the king. The government served a police state purpose rather than a cooperative purpose.
The Communist government today is still a mixed product of the Chinese absolutism and the Russian absolutism, which were both originated from Mongol.

The Persian was once a cultural centre in west asia. However, under the rule of timur, millions of scholars were killed. Persia was no longer creative as before.

Although Japan was not occupied by Mongol, the Japanese learned a lot of military knowledge from the Mongols whom were captured in the unsuccessed invasion. The military knowledge were used in the warring state period, the pirate actions on the Chinese coast and the invasion of Korea.

Sazhit
Apr 05, 2003, 01:28 PM
Mongols bring to Russian knyazhestva (feods) the idea of centralized state and administrative system.

I don't know why but in Civ there is no turk civ (I don't mean Ottomans - Turkey) There was a great turk culture, that maybe found even in Europe.

USSR - most of Western modmakers and people think forget about Soviet role in WW2. Without eastern front, Europe could fall on its knee. Attack on USSr was Hitler's fatal mistake. And remember that Berlin was captured by Our Soveit Troops. I don't know why lots of Americans think that WW2 was winned by US forces. There only important action - Overlord operation.

Bushes - I don't know much about G. Bush, but his son Bush Jr is ******. What more can i say about man, that creates war for oil (iraqi freedom - ha) without UN permission

Nobunagatenno
Apr 05, 2003, 07:17 PM
attack on ussr is one of hitler's mistake
however, there is a great chance of success
if hitler let the ukrainians to form their own republic and promise the russians the russian republic could be formed after the communist regime was overthrown, the resistance of the soviet army would be reduced dramatically.
remember even in the 1944-45, when the germans were driven from the ussr, there were still 400,000-500,000 russian soldiers fighting on the german side to liberate their conuntry from the communist regime.

TVA22
Apr 07, 2003, 12:31 AM
Here's an idea, everybody chill out and stop trying to take credit for who won WW2?

"Nobunagatenno: The Mongols changed the history of the countries they once occupied a lot. Their militaristic government had deeply affected the structures of government of China and Russia."

I'll admit I don't know much about Russia, but China is a different story. And most Chinese scholars say that the structure of Chinese government is derived directly from the state of Qin, and king Ying Zheng, who unified the country in 221 BC. There are even parallels between the modern communist regime, and old Imperial dynasties. There is actually much less Soviet influence in the modern Chinese government than lots of people think.

Louis XXIV
Apr 09, 2003, 10:37 PM
Ok

First off, sorry about the long post. I am responding to different people in the same post.

Second, since the Mongols are now in the game, I don't think I commented on them in detail (or at all), although I would like to know what people's oppinion of the Mongols, with their Keshik. How's it compare with the Raider?

Most of my post is devoted to 2 topics

The first is the argument of

a) what qualifies a Civilization

b)Which of these Civs deserve to be in Civ3

c)What Civs should be included in another hypothetical expansion

and the second is WWII

I mentioned the current war, but will not comment on it again, as I don't want to get into it

Originally posted by Sobieski
And remember the definition of civilization is to take part in the act of building cities and agriculture. It is hard for us to argue about something when we are arguing about different things. I am giving my point-of-view based on that criteria. Now if you can use that criteria to explain to me why the Ethiopians should be in then you will probably make an excellent point, since I honestly do not have much background knowledge on the non-modern Ethiopians, especially before Euro-domination of Africa. I understand your point about the Incas, and in fact I think that they should maybe be in instead of the Iroquois, considering that the Iroquois (representing North American natives) do not fit my criteria as well as the Incas (which should be used to represent all the civilizations of South America)

I wonder why you don't think the Iroquois are qualified.

The Iroquois were a nation consisting of 5 tribes. They negotiated with the Europeans as a whole. When threatened, they fought the Europeans (French) and won. After they got Dutch fire arms, instead of the small scale war parties for sport. They had a sneak attack with 1000 men and practically wiped the Hurons out. They had extensive trade networks.

I don't think the Mounted Warrior should be their UU. Probably a unit that would use Gunpowder (Dutch and, later, English firearms). I don't think this unit fits well into the current game because of the offensive inadequacies of infantry units.
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Sazhit
USSR - most of Western modmakers and people think forget about Soviet role in WW2. Without eastern front, Europe could fall on its knee. Attack on USSR was Hitler's fatal mistake. And remember that Berlin was captured by Our Soveit Troops. I don't know why lots of Americans think that WW2 was won by US forces.

Maybe you're lucky that I am not one of those Americans who thinks so. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was very important to the success of WWII. They did take a LOT of casualties, though.

There only important action - Overlord operation.

Operation Overlord was a very significant US operation. But what the US really brought was soldiers, enthusiasm, and supplies to the worn-out British army. The real initiative of the war was the war in the Pacific. That was all US, until late in the campaign

Bushes - I don't know much about G. Bush, but his son Bush Jr is ******. What more can i say about man, that creates war for oil (iraqi freedom - ha) without UN permission

Although I really don't want to get into this. I'll just say that he is doing a legal war. The terms of the cease fire says that if their plane is fired apon in the "No Fly Zone" it is an act of war.

Originally posted by TVA22
Here's an idea, everybody chill out and stop trying to take credit for who won WW2?

I like this idea :D

"Nobunagatenno: The Mongols changed the history of the countries they once occupied a lot. Their militaristic government had deeply affected the structures of government of China and Russia."

I'll admit I don't know much about Russia, but China is a different story. And most Chinese scholars say that the structure of Chinese government is derived directly from the state of Qin, and king Ying Zheng, who unified the country in 221 BC. There are even parallels between the modern communist regime, and old Imperial dynasties. There is actually much less Soviet influence in the modern Chinese government than lots of people think.

The Soviet Union and Communist China did not like each other. USSR viewed China as having a lesser kind of communism. So this doesn't suprise me.

Anyway

I've thought of some ideas for Civs that I would like in another expansion (Let me know if I should make a new thread)
This is diferent then just modeling because with a mod, you can add whatever you want. With an expansion, it is official, and requires that it be somewhat deserving. Please think of as much as you can (especially UU and Civ traits)

Byzantine
Scientific, Commercial (maybe Militaristic, Commercial)
UU: Cataphract (5.3.3 70 cost requires Iron and Horses replaces Knight)

Byzantine was an economic powerhouse in the Middle East. They were sacked by the Crusaders because they were an economic rival. They were the last trace of the Roman empire. Russia admired them so much they called Moscow a third Rome. I chose the Cataphract for a UU and gave them an extra attack because no Knight UU had that.

Israel
Religeous, Industrious or Religeous, Militaristic
UU: ?

I think Israel was imprtant. It is definately a major factor in politics in the Middle East today ;)
It was a constant hastle to Rome (just like the Gauls). I could not think of a UU.

Huns
Militaristic, Expansionist
UU: Mounted Archer (2.1.3 40 requires Horses replaces Horseman)

The Huns were a horrible terror to Rome. Although they are even less qualified than the Mongols as a Civ (I think Mongols are fine) I think they are still cool enough to get in the game :D Its UU is the Mounted Archer which dominated Attilla's ranks. These units are fast (which I think is very accurate. They were often difficult to catch and could hurrass units for a long time)

Assyrians
Expansionist, Scientific (no, not militaristic)
UU: ?

Although more qualified then the Huns, I could not think of a UU. Many people think of their Chariots, but Assyria was switched to cavalry effectively when everyone else did (plus, War Chariots are taken). They were masters of the siege. They had heavily armored Archers who could siege effectively (these are already in the game in the form of the Babylonian Bowman). You may ask why Scientific. Although Assyria was very harsh in its domination of the region, Assyria was the scientific center of the old world. Babylon was more about arts, litterature and such. Assyria invented things such as irrigations/aqueducts, herding, 360 degrees circles and longitudes/lattitudes, medical science, iron swords, metal armors and battering rams. They were fiersome warriors because they had the scientific edge.

Here's a very small sample of what they invented to give you an idea:

-keys and locks were invented in Assyria
-the sexagesmil system of keeping time was developed in Assyria
-it is in Assyria where the first paved roads are used
-the fisrt postal system was developed in Assyria
-the first use of iron
-the first magnifying glasses
-the first university_ (Nisibis)
-the first libraries
-first plumbing
-the flush toilet
-the first battery
-the first guitar
-the great medical school at Gundeshapur
-the first aqueducts
-the first arch
-the worlds first and oldest church (the church of the east)
-the first imperial administration, of dividing land into territories administered by loal governors that would report to the Assyrian king.

Feel free to comment and, please, come up with your own suggestions for Civs

Morphine
Apr 25, 2003, 01:57 PM
I think the unit doesn't live up to its expectations. It is essentially the same as the knight (with even less defense!) and there aren't ever enough mountains to make it worthwhile. Maybe if hills were added...

After reading in the Civilopedia about the children riding since the age of 3, going 10 days w/o cooking food 130 miles in 2 days etc., I had expected something that could move 3 spaces, or 1 to 2 and treat it all like roads or something! And with the hit and run tactics that they employed, why the lower defense? They didn't stick around long enough for the enemy to respond.

Is there a way to permanently alter a unit (rather than loading a scenario every time)? Haven't found a do it yourself guide or anything...

DaveMcW
Apr 25, 2003, 03:57 PM
Morphine, there are no Keshiks in this mod - it was made before PTW came out!

Try the Creation & Customization (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=46) forum for mod-making questions.

Tarwoch
Jun 03, 2003, 05:27 AM
Don't forget that Genghiz Khan founded a great and beautiful city of Karakorum on a place of a barren steppe. Also, Genghiz Khan was author of two masterpiece of world's literature - Jasak and Bilik. Doesn't it show that Mongols were civilization?

ColdBlood
Jul 25, 2003, 04:11 AM
I Take it you lot are refering to the seduilk turks and not the ottomans?

Oh, even though they did have few settlements or villages that would even make it up to lvl 1 civ city, the mongols would of teneded to live mainly that were quite fertile, so you could suppose it's not so much one city as many.

Of course, then theirs the problem that a city gets bigger... maybe their should be a way to stop that....

ah well:(

__________________________________________________ _

"Argghhhhhhhh, It's a 1/2 hour later then it was 1/2 an hour ago!" - Calvin and Hobbs

"I came, i saw, i conquered": Julius Ceaser

"While i have breath i have hope": Our Family Motto:cool:

kocsywocsy
Nov 13, 2003, 03:17 AM
does anybody know the African countries colonized by the Portugese

kocsywocsy
Nov 13, 2003, 03:18 AM
i sure would love an answer from anybody who knows

Androrc
Dec 14, 2003, 12:43 PM
I remember that angola and moçambique were colonizaed by the portuguese...