View Full Version : Second Roman leader: Spicio Africanus


CivArmy s. 1994
Dec 04, 2005, 04:05 PM
The file is: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Rome.zip

SECOND LEADER FOR ROME

This mod adds a new leader for Rome and doesn't remove the old one.
Enjoy! :D

Title and leader: General Spicio Africanus
Leader bonuses: Spiritual and Expansive
Leader favourite civic: Representation


http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/7193/rome010gi.jpg


http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/3019/rome029zw.jpg


http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/719/rome034xa.jpg

higgins534
Dec 04, 2005, 04:34 PM
Nice...I like having more options for leaders. I do think 'Imperator' would be better suited to Spicio than General though. (Imperator is a title, given to a victorious general. It also implies the status of a triumphator and the glory of a great military leader.)

I would also think the he was more of a militaristic and expansive leader than spiritual and expansive.

What do you think?

LAnkou
Dec 04, 2005, 04:46 PM
i still find that his shoulders are quite thin, he should have "higher" and "bigger" shoulders...

it goes like this
O
/\

it should be like this

_O_

he was a fighter, and he was used to wear an armor, so he should have the morphology of somebody strong...

CivArmy s. 1994
Dec 04, 2005, 05:09 PM
i still find that his shoulders are quite thin, he should have "higher" and "bigger" shoulders...

it goes like this
O
/\

it should be like this

_O_

he was a fighter, and he was used to wear an armor, so he should have the morphology of somebody strong...


I've tried to do that before, the problem is put the character on camera :)


Nice...I like having more options for leaders. I do think 'Imperator' would be better suited to Spicio than General though. (Imperator is a title, given to a victorious general. It also implies the status of a triumphator and the glory of a great military leader.)

I would also think the he was more of a militaristic and expansive leader than spiritual and expansive.

What do you think?

I don't think the title of the leader is import in Civ4, I mean, this title just appears on the civilopedia entry screen. But if u can u can edit the file Rome\Assets\XML\Text\CIV4GameText_Civilopedia_CivL eaders.xml then u remove "General" for "Emperor" or another title ;) :)
His bonuses is easily moddable too, go to Rome\Assets\XML\Civilizations\CIV4LeaderHeadInfos. xml and then remove "<TraitType>TRAIT_SPIRITUAL</TraitType>" and add "<TraitType>TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE</TraitType>" on the right place (Spicio Africanus option). "Aggressive" is the new "Militaristic" I think. :D Good mod.

higgins534
Dec 05, 2005, 12:44 AM
I've tried to do that before, the problem is put the character on camera :)




I don't think the title of the leader is import in Civ4, I mean, this title just appears on the civilopedia entry screen. But if u can u can edit the file Rome\Assets\XML\Text\CIV4GameText_Civilopedia_CivL eaders.xml then u remove "General" for "Emperor" or another title ;) :)
His bonuses is easily moddable too, go to Rome\Assets\XML\Civilizations\CIV4LeaderHeadInfos. xml and then remove "<TraitType>TRAIT_SPIRITUAL</TraitType>" and add "<TraitType>TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE</TraitType>" on the right place (Spicio Africanus option). "Aggressive" is the new "Militaristic" I think. :D Good mod.

Thanx for that...I will change it. I keep confusing my Civ 3 terms with Civ 4. lol

Thormodr
Dec 05, 2005, 06:23 AM
i still find that his shoulders are quite thin, he should have "higher" and "bigger" shoulders...

it goes like this
O
/\

it should be like this

_O_

he was a fighter, and he was used to wear an armor, so he should have the morphology of somebody strong...

How do you know that Scipio Africanus wasn't of a slighter build? He very well could have been tall and thin. No luck in finding the information on the internet anyway so far. :(
Anyway if they ever do Augustus Caesar he was known to have been sickly and had a bad constitution.

Rufus T. Firefly
Dec 05, 2005, 06:24 AM
Actually I preferred Marco Aurelius as 2nd leader...

Barak
Dec 05, 2005, 09:02 AM
Found a typo. His name is spelled "Scipio Africanus" not "Spicio Africanus." Plus he never would have been called Emperor. Imperator is what military leaders were called in Republican Rome.

Rufus T. Firefly
Dec 05, 2005, 09:19 AM
Found a typo. His name is spelled "Scipio Africanus" not "Spicio Africanus." Plus he never would have been called Emperor. Imperator is what military leaders were called in Republican Rome.

Ehy, you are right: it's mispelled!

Dracleath
Dec 05, 2005, 09:26 AM
One problem with aggressive for rome (and the reason caeser isn't aggressive probably) is that praetorians would be absolutely impossible to contend with. They're already hard to stop, with 10% extra power and the ability to diversify promotions that combat 1 gives no other civ will be able to field anything to stop them until macemen at the earliest.

CivArmy s. 1994
Dec 06, 2005, 01:32 PM
I can change his name in the next version ;) Thanks for advised me.

anjf
Dec 07, 2005, 08:38 AM
One problem with aggressive for rome (and the reason caeser isn't aggressive probably) is that praetorians would be absolutely impossible to contend with. They're already hard to stop, with 10% extra power and the ability to diversify promotions that combat 1 gives no other civ will be able to field anything to stop them until macemen at the earliest.

I think you have a point but he realy should be agressive he and he's son/father (I don't know if this is Scipio Minor or Major, in the end they both got the title Africanus) were the key generals against Carthage, without Scipio Major ,who was a briliant general, Hannibal would probably have won the second punic war, so thats a reason for agressive. And Scipio Minor was the general who attacked and burned down Carthago(the city)(quite argressive don't you think) so thats another reason for agressive. And they didn't have anything to do with politcs and government (with Ceaser did) so thats a reason why he should be agressive while Ceasar isn't:D :D

That he is spiritual is good because both major and minor had a great spritual influence on the people around them

Mirc
Dec 12, 2005, 06:17 AM
Just a question: isn't he Scipio?

JanusTalaiini
Dec 12, 2005, 10:44 AM
Color me n00bish, but what do I do with these files in order to use this leader?

CivArmy s. 1994
Dec 12, 2005, 12:26 PM
Just a question: isn't he Scipio?

u r right ;)


Color me n00bish, but what do I do with these files in order to use this leader?

move the "Rome" folder into "mod" folder of your Civ4. start the game, go to "advanced", "load a mod" and choice "Rome" :)

Depravo
Dec 18, 2005, 05:09 AM
I think a better choice for a second Roman leader would be someone from the high imperial period, say Trajan or Hadrian, or if from the Republican period one of the Gracchi.

Bulgarian_guy
Dec 18, 2005, 06:09 AM
Can you make one more special unit for rome?

Bulgarian_guy
Dec 18, 2005, 06:11 AM
Rome is my favorite civilization i like your work very much civarmy.I like that when you play with this leader rome dont have anarchy :).

thamis
Dec 18, 2005, 09:38 AM
Wow, nice one. I thought it wasn't possible to make new leaders without the SDK yet, but I guess I was wrong.

Would you be interested in making more leaderheads for the Ancient Mediterranean MOD (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144716)?

Tralis
Dec 18, 2005, 01:41 PM
Great Job! I was disapointed that Firaxis didn't have a second leader for Rome, but did for such near barbarians as the mongols. Thank you!

CivArmy s. 1994
Dec 23, 2005, 06:38 PM
thanks for enjoying this new leader!!!

@thamis: Ancient Civis r my favourite ones, I'll check the list tomorrow and I'll try to do some of that civis :D

Wytchmaster
Apr 13, 2007, 12:12 AM
One problem with aggressive for rome (and the reason caeser isn't aggressive probably) is that praetorians would be absolutely impossible to contend with. They're already hard to stop, with 10% extra power and the ability to diversify promotions that combat 1 gives no other civ will be able to field anything to stop them until macemen at the earliest.

Hmmm, ever notice that, though out the ancient period, they prety much stomped everyone else around them? I'd say its more acurate.
War is not about fair... Its about winning ;)

Aranor
Apr 13, 2007, 12:22 AM
Hmmm, ever notice that, though out the ancient period, they prety much stomped everyone else around them? I'd say its more acurate.
War is not about fair... Its about winning ;)

The problem with that is it doesnt make it balanced as it is the Preatorians are incredibly powerful and can marck though almost anything, only a well leveled axeman can contend with them. A combat 1 promotion gives them atleast a 0.8 addition of strength at the first level plus what ever promotions they get from the barracks! Way overpowered.

Wytchmaster
Apr 13, 2007, 12:38 AM
Aztecs have a similar set up...
Call me a Noobie, but Is that really much different?

Wytchmaster
Apr 13, 2007, 12:49 AM
Or... Peace Brother! (That is until I have a Tank!)

Aranor
Apr 13, 2007, 12:49 AM
Aztecs have a similar set up...
Call me a Noobie, but Is that really much different?

The difference is the Aztec UU is not as powerful as the Preatorian. The aztec has standard strength with bonuses in Jungles and Forrests. The Preatorian has a +8 strength. The maceman at its base has a +9 strength. See my point?